Test Wiki:Community portal/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:11, 26 October 2025

The below text is preserved as an archive. Please do not edit this page.

Apologies

I deeply regret the oversight that resulted in some of you having your rights removed unfairly. In my sleep-deprived state, I misread "3 months" as "1 month." I want to offer my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

I have taken immediate action to rectify this mistake. All actions against you have been reverted, and your rights have been reinstated. While I won't mention names, I trust that those affected will know who they are.

Once again, I apologize for any frustration or confusion this may have caused. Thank you for your understanding.

Warm regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC).

Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is unanimity in one area of this proposal, and no consensus for another. There is unanimous consensus to allow non-Stewards to access the suppressor tools, but there is no consensus to allow them to access the checkuser tools. I will implement this myself through pull request within the week starting tomorrow (Sunday, December 3rd). (involved closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added.

non-steward-suppressor:

With the following rights: suppression-log

Add groups to own account: Suppressor

Remove groups from own account: Suppressor

non-steward-checkuser:

With the following rights:

checkuser-log

Add groups to own account: Check user

Remove groups from own account: Check user

These users can be appointed by either: 1) Community consensus, closed by a steward 2) Steward consensus, at least 2 stewards support giving the right

A user may not hold both suppressor and checkuser rights, unless they apply for steward. X (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: No inherent problems with this, although NSSs should have suppressionlog as Stewards do without the suppressor flag. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Amended X (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Partially supporting. With suppression, I have no problem granting it to non-stewards as well. I therefore support that part. Granting a checkusser to non-stewards is not a good idea in my opinion. That right is so sensitive with privacy that I prefer to keep that with the stewards and since we have 4 stewards of which 2 are active and 1 semi-active, I see no reason to grant it to non-stewards as well. And otherwise, steward elections can always be held. Drummingman (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's a serious actual privacy issue, although I can see your point that someone with non steward checkuser access would be practically on the same level of trust as Stewards. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Formalize Test Wiki:Blocks and bans as a guideline

This practically just formalizes practice and existing consensus. However, compliance with it should not be mandatory as with policies, but rather strongly recommended. This contains some things that simply aren't worthy of policy (see the blocks section), but it should be some form of community recommendation. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Block appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Though their behavior is utterly unacceptable (as an AuADHD person myself, it's no excuse), I have taken the advice from Dmehus below. Piccadilly, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing Test Wiki due to repeated sockpuppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, you must go through staff@testwiki.wiki, after at least a 6 month abstention from editing Test Wiki, using your main account or other accounts. At least 2 of the current 4 Stewards must endorse your appeal to be unblocked, and they have the discretion to forward it to the community instead. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki. If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat." Are there any community objections or comments about her return? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely

I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is required if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Support as such behavior is really unacceptable. 64andtim (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions bureaucrat or Steward. If, and only if, the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, then I support an indefinite block (you can call it a ban, if you want, but I don't personally like the word ban as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban that carries the community's endorsement but would oppose any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably:
1. Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, not punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all?
2. This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community consensus
3. I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're good-faith, have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to excuse it, but I do think it provides a mitigating circumstance

In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to staff[at]testwiki.wiki and to Stewards and (b) that an appeal will only be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) from date of last confirmed sock (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the minimum sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to follow direction from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is always our aim). If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move Test Wiki:Request permissions to Test Wiki:Request for permissions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, their requests page is under that title. Username (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support per consistency. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Doing... as relatively uncontroversial. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all those here at The Test Wiki.

Have a wonderful day and all the best for 2024!

Lots of love, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC).

userRightsManager gadget is broken

I tried to approve a user's permission request with the userRightsManager gadget and found that the gadget is not working properly. Can the interface administrators fix this issue? LisafBia (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the code and tested the script. It appears to be working for me. Could you please provide more details on what isn't working for you? X (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, the move to Request for permissions broke the script initially. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the fix. X (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for Suppressor right

I request oversight rights from our community for 2 days. I will only use it for testing and I promise not to compromise anyone's privacy. LisafBia (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done as suppressor is not a test right and will not be given to those who are not stewards or community elected non-steward suppressors, for obvious privacy concerns. X (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

One question: as the suppressor right isn't a test right, is the non-steward suppressor right also a non-test right? – 64andtim ^(talk) 20:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And therefore it is not meant to be tested. It is meant only for serious suppression.

The user right is not intended as a test flag like most roles here. It is intended only for serious suppression. System administrator, steward, checkuser, suppressor and non-steward suppressor are emphatically not test roles. Drummingman (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Interface admin is also somewhere in the middle. It isn't a testing right, but some people do use it for that. X (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

My IA right

Could a steward remove my IA permission, please? Thanks a lot, and goodbye! Username (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear, @Username

Done. Thank you for your edits, we look forward to seeing you again. Kind regards, Drummingman (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was ready to go. But I guess I feel like staying longer considering I've worked so hard on keeping this wiki organized, and I have left some things that have yet to look completed. Can somebody grant me my rights back, please? Thank you! Username (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jody: I have granted you back the crat and admin rights. A steward will have to do the IA bit. EPIC (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Glad to have you back. Courtesy ping @Justarandomamerican & @Drummingman. X (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, welcome back. Drummingman (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Username (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change an abuse filter warning

Hello, everybody.

I propose moving [[MediaWiki:Newuser-externallinks]] to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-newuser-externallinks, and changing the text of the filter warning message to something like this:

Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit containing external links. Test Wiki may not be used as a vehicle for promotion, and may result in being blocked from editing. If this edit is constructive, you may click "Publish changes" again to confirm it. If you received this message in error, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do.

Any inputs or concerns about this? If there are no objections, I'll be happy to do those changes in a few days. Thanks. – 64andtim ^(talk) 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As the original creator of the customized warning, I

Support this change. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. X (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Clarify the inactivity policy for Non-steward suppressors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Passes. Non-steward suppressors will be held to a 3 month inactivity requirement. X (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather simple proposal. Shall the inactivity policy:

Be amended to include a 3 month inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors,
Be amended to include a 1 year inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors; or
Be amended to include another inactivity period for non-steward suppressors?

Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support 1 as proposer. 3 months seems plenty enough, rather than the 1 year inactivity period granted to Stewards and Sysadmins. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support option #1 per Justa. X (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the #1 option. – 64andtim ^(talk) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Another proposal to import Edit filter warning template

I was thinking if I could import the Edit filter warning template from the English Wikipedia, but leave out the report error since there is no edit filter false positive page on Test Wiki. Any inputs, concerns or objections?

When triggering an abuse filter, it shows a red box with text; maybe we could add that proposed template under the name "Abuse filter warning", and protect it under an appropriate protection as a high-risk template? Thank you. – 64andtim ^(talk) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We can also redirect people to here (the community portal) to report false positives, or to contact an administrator directly. I think having some form of template would make things easier, so no objections. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

One more question: is bureaucrat protection appropriate when protecting a high-risk template? – 64andtim ^(talk) 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it would be, since the template would be used in the interface, and not protecting it as such would allow users without the edit interface right to edit the interface. You can use discretion when protecting pages. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me! X (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll implement them, but do we keep the report error button that can redirect here to the community portal or not? – 64andtim ^(talk) 15:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can redirect it to the community portal. X (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, but it took a little bit of trial and error for the url to actually work. – 64andtim ^(talk) 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Mobile edit

Does anyone have an idea why this and this was marked as mobile web edits, considering that I am on a computer? EPIC (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That is weird, never heard of that happening before. Were you using mobile view when making the edits? X (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's possible you switched to mobile view and didn't realize it, like X said above. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was using the normal desktop view, but checking e.g. FuzzyBot, it seems to be the same for some of those edits as well. EPIC (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, FuzzyBot uses the same tags as the edit/log entry that was made to cause it to perform an action. I'm not sure what could have caused that software-wise. @MacFan4000: Not urgent at all, but this is an odd technical situation. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

New filters made today

Today, I have decided to make filter 121 which prevents personal attacks or harassment on user/user talk pages, and filter 122, which prevents new users from editing others' user pages.

Confirmed users and sysops may edit user pages, but they may not add {{unlocked userpage}} on a random user page; it may only be done by the user themselves or a steward.

Any opinions or input? Thanks. – 64andtim ^(talk) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

LGTM. X (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Mind if I test adding the unlocked userpage template on your userpage if this can be prevented by the filter? – 64andtim ^(talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. X (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Per Special:AbuseLog/5852, the filter is working as intended. – 64andtim ^(talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Piccadilly socks

I'm going to be combing over the logs and trying to compile a list of all the account Piccadilly has used and block them all with the same reason. I then might make some LTA pages like Wikipedia has to inform people of a little more about how to detect and deal with specific LTAs. X (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe should we disable filter 92? The target of the filter hasn't returned since 2022. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It is very specific and isn't hurting anything as is so I don't know if there's really a need to disable it. X (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I agree, maybe we should keep it enabled. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they were a pretty big issue "back in the day". Would hate to have them come back because they know our protection has been disabled. X (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, feel free to improve. X (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Allow non-steward suppressors to perform "steward actions"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all,

Looking back in my original proposal to create the non-steward suppressor group, I found that I forgot to add the ability to perform steward actions to the list. I think this is quite needed as suppression blocks are a large part of the job, in addition to evidence for blocks being hidden behind a suppression. For transparency, see User talk:Justarandomamerican#Suppression log for part of the reason why this is being proposed. Thank you. X (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:

Steward actions and other special types of blocks are mainly governed by long standing practice. In this case, our information page on these practices includes a suitable alternative meant for suppression reasons, such as completely inappropriate vandalism or personal information without consent that has to be suppressed. If this proposal is about allowing the group to basically become steward-lite through formal capacity, then

Oppose. NSSs should stay within their scope of suppression. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not at all the goal of the proposal. It is strictly to allow them to call blocks steward actions. My apologies, I should have worded that better. X (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn per Justa's solution. X (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Abuse filter request

I'm not quite confident in using ~~regex~~ the abuse filter rules yet, so can someone who is create an abuse filter that disallows common phrases used by Piccadilly? Check their deleted contributions for details (and most things they do that need to be disallowed need no exceptions.) Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) edited to correct 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with regex, but I can design the code and body of said filter. Will create it, but someone else may need to create the regex. – 64andtim ^(talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not too inclined in the specifics, so likely made a mistake in saying regex, AbuseFilter rules are a custom language. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have done a lot of trial and error with abuse filters, so I've managed to gather a little knowledge. I can help too! X (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Will create the message later targeted not just for the intended target, but for all LTAs. In addition, another special message if the filter is set to both disallow and block. – 64andtim ^(talk) 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like filter 88 is active. – 64andtim ^(talk) 05:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Void

Void's userpage is still steward protected even though they are not a steward. Please unprotect. X (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Done by @Justarandomamerican X (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RecentChanges pages

Here, I've put this page as a candidate for deletion:

Test Wiki:RecentChanges

I don't see a need for this page considering it has always been unused. Additionally, we have always been maintaining this message and it has existed slightly longer than the link listed above. Username (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. X (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Done by Justarandomamerican. Username (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to upload higher quality user rights icons

I am proposing to update the user right icons to their higher quality versions. Anybody has opinions or concerns? Thanks. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems fairly uncontroversial, go ahead.

X (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. – 64andtim ^(talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. X (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Faulty wikilink

On Test Wiki:Bureaucrats, it says "Bureaucrat rights are required for any user seeking to gain system administrator, suppressor, or steward".

However, there seems to be a problem with the "system administrator" wikilink on that page - instead it leads me to Test Wiki:Suppressors. What could be the problem here? I don't know if I exclusively have this issue, or if it is the same for all users. EPIC (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. X (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Also, found the issue; both links had <tvar name=SA> at the beginning. EPIC (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This fix seems to have removed the MyLanguage variable entirely, I have instead specified another variable. Thanks for the temp fix, Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

EPIC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User: EPIC (talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights) (assign permissions)
Requested right: Non-steward suppressor
Link to your account in other projects, e.g. Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom (optional): meta:User:EPIC
[yes] I am familiar with all of Test Wiki's policies and agree to follow them completely.
[yes] I agree that I am entirely responsible for all actions done under this account, including actions performed under this account by someone other than myself.
[yes] I agree that if I misuse the tools, my access might be revoked and I may be banned from Test Wiki without prior warning.

Other comments: Hello there! Might seem odd, but now that our first non-steward suppressor has been chosen, I would like to offer my help and assist as the second one. I'm willing to help with suppression when needed, and I am available/contactable at most times of the day. I go by the same username on the Wikimedia projects, where I am an administrator at two larger wikis, and I have experience with handling sensitive information as a member of the Wikimedia VRT. Beforehand I have read Test Wiki:Suppressors, and the privacy policy. Also courtesy pinging @Justarandomamerican: and @Drummingman:. EPIC (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in case, I have made a confirmation edit on Wikimedia: see here EPIC (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Though you are a perfectly qualified candidate, I'd like to see the answer to one question, can you explain the need for another suppressor? There are currently 3 active people who are able to handle suppression. If there's a good need, I'll be supporting, as more than qualified! Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) See weak support comment below. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Justarandomamerican! There isn't necessarily the need, but it gives additional value, especially since two of the current stewards are less active, and as mentioned a bit further up, also gives different hours of coverage. FYI, my mainly available times are at most hours within the UTC+1 time zone (since I'm quite a night owl) with the exception for the early morning hours, and I regularly check my mail inbox, so I'm able to quickly act when needed. So, I am of course aware that this is not a role for testing, and I hope my answer is sufficient - feel free to ask further questions if needed. EPIC (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition: If both stewards choose to approve this, I would suggest also checking that X is not completely against this :) EPIC (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning oppose. Well qualified on other wikis, but has only had an account here for about a month. Also not sure if we need another but I can be swayed. X (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

After considering the comments of both stewards, I still think I am going to stand at neutral (leaning oppose). They're no doubt qualified, but the 1 month of having an account is simply a deal breaker for me. :) X (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Support I don't see much harm in you being given the tools purely to have an extra suppressor available. Perfectly qualified. However, the lack of time spent here is a bit concerning to me. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Support leaning neutral, I don't really have any objections, but think a month is a bit early. I do take note that EPIC has applied to be a steward on Wikimedia, if he is elected, it could be an advantage in fighting cross-wiki vandalism. Drummingman (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I am also curious how this will turn out. If it is successful, it will likely also take most of EPIC's time. X (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I will see how it goes, but I hope to be able to split my activity between different wikis like I've been able to so far, and I should be able to work it out - and if not, I would of course be removed for inactivity per Test Wiki policy. Either way, right now this is mostly depending on Justarandomamerican, so I suggest pending his reply to begin with. If this is successful I do of course plan to take it easy at first, and ask a steward if in doubt. EPIC (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Per above. AlPaD (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, there seems to be a weak consensus. Relisting. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two weak supports, one regular support, and one neutral. Averaging this out gets you around a roughly 75% support ratio. (S = 100, WS = 75, N = 50, WO = 25, O = 0) X (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clearly define suppression criteria in policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On hold for internal discussion Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Steward-defined suppression practices seems to have only worked in the past when only stewards and sysadmins had access to the tool, but it seems to only lead to inner confusion now that non-Stewards can have access to the bit. Therefore, there needs to be a set of clearly defined suppression criteria. Perhaps we could base these off The Test Wiki? Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

~~@Dmehus and Jody:~~ Your input is invited. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There is simply a disagreement on how to define serious vandalism. We have no disagreements with PII, copyright, and other suppressible edits. I don't see how using The Test Wiki's criteria would help at all as it doesn't address this. I don't see why there isn't simply an internal discussion about the definition. X (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RFC: Redo suppression page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose replacing Test Wiki:Suppressors with [[User:X/Suppression guide]]. Let me know your thoughts. X (talk + contribs) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

LGTM. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, super happy to hear that. Glad we could come to a consensus. @Drummingman just verifying that you're okay with this? X (talk + contribs) 14:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. :) Drummingman (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sav

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not done as there is a lack of consensus amongst the stewards and community. Thank you, Sav, for applying. X (talk + contribs) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Sav (talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights) (assign permissions)
Requested right: Non-steward suppressor
Link to your account in other projects, e.g. Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom (optional): N/A
[Yes] I am familiar with all of Test Wiki's policies and agree to follow them completely.
[Yes] I agree that I am entirely responsible for all actions done under this account, including actions performed under this account by someone other than myself.
[Yes] I agree that if I misuse the tools, my access might be revoked and I may be banned from Test Wiki without prior warning.

Other comments: As a trusted and well-known user within the Test Wiki space, I believe I am qualified to be the next Non-steward suppressor. I believe being granted Non-steward suppressor would help X and the Steward team with lessening the load of work they may have to do in the future. As I live in the UK, I would be able to actively provide suppressions without compromising privacy. Please feel free to ask questions below. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 21:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sav! One question that I assume the stewards will ask is this: Do you feel there is sufficient need for another NSS, given that we currently have three active and one pending application? X (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, X. As stated, this RfP is for Non-steward suppressor. I shall assume that is what you meant. I do feel there is sufficient need for another Non-steward suppressor due to the fact that having those with said rights from multiple timezones, is better than having a few all in the same. Regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean't. facepalm. X (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, X. My above statement remains valid then. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 23:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Just a quick question: Will you take long hiatuses in the future? Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Justarandomamerican. I do not plan or see myself taking a long hiatus in the near future. As of now, I plan to be active. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 00:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think we need a new non steward supressor. LisafBia (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LisafBia:. Can you elaborate on why you think The Test Wiki doesn't need a new non steward supressor? As far as I know, there is only 1 and that is X. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering that the Stewards also have Supress authority, there are 5 suppressors in total and most of them are active. Therefore we don't need a new supressor. LisafBia (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Dmehus
Macfan
X
Justarandomamerican
Drummingman

Is the current list. X (talk + contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, X. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, for the moment, we have enough active suppressors with the recent appointment of EPIC. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Name Change Requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Done Hi, could my name here be changed to Fullegente please? It's a name I've begun using elsewhere, such as Filmpedia and Wikimedia, and I'd like it to be my name here as well, as it's more unique than Piccadilly. Thank you! Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 15:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, stewards. I would appreciate if you could also change my username to Saint. Thank you! Username (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Drummingman (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I be renamed to Fullegente please? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On hold -- For this request, I would like responses from other fellow stewards and users. And specifically whether any objections. Drummingman (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, why does my request need other opinions while Saint's didn't? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That specifically has to do with your past here and that you have already been renamed several times. I think it is prudent that the community here can give his/her opinion, if there are no significant objections then I or another steward will rename you. Meanwhile, I ask if you will wait patiently? Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will wait patiently. And I won't ask for anymore renames after this one. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. @Drummingman I'd say rename her once she gains enough trust to become a bureaucrat per the off-wiki discussion. X (talk + contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s OK that Piccadilly should have her username changed in this moment as well. Saint (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with X. Piccadilly should wait until enough trust has been built via either achieving Bureaucrat or Administrator rights before requesting a rename. Given how they request one after every unblock, seems to me like they are trying to hide the past events. Regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 00:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC).

Since I'm an admin now and I believe I've been responsible so far with that, can I be renamed now please? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 17:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done: Renaming you whilst you are restricted may cause confusion. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

+1, also considering that Piccadilly just recently used a sock account on Wikimedia with the same talk page creation pattern as shown here. No objections to renaming when trust is regained, though. EPIC (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to delete example user right

I created a Phabricator request. (T89). Saint (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Zippybonzo's ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For context, this user was banned by the community for cross-wiki abuse on a wiki whose owner has apparently engaged in a deception campaign against their own volunteers: "The ban is not required as firstly, I don't think that actions on other wikis require blocks/bans everywhere, and secondly, the owner of said wiki was found to be abusing on their wiki and deceiving their own stewards. Hence why I believe my ban should be lifted." Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Support unban: It's no longer even possible to prove he committed the alleged actions, and even if he did, it's not worthy of a community ban or block because no off-wiki harassment has occurred. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Support as well. I agree that one's actions on one wiki shouldn't lead to sanctions everywhere. Plus, the other wiki involved is no longer functional, and I think he should be given another chance. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if Zippybonzo is unblocked, it might help to havr an interaction ban between him and Cocopuff? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support per both statements above. Saint (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Strongest oppose Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Struck by X as user has voted twice.
Support --PB2008 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Strongest oppose there is soo many reasons for me to go on and on about zippy, however i will try to stay as breif as i can, while you may think his actions should Not carry over i believe it should in the past he has told users to go raid a wiki link here, and has also raided a wiki while being a system admin in the past with inappropriate images Ruining the wiki link here and link 2 with this all being said zippy has recently abused multiple accounts on the wiki farm filmpedia.us and his actions are being ignored while everyone believes im responsible for sockpuppeting, (False) you are claiming zippy is all innocent and im not, i must also mention that user agent isnt always accurate and therefore the proof against me is hereby invalid please see this link for more information i will also mention zippy in the past has also said he was gonna invoice me for the work he has done after no longer being a system admin which was volunteer work he has also, threaten to take me to court in dms. zippybonzo has also manipulated globe AKA X many times recently zippy requested a link to the filmpedia discord server which being banned and has sent multiple accounts into the server spamming it. he has also posted nonsense into the server, and the server link was once again provided by globe by his request WHile of course user agent might not be valid proof i still have a reason to beleve zippy is behind the multiple accounts used to sock the wiki including "Coconutworst owner" and a few others i wont mention at this time, with all this being said zippy is the only user with a negative opinion towards me as a owner of filmpedia.us and therefore is a valid reason for me to believe he is behind the sockpuppeting of filmpedia.us and his other actions. i wouldn't recommend unblocking his account at all. nor would i recommenced or trust him for any user rights --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose Per Cocopuff's comments. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sav. As a former steward and checker on Filmpedia, I can confirm that Cocopuff is behind all of the socking on his own wiki. He has a history of doing so on Miraheze as well. It is true, though, that Zippy did troll the wiki, but that was months ago and only because he wanted to give cocopuff a "taste of his own medicine." I say this not to justify Zippy's actions, but to provide some context to them. X (talk + contribs) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again user agent is always accurate and you can't just believe what someonr says without proof @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fyi I didn't troll my own wiki if you are gonna say zippys proof isnt valid than nor is mine also tast of my own medicine isn't a valid reason for what he did Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it an excuse you just believe whatever someone tells you without valid proof Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. I would disagree that it "isn't a valid reason" because you literally did the same thing to your own wiki. I also have screenshots of you calling Zippy racial slurs. X (talk + contribs) 15:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care again user agent Isnt valid proof you are also banned from filmpedis netwotk for what you did in the server, I'm not commenting anymore on this my vote stays the same youve done what zippy told you what to do multiple times this isn't the first time Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I do understand your points and would like to discuss this further via a private conversation on Discord. Could you please send my account, brelade, a direct message. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sav user agent isn't valid see the link I posted from Google Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not commenting anymore" X (talk + contribs) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You know you are gonna be blacklisted if you share the ips @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nervous your socking will be discovered? Also, I just said above "I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. " X (talk + contribs) 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm never giving you perms again @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If u do it Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - After communication between X and myself, it is clear that Zippybonzo deserves a second chance. I have striked my initial vote and I agree with revoking the ban on Zippybonzo. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Done -- By concensus, Drummingman (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Zippybonzo (testing account)

Should this account perhaps also be unblocked now that the owner is unbanned? Asking as the block is a steward action. EPIC (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.

Done, Thanks for the notification. Drummingman (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of EPIC for Stewardship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unsuccessful: Firstly, I would like to thank the participants for voting. Looking at the results, I see 1 weak support and 2 normal support. 2 votes against and 1 neutral. The general consensus is that EPIC can be trusted as a Wikimedia-steward, but that the nomination is actually too early, since the user has only been active here for a relatively short time, and we already have enough stewards. In short, no consensus to promote. Drummingman (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce a candidate for the Steward tools, EPIC. Already a member of our suppression team and a Wikimedia Steward, I believe he could use the extra tools to combat long-term and cross-wiki abuse, especially where that same abuse is occurring on Wikimedia projects. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust and for the nomination! I have acknowledged it, and will add that I am currently thinking about it, and will come back in a short while for my final decision. EPIC (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to introduce you for consideration. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OK, I have been thinking about this for quite a while. I am a little hesitant, considering we do have two active stewards for the moment. But OK, I am here regularly and I do already have CheckUser access on Wikimedia Login Wiki as part of my steward role, and access to other steward tools which are also included in the toolkit here on Test Wiki. So, with some hesitation, but also with pleasure, I accept. EPIC (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support EPIC is quite trusted. But given the active stewards, I don't think a steward is needed for now, but still support. LisafBia (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Support as nom. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I support him becoming a steward. I think he'll do a great job. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 14:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) copied from talk page by Justarandomamerican (talk)
Oppose. The same comments I left in the NSS request still apply. The user still has a relatively short tenure. Our four current stewards have been active members of the wiki for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 8 years. EPIC has been a user of TestWiki for around two months. I do not feel that this is near enough time to gain access to our most advanced toolkit, especially checkuser tools. If the user wasn't a Wikimedia steward, I doubt this request would have any chance of succeeding because of all of these reasons. I also have concerns about how active the candidate will be now that they have large responsibilities at Wikimedia. I find it unwise to apply two high level permissions at almost the same time without knowing how much time you will have to fulfill both duties. Lastly, I don't find the reasoning (combat crosswise abuse) to be persuasive because we only have one LTA here, Piccidally, who is currently not fully blocked. For all of these reasons, I am opposed. Best of luck. X (talk + contribs) 14:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I do agree with these concerns, and would probably not have applied for this myself (it's also why I was a tiny bit hesitant). In this case one of the stewards had endorsed the request, and I have used some of the steward tools, which is why I accepted. Regarding the activity concern I'm here every now and then and I mostly see this as a side wiki (just like Drummingman is a sysop at nlwiki while being a steward here). EPIC (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. As it's been said many times before "we do not need another Steward". You are new to this wiki and only just been granted NSS. We have active Stewards that have made a name for themself over the span of multiple years. EPIC has been active for roughly 2 months. Good luck! Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Neutral, given the supporting/opposing votes happening. You are trusted, but since you're around a couple of months, I decided to remain neutral for these reasons. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Quite honestly, there's a perfect balance of argument strength between support and oppose; both sides have a point. This is likely to be closed as no consensus to promote. I think the lack of history on this specific wiki can be forgiven due to them being a Wikimedia Steward, but others may not think the same.Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion on a potential username policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done. X (talk + contribs) 11:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What does everyone think of this? Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, but we could add a list of what is and what is not allowed, and could use some better formatting. Also, we have a filter that warns users creating accounts with misleading usernames. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 05:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

List is

done. Any suggestions for formatting? Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting up a bit based on intuition. Any other suggestions? Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

LGTM X (talk + contribs) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made a change that does not allow "Usernames that contain any non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about another person or contain any other information that would be deemed appropriate for suppression." Harvici (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Adoption discussion

As a policy, this would practically just codify community norms around usernames. I propose (and support) adopting this as policy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. X (talk + contribs) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary at the moment, but it can still be given a chance. LisafBia (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Support Harvici (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rename request from 64andtim to Codename Norte

I am requesting a rename from 64andtim to Codename Norte, and 64andsomeone to Códigonombre Alguien to match the same usernames on Wikimedia; these usernames also look better. Thank you. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 18:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename Request: Piccadilly to Fullegente

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not done Piccadilly will not be renamed at this time. X (talk + contribs) 18:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would like my name to be changed to Fullegente, as that is the name I use in several online games and some other online communities. This will be my last rename request here, as I am aware that I have changed my name a few times here already. Thank you! Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 12:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose That username was used by a LTA on EnWiki and then locked for XWiki abuse, see [1], presumably you, since you claim to be Skiyomi who is WMF Banned. You don't need to change your name again. Seawolf35 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did use that name on Wikimedia (and yes I am Skiyomi), but I'm not sure what my status there has to do with matters here. As long as I behave myself here, I don't think that's relevant. And like I said, this will be my last rename request here. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 15:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral due to Seawolf35's concern, but as long as you don't violate your one-strike rule, no issues here. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Need for new system administrator

As we presently only have 1 system administrator, I encourage anyone who would meet the technical requirements to be a system administrator to apply here on the community portal. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm nowhere near active enough, and I don't know any PHP, but, out of curiosity, what exactly is the role of a system administrator here? Sneezless (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear, @MacFan4000 can you tell about your work here? Drummingman (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sysadmins are responsible for keeping mediawiki up to date, installing extensions and skins, and maintaining the linux server that Test Wiki runs on. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering this is a small Wiki, wouldn't one SysAdmin be fine? Harvici (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One is actually not enough because you are dependent on one person, which is very undesirable, vulnerable and also potentially dangerous if that person leaves or is inactive for a while, you have no one else. So, a second one is very desirable. Drummingman (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Harvici, it is as Drummingman eloquently communicates above. Having a second system administrator would serve many useful functions, such as redundancy and utility. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I now understand the need of another System administrator Harvici (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Template Merge

Good morning, everyone!

I'd like to propose turning User:Sav/Wikibreak into a fully-fledged template. I've invested about a day refining it to better suit The Test Wiki and its needs. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will do it. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It was for a vote, to see what everyones opinions would be. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I will implement this if there are no objections, to clarify. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to fine tune the documentation for this wiki also. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 01:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done (Wikibreak) Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Reduce non-system administrator steward inactivity period

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Activity requirement increased. X (talk + contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

With the ability of any Steward to use CheckUser, a year is much too long for one to be inactive. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. Non system administrator stewards' maximum inactivity period is reduced to 6 months. ~~2. The 1 hour reclamation of rights period is increased to 3 days (72 hours).~~ Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC) partially withdrawn 03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Support - This makes a lot more sense. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree with reducing the steward inactivity period to 6 months, I don't agree with changing the hour to three days. If you are completely inactive for half a year, you shouldn't be able to get your permissions back without another community weight in. X (talk + contribs) 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I have removed proposal 2. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As such, I now

Support. X (talk + contribs) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: What is the difference between Non System administrator's steward and just a steward Harvici (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The former is a steward who is not a system administrator. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much experience here, but why should the inactivity period for only non-Sys admins change and not for Sys admins? Since both of them have checkuser Harvici (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That has to do with the fact that we have, only, 1 System Administrator. Drummingman (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Harvici (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion on a potential Signature policy

As there is a discussion on a potential username policy, I thought this would be the perfect time to get through a potential signature policy. Please feel free to add your own suggestions. Harvici (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary. We haven't had signature issues with people ever. Appears to be a solution looking for a problem. X (talk + contribs) 01:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

X, you hit the nail on the head. Nobody has been blocked due to a signature issue, or even approached and warned about one. People have been blocked for having usernames like those in the username policy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. X (talk + contribs) 11:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

How to get translate admin right?

Thanks

Rafdodo (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rafdodo: Welcome to Test Wiki! The translate administrator right is bundled into the administrator group. You automatically have its rights. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Error in filter

What I was trying to do: Hi, I was trying to create my user page... What message I received: Error SilverTester (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Disabled until a user more experienced with filters can assist. X (talk + contribs) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Now actually

fixed. X (talk + contribs) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Help

I’m Rafdodo but a2f not work.CAN I havé my privileges?Rafdodohelp (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm I operate this account.Rafdodotestacc (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Done - but note that DodoBot (talk · contribs) still has crat/admin rights. EPIC (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop I re-have access!!!!Rafdodo (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not April fool,I’ve re-forgot access.Rafdodohelp (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Rename request

Can you rename me to DodoMan? Rafdodohelp (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Note that the links above no longer work, as no redirects have been created. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please rename my account pls.Rafdodo (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I presume you'd like me to reverse the rename on your alternate account and rename yours to the name mentioned above? Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes.Rafdodo (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh m’y god,I’ve re-forgot access.Please rename me.Rafdodohelp (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your main account has been renamed as you requested. Try to use your password and a 2FA scratch or regular code with the username DodoMan. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already tried.Rafdodohelp (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, then. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I have rights?DodoMan (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello, I happy to here to discuss on my new proposal to make a mediawikipage for this this JavaScript that help to easily block and oversight or suppress the revision of block user, spammers. etc, this script is originally based on User:WhitePhosphorus/js/all-in-one.js of metawikimedia, but this script needed to modified them, then it's script ready for use on Tesrwiki.

I think User:Kiteretsu/js/all-in-one.js is move to mediawiki namespace, then add this script in gadget and allow to sysop, crats, stewards for use on you're preferences.

@MacFan4000, Dmehus, Drummingman, and Justarandomamerican: Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding this as a gadget, but not on the common.js. X (talk + contribs) 10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@X: Hello, Well! we have no probelm, If you like more gadgets for use, please see my common. js and this gadget is very helpful, firstly please test this js and then we think what can I do later?.

Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This gadget would likely need to be restricted to stewards due to just how powerful it is. Being able to revert all of a users edits, delete all the pages they've created, and block them in one click is simply a lot. X (talk + contribs) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

X, You're right this js script is very powerful Use of this JavaScript should only be allowed by stewards and not allowed to use by any other privileged persons. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 03:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've commented it out of your common.js page for the moment, as it could cause some serious mayhem if used improperly. Ask me if you need a test performed. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican Hello, Thank you for removing this script from my common. js, I've already performed the after adding this script on my common. js, I think this js script is more useful for the stewards.

Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Replace text

I've used it a lot in the past, and it saved a lot of time. But as of now, it's restricted to stewards. Why's that? Saint (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It was found that a vandal who gained sysop rights could vandalize the Main Page or similarly important Steward protected pages using ReplaceText. I know it has a lot of utility for you, so feel free to send me a message on my talk page, or Drummingman on his with a request, ensuring that original text, new text, and namespace(s) are provided. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to allow interface administrators to use it? X (talk + contribs) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggested that to MacFan when I originally opened a security task about the issue. Me personally, I think it would be better to create a separate group that's able to use it, as IA is primarily intended to allow editing of script pages, though I am fine with bundling it in to IA (and Stewards) along with creating a separate group. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

'Crat sysop first requirement

@EPIC, X, and DR: as interested persons. Recently, upon DR requesting bureaucrat, they were given it without first being an administrator. EPIC removed the crat right, and X restored it, stating that the requirement was pointless. To prevent a wheel war, I think it's best to set down community consensus on the issue. What do you, the reader, think of the requirement to be a sysop before being a bureaucrat? Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: I've support you're thoughts, This is test wiki not Wikipedia, we are here to testing of specific permission, firstly If any new user request for both rights, then firstly grant only sysop permission but not crats, because sysop have more permission on his group, crats is most important permission on the wiki, I don't understand why both user's make editwar in removing or adding crats permission from @DR, who received both permission after reviewing his request by an other crats. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that just like on other test wikis, there should some kind of requirement before being able to request crat, either an edit requirement (maybe something like 10 edits before being able to request bureaucrat would be a fair requirement if so?), or a requirement of a specific amount of days of having sysop before requesting crat (a day or two perhaps), or maybe a mix of both of those requirements.

The reason I think so is because unlike on other test wikis, the crat permission is quite powerful and can remove both bureaucrat and sysop rights. If it's given very liberally it can be quite dangerous. Now, I know DR from Wikimedia and they are a trusted user who I certainly don't think would abuse the bureaucrat rights, so I have nothing against them having crat. But, I don't have any intents to wheel war, the permissions have been given back and it can remain so. EPIC (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My intention was also not to wheel war. I know EPIC mentioned some suggestions for "requirements" for the 'crat role. However, as of now, those do not exist, making the rule about being a sysop first pointless. There is some Wikimedia essay about not following the policies if doing so would prevent you from improving the site, but I can't remember what it was titled. X (talk + contribs) 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You can remove the bureaucrat right from my account since I won’t be using it. I have MediaWiki installed on my local machine for testing purposes, and I already have all the advanced rights there. Here on this test wiki, my goal is to assist others by deploying some important and useful scripts and translating help pages. Initially, I thought that crats have access to grant the interface admin right, but it appears they do not, so I no longer require this role. Could any Steward please grant the interface admin right to my account? I would like to deploy some useful gadgets. Also, for granting requirements, I believe granting the bureaucrat role should be discretionary. DR (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We should definitely set requirements for gaining crat. It is a powerful position, and any disruptive user can easily misuse it. Since EPIC knew DR , there would not be a problem, but if a random user came and requested sysop and crat, there is a chance of vandalism or disruption. I propose that a user must wait 24 hours and make 10 edits before requesting crat rights Harvici (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a terribly powerful position, since it's mostly a testing right, but that being said, it does require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like nuke and import, which can cause vandalism that is time consuming to revert if used by unscrupulous actors. Since Justarandomamerican initiated the discussion, I will contribute here and allow Drummingman or MacFan4000 to close. Your suggestion of 10 edits is a good one, but I'd also add a time requirement and would suggest a minimum of a four day wait unless the user previously held user rights here, then the waiting period requirement is waived. We could also add in an alternate pathway to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there. Dmehus (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It happened to me too! Well, I am already an administrator, but not for 4 days! On the one hand, this guideline is a hindrance for serious users, but what if they are just spammers? Or something similar? One can trust me, but others... Justman10000 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You can always ping Stewards to make an exception for yourself. See the list of stewards to know who to ping The AP (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that the user can start requesting crat rights in three days. It seems best to keep it that way. Drummingman (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission revocation request

Hello, I am currently suffering from high powerful stress which is impairing my ability to work on test wiki and elsewhere, hence, I request the admins of test wiki to please remove my sysop + crats permission on my account, I will try to come back and edit here. Thanks to all the editors of test wiki for giving me a chance to test the tools of sysop and crats and I hope I have not broken any rules and regulations of test wiki.. Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Done — You are free to reapply for user permissions when you return. Drummingman (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Interface Right

Hello everyone, I try to re- modifying Twinkle tool for use, but I don't think Twinkle Tool are working on Test Wiki; If you like I like to fix Twinkle tool for working on Test Wiki, so, I needed, please grant me Interface right for permanently for successfully complete this work. Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that for the moment you can rework this script into personal subpages and we will see later about the rights because other interface admins will be able to add it as a gadget.DodoMan (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@DodoMan: Hello, Do you know Twinkle Tool are not currently available in gadgets section and it's subpages are not currently exist here, We recreating those pages and interface admin right are more help to edit and create js pages on Test Wiki.Cheers!~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7:Yes I know the tool it’s inavailable but you can rework script on your subpages. At worst, I will create these mediawiki pages and rework them with you. And also you need to request rights to Test Wiki:Request Permissions.DodoMan (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@DodoMan: That's Great! well I going to request for Interface permission on request page and try to creating twinkle subpages on userspace and I beleive our hard struggle will be positive result proved.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I requested for Interface permission on TW:RfP. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 120

I propose converting it to an abusive username prevention filter. Any objections? Codename Norte 🤔 talk 15:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope,is good for me.(oh no is my bot account)BotRafdodo (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)~

None. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Standby... writing the regex... Codename Norte 🤔 talk 02:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

and WHEW!!!

Done. Justarandomamerican, you might want to remove the account creation conditions from filter 92 since I implemented them to filter 120. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 03:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Any objections if I set this to disallow? Codename Norte 🤔 talk 01:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

LGTM. I'm not sure the likelihood of LTAs and blocked users trying to use variations of known usernames, but it can't hurt, either. Dmehus (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, if there's a helpful message. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Crat requirements's policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done After 2 weeks and with 3 votes in favour and 1 in opposition and no comments by any other users even after pinging I am closing this discussion as successful Harvici (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

As in the above discussion, I have established policy-related criteria for the CRT position, as previously stated by Dmehus, " It's not [...] require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like nuke and import which can cause vandalism [...]. Harvici (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Adoption Discussion

As a policy, this would practically just codify community norms on how to grant crat rights. I propose (and support) adopting this as policy.

Support Harvici (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Support: I'll support this with the modifications I have made. There should be some level of discretion granted to Stewards, as this is a test wiki, and trusted users should be able to bypass the requirements, along with Stewards being able to requalify a person. Otherwise, I'd say this is a reasonable security requirement. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Support The draft policy isn't exactly as I would've liked, but it's reasonable. Justarandomamerican's reason for additional, common sense exceptions by Stewards is also reasonable, and so I support that. It arguably goes without saying Stewards are able to do this anyway, but I support making this a conditional requirement for my support. Dmehus (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you guys think about Dmehus suggestion to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there.Should we make a change with respect to this? Harvici (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Changed the criteria from "must have been a registered user for a minimum of 4 days" to "must have been an administrator for a minimum of 4 days"As any user can ask for crat rights before they even get sysop (the registered criteria is also mentioned on the top) Harvici (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd prefer that, Harvici. I would've preferred your language originally, but wasn't enough to cause me oppose the proposal. Dmehus (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose How long has it been since someone has abused their bureaucrat permissions? Months, at least. This simply makes it harder for users to test, and as such, I oppose. X (talk + contribs) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't about adding revocation criteria, X. As it stands, if you're an existing bureaucrat, you meet the exception criteria to have the bit re-added without the waiting period requirement. I would, however, potentially suggest adding a requirement that the bureaucrat user group is limited to the user's main account only. Justarandomamerican, thoughts? Dmehus (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I do suppose that could be added, but how would we handle legitimate test (such as testing the bureaucrat right on its own, without sysop) or cratbot accounts? Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
We wouldn't be able to technically restrict it, no, but, rather, it would provide automatic revocation criteria for the bureaucrat bit if Stewards suspect the two users are the same, or where the user has confirmed the two accounts are the same. That is, the bit would be removed from the legitimate sockpuppet accounts and a Steward would remind users to pick one account they want their bureaucrat bit on. Dmehus (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
With the provisions for common sense exceptions by Stewards, that's fine. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: It has been 2 weeks since the start of the discussion, and there are 3 votes in support and 1 in opposition. I wouldn't close this discussion today and wait for 24 hours more to see if anyone else wants to opine and also suggest others do the same.The following users were active in the month of May (5TH May) so pinging them if they want to opine: @Aviram7,Drummingman, C1K98V,Codename Noreste , DodoMan , Sav ,Wüstenspringmaus‎ Harvici (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing. The first proposal

has no consensus, and the second

passes. Though there were alternates to the alternate proposal, they failed to gain sufficient consensus. I believe this is an action any reasonable Steward would take. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose all of the following: 1: Unbundle all abusefilter-related (excluding basic rights already included in * or user) from the sysop group. 2. Bundle these rights into the Steward group. 3. Create a new abusefilter-edit group with these rights, and a abusefilter-helper group with view-only access, both grantable by a Steward upon request. Though this would be taking away a permission used by many, the AbuseFilter extension is a very powerful tool: There is the potential for evasion of restrictions imposed on specific users by the ability to view private filters, let alone the fact that a vandal that gets access to it could actually block innocent, or even potentially all edits. If this is implemented, I plan to grant the edit right to those who already work with our edit filters. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) withdrawn, see my comment below Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. Thanks for starting the RfC. I'd only suggest a small change, by allowing any sysop to view the abuse filters; they just wouldn't be able to edit them unless they have the abusefilter-helper group. I'd also suggest adding both a time-based inactivity requirement (something like 30-90 days) whereby someone not having used the permission in the given time period can lose the permission and also broad Steward discretion to remove the permission where it's either misused or no longer used recently. Dmehus (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I only added the "view private filters" unbundle because with a bit of knowledge of the language of abuse filters, you could probably bypass a filter restricting you, but I suppose there isn't a problem with that yet. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am not a sockpuppeteer or something, and I assist with abuse filters almost all the time, but is the abusefilter-edit group not allowed to have the abusefilter-modify-restricted because of the potential of actions that can impact actual users? Codename Norte 🤔 talk 03:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about that. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the abusefilter-edit group have the restricted action modifcation right, community consensus or similar is mandatory. Codename Noreste (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The abusefilter-modify-restricted user right is currently restricted to Stewards for mainly security and abuse reasons. I suppose we could sub-delegate this user right, but I'd rather see it be a separate user group, like abusefilter-sysop or something, that would also require a community vote (like non-Steward suppressors) (since it requires an extra degree of trust and also has some real, non-test administrator responsibilities). Dmehus (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I would propose all of the following in addition:

All admins should keep the abusefilter-log-detail right.
The abusefilter-helper group should only have the abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private permissions.
The abusefilter-edit group should just simply have the name abusefilter, and have the following rights (in addition to having a community vote requirement):

1) Create or modify abuse filters (abusefilter-modify) [this may or may not need the two rights listed on the abusefilter-helper permission since this permission allows you to view the filters and their logs, whether public or private]

2) Create or modify what external domains are blocked from being linked (abusefilter-modify-blocked-external-domains)

3) Modify abuse filters with restricted actions (abusefilter-modify-restricted)

4) Revert all changes by a given abuse filter (abusefilter-revert)

Stewards do not need to assign the abusefilter or abusefilter-helper permission to themselves, but they can assign and remove either of the two to trusted users following a community vote.

Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A community vote and/or Steward discretion (for helper, or granting edit to those who have worked on abuse filters before) or consensus (for neither of those cases), I presume? Appointment by community vote only would be a higher bar than we set for our non-steward suppressors. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per my comment above. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am writing a proposed policy about the abuse filter and their proposed user rights; anyone can help. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 01:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support I support this proposal. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

How long has it been since someone has abused abuse filter access? Months, years? I don't ever recall this being an issue. Like the above proposal, this simply makes it harder for users to test and I will always

Strongly oppose that. X (talk + contribs) 13:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This also makes it extremely difficult to make small changes to abusefilters, or fix bugs. This is a solution looking for a problem, in addition to being extremely bureaucratic. Must I remind everyone that this is a testwiki, where people test tools like abusefilter? X (talk + contribs) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support I added a lot of content to the policy; feel free to add your own suggestion :) Harvici (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I haven't found any vandalism in the abuse filters so far. It seems unnecessary to make such a change when there is no vandalism. Therefore, I am opposing this proposal. LisafBia (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I now

withdraw my proposal and oppose the policy proposal upon reading the two rational oppose comments. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group

Rather than the above: Create a abusefilter-restricted group, grantable and removable only by Stewards at their discretion or upon a community partial ban from the abuse filter, with rights related to modification and private filters actively revoked. This would curb abuse (such as of the guidance filter), whilst making allowance for testing. In addition, I will also propose the AbuseFilter sysop group mentioned above in this proposal too, with the modify-restricted right, grantable upon consensus of at least two stewards or of the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@X, LisafBia, Dmehus, Codename Noreste, and Harvici: as participants in the RfC above. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that. X (talk + contribs) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

So what will we name this group? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of human readable language, something along the lines of "Users restricted from editing the edit filter" (or a shortened version that conveys the same information) would be the first choice for a name (to me). Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "Users blocked from the abuse filter" for the abusefilter-restricted right, and "Abuse filter administrators" for abusefilter-sysop? The former would be useful for say, Piccadilly if they have one more chance (which I doubt) while they may not edit any filter or view any private filters, including one that restricts their disruptive actions. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of those sound good. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Abuse filter administrators have the additional ability to modify filters with blocking abilities in the same fashion as stewards do, while users blocked from the abuse filter may not edit any filter or view private filters; however, they can still see said public filters and the abuse log. I will update my proposed policy on the abuse filter. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 01:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is also possible that users blocked from the abuse filter will be able to view private filters to learn from their mistakes/abuse, seeing my discussion with Doug below. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we simply revoke the abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private in the abusefilter-restricted right, and that trusted users experienced with abuse filters should take care not to discuss private filters in public? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 01:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That is one of three possibilities. I would be more supportive of a separate group restricting view access or of not doing so and simply restricting edit access, due to the rational possibility of a restricted user looking at a filter to learn from their mistakes. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Support LisafBia (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That could be a good way of doing it. So you're proposing to use $wgRevokePermissions essentially, to revoke all abuse filter permissions normally granted to the sysop group by way of a new user group, though I'd suggest a friendly amendment, if you're amenable to it, of permitting view only access to the filter (so such partially blocked/banned users could use it to actually learn from their mistakes)? You would then propose to give access to the restricted abusefilter permissions as part of a new group? If so, I'm in favour of the former, but a little lukewarm on the latter. Not necessarily against it, but also not entirely sure the need, given the level of active stewards we have now and being concerned with regard to hat collecting. I'd be more favourable, if we added some removal criteria (i.e., unused completely in the last 30-60 days), by community revocation with a 75% net support ratio, or by consensus of two or more stewards. Dmehus (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support the removal criteria for the modify restricted right (or abusefilter sysop). Though I am definitely amenable to view only access for the group restricted from modification, I am also thinking of how that could be abused by a user with a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps that could be left out for now, to avoid creating 2 separate groups? Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I propose that we create three seperate rights abusefilter-sysop, abusefliter-restricted ,abusefilter-view-restricted .If the crat policy passes then we could remove all the abusefilter rights from the sysop and bundle them into abusefilter-sysop which would only be granted if the user is a crat (since to become a crat they have to prove us that they are trustworthy). abusefilter-restricted only let the user only view the abuse filters (steward will only place this right if a user has misused the abusefilter or the user just wants to view and not edit) and abusefilter-view-restricted will not allow the users to even view any abuse filter (this would only be placed if the user has caused serious disruption ) Harvici (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I would NOT suggest removing the abuse filter modification rights from the sysop toolset, and if an admin only wants to view abuse filters, including private filters, then they should not edit said filters at all. As for the revocation of viewing abuse filters, I think you meant the revocation of viewing private filters and editing all filters, which should probably be merged to the abusefilter-restricted right. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, then we can create one right: abusefilter-sysop.We would remove all the abusefilter filter-related rights (except the ability to view) from sysop toolset.All the users don't have experience with abuse filters (they can also cause disruption even in good faith), and there is no need to give them until they request abusefilter-sysopwhich would have the ability to edit the filters and it would be granted by stewards Harvici (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We should add some criteria for granting and removing. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 22:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Umm... removing criteria would be misuse or inactivity or both and granting can be passing a vote of community portal or steward deems the user trusted or both Harvici (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-controversial changes to filters with restricted actions are allowed such as simplifying filters, but controversial changes such as enabling those actions on filters without determining consensus are not. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 17:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we circling back to the above proposal which was pile-on opposed? Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant the alternate proposal. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 04:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Umm....

I have another ~~one last account~~ rename request for the stewards: Jody. Saint (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to come back and request another, within reason. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Archive}}
-== Could we get Twinkle in here? ==
+==Apologies==
+I deeply regret the oversight that resulted in some of you having your rights removed unfairly. In my sleep-deprived state, I misread "3 months" as "1 month." I want to offer my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
+I have taken immediate action to rectify this mistake. All actions against you have been reverted, and your rights have been reinstated. While I won't mention names, I trust that those affected will know who they are.
+Once again, I apologize for any frustration or confusion this may have caused. Thank you for your understanding.
+Warm regards, [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC).
+==Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal==
+{{Discussion top}}
+:There is unanimity in one area of this proposal, and no consensus for another. There is unanimous consensus to allow non-Stewards to access the <code>suppressor</code> tools, but there is no consensus to allow them to access the <code>checkuser</code> tools. I will implement this myself through pull request within the week starting tomorrow (Sunday, December 3rd). <small>(involved closure)</small> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
+I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added.
+non-steward-suppressor:
+With the following rights: suppression-log
+Add groups to own account: Suppressor
+Remove groups from own account: Suppressor
+non-steward-checkuser:
+With the following rights:
+checkuser-log
+Add groups to own account: Check user
+Remove groups from own account: Check user
+These users can be appointed by either:
+) Community consensus, closed by a steward
+) Steward consensus, at least 2 stewards support giving the right
+A user may not hold both suppressor and checkuser rights, unless they apply for steward. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
+*{{support}}: No inherent problems with this, although NSSs should have <code>suppressionlog</code> as Stewards do without the suppressor flag. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
+*:{{done|Amended}} [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
+*::'''Partially supporting'''. With suppression, I have no problem granting it to non-stewards as well. I therefore support that part.  Granting a checkusser to non-stewards is not a good idea in my opinion. That right is so sensitive with privacy that I prefer to keep that with the stewards and since we have 4 stewards of which 2 are active and 1 semi-active, I see no reason to grant it to non-stewards as well. And otherwise, steward elections can always be held. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
+*:::I don't think there's a serious actual privacy issue, although I can see your point that someone with non steward checkuser access would be practically on the same level of trust as Stewards. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
+{{Discussion bottom}}
+==Formalize [[Test Wiki:Blocks and bans]] as a guideline==
+This practically just formalizes practice and existing consensus. However, compliance with it should not be mandatory as with policies, but rather strongly recommended. This contains some things that simply aren't worthy of policy (see the blocks section), but it should be some form of community recommendation. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
+:Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
+::Withdrawn. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
+==Block appeal==
+{{Discussion top}}
+::Though their behavior is utterly unacceptable (as an AuADHD person myself, it's no excuse), I have taken the advice from [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] below. [[User: Piccadilly|Piccadilly]], you are indefinitely prohibited from editing Test Wiki due to repeated sockpuppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, you must go through staff@testwiki.wiki, after '''at least''' a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Standard offer| 6 month abstention from editing Test Wiki, using your main account or other accounts]]. At least 2 of the current 4 Stewards must endorse your appeal to be unblocked, and they have the discretion to forward it to the community instead. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
+Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki.
+If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat."
+Are there any community objections or comments about her return? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
+===Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely===
+I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is [[WP:WP:CIR|required]] if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
+* '''Support''' as such behavior is really unacceptable. [[User:Codename Noreste|64andtim]] ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|talk]]) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
+* I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]]. '''''If''''', and '''''only if''''', the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, '''''then''''' I '''support'''  an indefinite block (you can call it a ''ban'', if you want, but I don't personally like the word ''ban'' as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/''ban'' that carries the community's endorsement but would '''oppose''' any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably:
+*# Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, ''not'' punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all?
+*# This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community [[w:WP:CON|consensus]]
+*# I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]], have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to ''excuse'' it, but I ''do'' think it provides a mitigating circumstance
+: In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to <code>staff[at]testwiki.wiki</code> and to Stewards and  (b) that an appeal will ''only'' be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) '''from date of last confirmed sock''' (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the ''minimum'' sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to '''follow direction''' from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is ''always'' our aim). If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
+{{Discussion bottom}}
+==Move Test Wiki:Request permissions to ''[[Test Wiki:Request for permissions]]''==
+{{discussion top}}
+{{done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
+Per Wikipedia, their requests page is under that title. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 19:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
+:{{support}} per consistency. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
+:'''Doing...''' as relatively uncontroversial. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Merry Christmas!==
+Merry Christmas to all those here at The Test Wiki.
+Have a wonderful day and all the best for 2024!
+Lots of love, [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contributions/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:NewSection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC).
+==userRightsManager gadget is broken==
+I tried to approve a user's permission request with the userRightsManager gadget and found that the gadget is not working properly. Can the interface administrators fix this issue? [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
+:I've reviewed the code and tested the script. It appears to be working for me. Could you please provide more details on what isn't working for you? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done|Fixed}}, the move to Request ''for'' permissions broke the script initially. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Makes sense, thanks for the fix. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+==Request for Suppressor right==
+I request oversight rights from our community for 2 days. I will only use it for testing and I promise not to compromise anyone's privacy. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{not done}} as suppressor is not a test right and will not be given to those who are not stewards or community elected non-steward suppressors, for obvious privacy concerns. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+::One question: as the suppressor right isn't a test right, is the non-steward suppressor right also a non-test right? – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 20:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Indeed. And therefore it is not meant to be tested. It is meant only for serious suppression.
+:::The user right is not intended as a test flag like most roles here. It is intended only for serious suppression. System administrator, steward, checkuser, suppressor and non-steward suppressor are emphatically not test roles. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Interface admin is also somewhere in the middle. It isn't a testing right, but some people do use it for that. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 20:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+==My IA right==
+Could a steward remove my IA permission, please? Thanks a lot, and goodbye! [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Dear, @[[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] {{done}}. Thank you for your edits, we look forward to seeing you again. Kind regards, [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+----
+I thought I was ready to go. But I guess I feel like staying longer considering I've worked so hard on keeping this wiki organized, and I have left some things that have yet to look completed. Can somebody grant me my rights back, please? Thank you! [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{ping|Renamed user 159304387|label1=Jody}} I have granted you back the crat and admin rights. A steward will have to do the IA bit. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Glad to have you back. Courtesy ping @[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] & @[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]]. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{done}}, welcome back. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 22:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{outdent|2}} Thanks, all. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+==Proposal to change an abuse filter warning==
+Hello, everybody.
+I propose moving <s>[[</s>MediaWiki:Newuser-externallinks<s>]]</s> to [[MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-newuser-externallinks]], and changing the text of the filter warning message to something like this:
+'''Warning:''' An automated filter has identified this edit containing external links. Test Wiki may not be used as a vehicle for promotion, and may result in being blocked from editing. If this edit is constructive, you may click "Publish changes" again to confirm it. If you received this message in error, please inform an [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|administrator]] of what you were trying to do.
+Any inputs or concerns about this? If there are no objections, I'll be happy to do those changes in a few days. Thanks. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+:As the original creator of the customized warning, I {{support|support}} this change. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+::{{done}}. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 13:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+==RFC: Clarify [[TW:IP|the inactivity policy]] for Non-steward suppressors==
+{{discussion top|{{done|Passes}}. Non-steward suppressors will be held to a 3 month inactivity requirement. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)}}
+This is a rather simple proposal. Shall the inactivity policy:
+#Be amended to include a 3 month inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors,
+#Be amended to include a 1 year inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors; or
+#Be amended to include another inactivity period for non-steward suppressors?
+[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} 1 as proposer. 3 months seems plenty enough, rather than the 1 year inactivity period granted to Stewards and Sysadmins. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} option #1 per Justa. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 17:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} the #1 option. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Another proposal to import Edit filter warning template==
+I was thinking if I could import the Edit filter warning template from the English Wikipedia, but leave out the report error since there is no edit filter false positive page on Test Wiki. Any inputs, concerns or objections?
+When triggering an abuse filter, it shows a red box with text; maybe we could add that proposed template under the name "Abuse filter warning", and protect it under an appropriate protection as a high-risk template? Thank you. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:We can also redirect people to here (the community portal) to report false positives, or to contact an administrator directly. I think having some form of template would make things easier, so no objections. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+::One more question: is bureaucrat protection appropriate when protecting a high-risk template? – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::In this case, it would be, since the template would be used in the interface, and not protecting it as such would allow users without the edit interface right to edit the interface. You can use discretion when protecting pages. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Fine by me! [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Since there are no objections, I'll implement them, but do we keep the report error button that can redirect here to the community portal or not? – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 15:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Yes, you can redirect it to the community portal. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}, but it took a little bit of trial and error for the url to actually work. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+==Mobile edit==
+Does anyone have an idea why [[Special:Diff/35138|this]] and [[Special:Diff/35122|this]] was marked as mobile web edits, considering that I am on a computer? [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:That is weird, never heard of that happening before. Were you using mobile view when making the edits? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:It's possible you switched to mobile view and didn't realize it, like X said above. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+::I was using the normal desktop view, but checking e.g. [[Special:Contributions/FuzzyBot|FuzzyBot]], it seems to be the same for some of those edits as well. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::As far as I know, FuzzyBot uses the same tags as the edit/log entry that was made to cause it to perform an action. I'm not sure what could have caused that software-wise. {{ping|MacFan4000}} Not urgent at all, but this is an odd technical situation. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+==New filters made today==
+Today, I have decided to make filter 121 which prevents personal attacks or harassment on user/user talk pages, and filter 122, which prevents new users from editing others' user pages.
+Confirmed users and sysops may edit user pages, but they may not add {{template link|unlocked userpage}} on a random user page; it may only be done by the user themselves or a steward.
+Any opinions or input? Thanks. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:LGTM. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Mind if I test adding the unlocked userpage template on your userpage if this can be prevented by the filter? – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Go ahead. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Per [[Special:AbuseLog/5852]], the filter is working as intended. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+==Piccadilly socks==
+I'm going to be combing over the logs and trying to compile a list of all the account Piccadilly has used and block them all with the same reason. I then might make some LTA pages like Wikipedia has to inform people of a little more about how to detect and deal with specific LTAs. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 22:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Maybe should we disable filter 92? The target of the filter hasn't returned since 2022. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::It is very specific and isn't hurting anything as is so I don't know if there's really a need to disable it. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::You know what? I agree, maybe we should keep it enabled. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Yeah, they were a pretty big issue "back in the day". Would hate to have them come back because they know our protection has been disabled. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::{{done}}, feel free to improve. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 02:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+==RFC: Allow non-steward suppressors to perform "steward actions"==
+{{discussion top}}
+::Resolved. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 Hi all,
+Looking back in my original proposal to create the non-steward suppressor group, I found that I forgot to add the ability to perform steward actions to the list. I think this is quite needed as suppression blocks are a large part of the job, in addition to evidence for blocks being hidden behind a suppression. For transparency, see [[User talk:Justarandomamerican#Suppression log]] for part of the reason why this is being proposed. Thank you. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 00:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
-I was doing Twinkle things and I realized I needed to get Twinkle into the GitHub source code. The source code’s [https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle here], and feel free to reply!
+'''Discussion:'''
-<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">-- [[User:Brownlowe.2|<span style="color: #1846c4">Brownlowe.2</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Brownlowe.2|<span style="color: #5375d4">''Talk to me...''</span>]] </sup></span> 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
+:Steward actions and other special types of blocks are mainly governed by long standing practice. In this case, [[Test Wiki:Blocks and bans|our information page on these practices]] includes a suitable alternative meant for suppression reasons, such as completely inappropriate vandalism or personal information without consent that has to be suppressed. If this proposal is about allowing the group to basically become steward-lite through formal capacity, then {{oppose}}. NSSs should stay within their scope of suppression. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+::No, that is not at all the goal of the proposal. It is strictly to allow them to call blocks steward actions. My apologies, I should have worded that better. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Withdrawn per Justa's solution. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
-== Blocking ==
+==Abuse filter request==
+I'm not quite confident in using <del>regex</del> <ins>the abuse filter rules</ins> yet, so can someone who is create an abuse filter that disallows common phrases used by [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]]? Check their deleted contributions for details (and most things they do that need to be disallowed need no exceptions.) [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) edited to correct 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+:I'm not really familiar with regex, but I can design the code and body of said filter. Will create it, but someone else may need to create the regex. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Thanks! I'm not too inclined in the specifics, so likely made a mistake in saying regex, AbuseFilter rules are a custom language. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::I have done a lot of trial and error with abuse filters, so I've managed to gather a little knowledge. I can help too! [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 02:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Will create the message later targeted not just for the intended target, but for all LTAs. In addition, another special message if the filter is set to both disallow and block. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Never mind, looks like filter 88 is active. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 05:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+==[[User:Void]]==
-Hello, I am considering blocking a user due to a linked WikiMedia user being blocked, They refuse to respond when I ask whether or not they are linked. What do I do?
+Void's userpage is still steward protected even though they are not a steward. Please unprotect. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 18:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}} by @[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
+==RecentChanges pages==
-== Can my name be changed? ==
+Here, I've put this page as a candidate for deletion:
+*Test Wiki:RecentChanges
+I don't see a need for this page considering it has always been unused. Additionally, we have always been maintaining [[MediaWiki:Recentchangestext|this message]] and it has existed slightly longer than the link listed above. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 00:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
-Hi, I was wondering if there's any way to change my name here to Bugambilia. Thanks! [[User:Marseillaise|Marseillaise]] ([[User talk:Marseillaise|talk]]) 16:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
-:{{Done}} [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
+:Fine by me. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Sourav Halder for Steward ==
+----
-{{Discussion top|Unsuccessful, user is quite new, and on Miraheze, they are known for hat collecting. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)}}
+{{done|[[Special:Redirect/logid/42572|Done]]}} by Justarandomamerican. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
-I'd like to try my candidacy for a steward
+==Proposal to upload higher quality user rights icons==
-What do I do with the steward?  Check users for additional accounts before assigning rights.  For information:
+I am proposing to update the user right icons to their higher quality versions. Anybody has opinions or concerns? Thanks. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
+:Seems fairly uncontroversial, go ahead. {{done| }} [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have already created a wiki on my local Denver server, as well as via the PHPdmin database.
+::{{done}}. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0F2298">talk</span>]])</sup> 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::Thank you, much better. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+==Faulty wikilink==
- If it is too early, do not feel ashamed.
+On [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats]], it says "Bureaucrat rights are required for any user seeking to gain [[<tvar name="SA">Special:MyLanguage/Test Wiki:System administrators</tvar>|system administrator]], [[<tvar name="SA">Special:MyLanguage/Test Wiki:Suppressors</tvar>|suppressor]], or [[<tvar name="S">Special:MyLanguage/Test Wiki:Stewards</tvar>|steward]]".
-=== Support ===
+However, there seems to be a problem with the "system administrator" wikilink on that page - instead it leads me to [[Test Wiki:Suppressors]]. What could be the problem here? I don't know if I exclusively have this issue, or if it is the same for all users. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
-=== Oppose ===
-# I don't see any need for more stewards. The right is very sensitive as it has checkuser permission, it's better to limit this access to fewer people as possible. -- [[User:CptViraj|<font color="black">'''CptViraj'''</font>]]  ([[User talk:CptViraj|📧]]) 10:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
+:{{done|Fixed}}. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
-===Neutral===
+::{{comment}} Also, found the issue; both links had <nowiki><tvar name=SA></nowiki> at the beginning. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+::This fix seems to have removed the MyLanguage variable entirely, I have instead specified another variable. Thanks for the temp fix, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
-===Questions===
+==EPIC==
+{{Discussion top|
+{{done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)}}
+{{userlinks|EPIC}} {{RfP apl}}
+*'''Requested right''': Non-steward suppressor
+*'''Link to your account in other projects, e.g. Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom''' (optional): [[meta:User:EPIC]]
+*[yes] I am familiar with all of [[:Category:Test Wiki policies|Test Wiki's policies]] and agree to follow them completely.
+*[yes] I agree that I am entirely responsible for all actions done under this account, including actions performed under this account by someone other than myself.
+*[yes] I agree that if I misuse the tools, my access might be revoked and I may be banned from Test Wiki without prior warning.
+'''Other comments''': Hello there! Might seem odd, but now that our first non-steward suppressor has been chosen, I would like to offer my help and assist as the second one. I'm willing to help with suppression when needed, and I am available/contactable at most times of the day. I go by the same username on the Wikimedia projects, where I am an administrator at two larger wikis, and I have experience with handling sensitive information as a member of the [[meta:VRT|Wikimedia VRT]]. Beforehand I have read [[Test Wiki:Suppressors]], and the [[Test Wiki:Privacy policy|privacy policy]]. Also courtesy pinging {{ping|Justarandomamerican}} and {{ping|Drummingman}}. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 00:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Just in case, I have made a confirmation edit on Wikimedia: [[:wikipedia:Special:Diff/1200184340|see here]] [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:<del>{{neutral}} Though you are a perfectly qualified candidate, I'd like to see the answer to one question, can you explain the need for another suppressor? There are currently 3 active people who are able to handle suppression. If there's a good need, I'll be supporting, as more than qualified! [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)</del> <ins>See weak support comment below.</ins> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Hello [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]]! There isn't necessarily the need, but it gives additional value, especially since two of the current stewards are less active, and as mentioned a bit further up, also gives different hours of coverage. FYI, my mainly available times are at most hours within the UTC+1 time zone (since I'm quite a night owl) with the exception for the early morning hours, and I regularly check my mail inbox, so I'm able to quickly act when needed. So, I am of course aware that this is not a role for testing, and I hope my answer is sufficient - feel free to ask further questions if needed. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 09:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Addition: If both stewards choose to approve this, I would suggest also checking that X is not completely against this :) [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{neutral}}, leaning oppose. Well qualified on other wikis, but has only had an account here for about a month. Also not sure if we need another but I can be swayed. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::After considering the comments of both stewards, I still think I am going to stand at neutral (leaning oppose). They're no doubt qualified, but the 1 month of having an account is simply a deal breaker for me. :) [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support|Weakest possible support}} I don't see much harm in you being given the tools purely to have an extra suppressor available. Perfectly qualified. <ins>However, the lack of time spent here is a bit concerning to me.</ins> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} leaning neutral, I don't really have any objections, but think a month is a bit early. I do take note that EPIC has [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/EPIC|applied]] to be a steward on Wikimedia, if he is elected, it could be an advantage in fighting cross-wiki vandalism. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:I am also curious how this will turn out. If it is successful, it will likely also take most of EPIC's time. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+::I will see how it goes, but I hope to be able to split my activity between different wikis like I've been able to so far, and I should be able to work it out - and if not, I would of course be removed for inactivity per Test Wiki policy. Either way, right now this is mostly depending on Justarandomamerican, so I suggest pending his reply to begin with. If this is successful I do of course plan to take it easy at first, and ask a steward if in doubt. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} Per above. [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]] ([[User talk:AlPaD|talk]]) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+:At the moment, there seems to be a weak consensus. Relisting. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+::There are two weak supports, one regular support, and one neutral. Averaging this out gets you around a roughly 75% support ratio. (S = 100, WS = 75, N = 50, WO = 25, O = 0) [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 00:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Clearly define suppression criteria in policy==
+{{Discussion top|
+:{{On hold}} for internal discussion [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+::{{done|Resolved}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)}}
+Steward-defined suppression practices seems to have only worked in the past when only stewards and sysadmins had access to the tool, but it seems to only lead to inner confusion now that non-Stewards can have access to the bit. Therefore, there needs to be a set of clearly defined suppression criteria. Perhaps we could base these off [https://www.thetestwiki.org/wiki/The_Test_Wiki:Suppression_policy The Test Wiki]? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+:<del>{{ping|Dmehus|Renamed user 159304387|label2=Jody}}</del> Your input is invited. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
-===== Result =====
+::There is simply a disagreement on how to define serious vandalism. We have no disagreements with PII, copyright, and other suppressible edits. I don't see how using The Test Wiki's criteria would help at all as it doesn't address this.  I don't see why there isn't simply an ''internal'' discussion about the definition. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 02:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 {{discussion bottom}}
+==RFC: Redo [[Test Wiki:Suppressors|suppression]] page==
-== Kazrok4545 for Steward ==
-{{Discussion top|Unsuccessful, the stewards cope with their duties. [[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]] ([[User talk:Kazrok4545|talk]]) 01:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)}}
+{{discussion top|{{Done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)}}
+I propose replacing [[Test Wiki:Suppressors]] with [<nowiki/>[User:X/Suppression guide]]. Let me know your thoughts. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-After several months of working in the test wiki and other projects, I realized that I can help. Of course, I am not the best participant, some project participants are even better than me in many ways, but I wanted to help this wiki specifically to reduce abuse and other important things. So, I ask you to grant me the steward. I promise that I will not abuse this right in any case. I try to help where my help is really needed. At first I thought of going to the system administrator to help the wiki, but first I wanted to let the community and the administration itself trust in my words. I am familiar with Git, SSH, extension installation systems, database updates without command line access, and other very important things in MediaWiki. Of course, if you don't need my help in this wiki, then you can leave it at that.
+:LGTM. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-If you need my global accounts in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Kazrok4545 Wikimedia], please take a look. There I am registered under the same nickname. [[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]] ([[User talk:Kazrok4545|talk]]) 05:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
+::Great, super happy to hear that. Glad we could come to a consensus. @[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] just verifying that you're okay with this? [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 14:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-Notification:
+:::I'm okay with it. :) [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 17:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-{{ping|CptViraj}}, {{ping|MacFan4000}}, {{ping|Void}}, {{ping|Sourav Halder}}, {{ping|JJBullet}}
+{{discussion bottom}}
-=== Support ===
-=== Oppose ===
+==Sav==
+{{discussion top|{{not done}} as there is a lack of consensus amongst the stewards and community. Thank you, Sav, for applying. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)}}
-# I don't see any need for more stewards. The right is very sensitive as it has checkuser permission, it's better to limit this access to fewer people as possible. -- [[User:CptViraj|<font color="black">'''CptViraj'''</font>]]  ([[User talk:CptViraj|📧]]) 10:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
+{{userlinks|Sav}} {{RfP apl}}
-## Yes, it is. Perhaps you are right. I don't know about the system administrators, but they seem to be able to handle it, too. If there are no more comments, you can close the application in a hurry. [[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]] ([[User talk:Kazrok4545|talk]]) 11:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Requested right''': Non-steward suppressor
-# I don't see a need for another steward -[[User:Examknow|Examknow]] ([[User talk:Examknow|talk]]) 23:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Link to your account in other projects, e.g. Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom''' (optional): N/A
+*[Yes] I am familiar with all of [[:Category:Test Wiki policies|Test Wiki's policies]] and agree to follow them completely.
+*[Yes] I agree that I am entirely responsible for all actions done under this account, including actions performed under this account by someone other than myself.
+*[Yes] I agree that if I misuse the tools, my access might be revoked and I may be banned from Test Wiki without prior warning.
+'''Other comments''': As a trusted and well-known user within the Test Wiki space, I believe I am qualified to be the next Non-steward suppressor. I believe being granted Non-steward suppressor would help X and the Steward team with lessening the load of work they may have to do in the future. As I live in the UK, I would be able to actively provide suppressions without compromising privacy. Please feel free to ask questions below.<!-- You may use this space to insert other comments relevant to your request --> [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 21:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
-===Neutral===
+:Hi Sav! One question that I assume the stewards will ask is this: Do you feel there is sufficient need for another NSS, given that we currently have three active and one pending application? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Hello, X. As stated, this RfP is for Non-steward suppressor. I shall assume that is what you meant. I do feel there is sufficient need for another Non-steward suppressor due to the fact that having those with said rights from multiple timezones, is better than having a few all in the same. Regards, [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::Yes, that is what I mean't. ''facepalm''. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::Thank you for the clarification, X. My above statement remains valid then. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 23:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+:Hello! Just a quick question: Will you take long hiatuses in the future? Thanks, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Hello, Justarandomamerican. I do not plan or see myself taking a long hiatus in the near future. As of now, I plan to be active. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 00:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{oppose}} I don't think we need a new non steward supressor. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Hello, {{Ping|LisafBia}}. Can you elaborate on why you think The Test Wiki doesn't need a new non steward supressor? As far as I know, there is only 1 and that is [[User:X|X]]. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::Considering that the Stewards also have Supress authority, there are 5 suppressors in total and most of them are active. Therefore we don't need a new supressor. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::*Dmehus {{not done| }}
+::::*Macfan {{not done| }}
+::::*X {{d| }}
+::::*Justarandomamerican {{done| }}
+::::*Drummingman {{done| }}
+::::Is the current list. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Thank you, X. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
+:{{o|Weak oppose}}, for the moment, we have enough active suppressors with the recent appointment of EPIC. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Thank you for your explanation. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
+{{Discussion bottom}}
+==Name Change Requests==
-===Questions===
+{{Discussion top}}
+{{done}}
+Hi, could my name here be changed to Fullegente please? It's a name I've begun using elsewhere, such as Filmpedia and Wikimedia, and I'd like it to be my name here as well, as it's more unique than Piccadilly. Thank you! [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 15:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+Hello, stewards. I would appreciate if you could also change my username to Saint. Thank you! [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Username]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
-=== Result ===
+::Can I be renamed to Fullegente please? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
-The consensus is clear, thank you all! [[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]] ([[User talk:Kazrok4545|talk]]) 01:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
+:::{{on hold}} -- For this request, I would like responses from other fellow stewards and users. And specifically whether any objections. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 21:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::Just curious, why does my request need other opinions while Saint's didn't? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 21:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::That specifically has to do with your past here and that you have already been renamed several times. I think it is prudent that the community here can give his/her opinion, if there are no significant objections then I or another steward will rename you. Meanwhile, I ask if you will wait patiently? Greetings, [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Yes, I will wait patiently. And I won't ask for anymore renames after this one. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Hmm. @[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] I'd say rename her once she gains enough trust to become a bureaucrat per the off-wiki discussion. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::I think it’s OK that Piccadilly should have her username changed in this moment as well. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Saint]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::I agree with [[User:X|X]]. Piccadilly should wait until enough trust has been built via either achieving Bureaucrat or Administrator rights before requesting a rename. Given how they request one after every unblock, seems to me like they are trying to hide the past events. Regards, [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 00:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC).
+Since I'm an admin now and I believe I've been responsible so far with that, can I be renamed now please? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 17:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
+:{{not done}}: Renaming you whilst you are restricted may cause confusion. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
+::+1, also considering that Piccadilly just recently [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ShadowAgunomu used a sock account on Wikimedia with the same talk page creation pattern as shown here]. No objections to renaming when trust is regained, though. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 {{discussion bottom}}
+==Proposal to delete example user right==
-== How do you change your name? ==
-Can bureaucrats change their own names here? I wanted to change to Seranida. [[User:Skiyomi Solace|Skiyomi Solace]] ([[User talk:Skiyomi Solace|talk]]) 22:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
+I created a Phabricator request. ([[phab:T89|T89]]). [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Saint]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
-:Just adding that I haven't been able to find the page to change my own name, could someone do it for me please? [[User:Skiyomi Solace|Skiyomi Solace]] ([[User talk:Skiyomi Solace|talk]]) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
-::It would be Special:RenameUser, but it is restricted to stewards. You may however request a rename. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 12:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
-:::I see. Then can I please request a rename to Seranida? Thank you! [[User:Skiyomi Solace|Skiyomi Solace]] ([[User talk:Skiyomi Solace|talk]]) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
-::::{{Done}} [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
+==[[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]]'s ban==
-== checkuser ==
+{{Discussion top}}
+For context, this user was banned by the community for cross-wiki abuse on a wiki whose owner has apparently engaged in a deception campaign against their own volunteers: "The ban is not required as firstly, I don't think that actions on other wikis require blocks/bans everywhere, and secondly, the owner of said wiki was found to be abusing on their wiki and deceiving their own stewards. Hence why I believe my ban should be lifted." [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
+===Discussion===
-I wonder if one can checkuser him or herself here. Meta wiki, one of Wikimedia projects, says it can be done on test wiki. --[[User:DrizzleD-test|DrizzleD-test]] ([[User talk:DrizzleD-test|talk]]) 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
+*{{support}} unban: It's no longer even possible to prove he committed the alleged actions, and even if he did, it's not worthy of a community ban or block because no off-wiki harassment has occurred. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
-*Oh, I know now. Only bureaucrats can do it. --[[User:DrizzleD-test|DrizzleD-test]] ([[User talk:DrizzleD-test|talk]]) 14:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
+*{{support}} as well. I agree that one's actions on one wiki shouldn't lead to sanctions everywhere. Plus, the other wiki involved is no longer functional, and I think he should be given another chance. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Perhaps if Zippybonzo is unblocked, it might help to havr an interaction ban between him and Cocopuff? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{support}} per both statements above. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Saint]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
+*<s>{{Oppose|Strongest oppose}} [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 00:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)</s><small> Struck by [[User:X|X]] as user has voted twice. </small>
+*{{support}} --[[User:Bosco|PB2008]] ([[User talk:Bosco|talk]]) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{oppose|Strongest oppose}} there is soo many reasons for me to go on and on about zippy, however i will try to stay as breif as i can, while you may think his actions should Not carry over i believe it should in the past he has told users to go raid a wiki [https://ibb.co/mNqtfw1 link here], and has also raided a wiki while being a system admin in the past with inappropriate images Ruining the wiki [https://ibb.co/CPtKnPb link here] and [https://ibb.co/gzxgyFk link 2] with this all being said zippy has recently abused multiple accounts on the wiki farm filmpedia.us and his actions are being ignored while everyone believes im responsible for sockpuppeting, (False) you are claiming zippy is all innocent and im not, i must also mention that user agent isnt always accurate and therefore the proof against me is hereby invalid please see [https://www.google.com/search?q=is+user+agent+accurate&sca_esv=1ba2041d0738a613&sxsrf=ACQVn09Bxvas8BcXZbmYkmUIC0u5UjTKZw%3A1708353347201&source=hp&ei=Q2fTZaWxCfeKur8PnISDiAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdN1U31nMNeJldf3BuYqI_iLXcDlmAa-&oq=is+user+agent&gs_lp=Egdnd3 this link for more information] i will also mention zippy in the past has also said he was gonna invoice me for the work he has done after no longer being a system admin which was volunteer work he has also, threaten to take me to court in dms. zippybonzo has also manipulated globe AKA X many times recently zippy requested a link to the filmpedia discord server which being banned and has sent multiple accounts into the server spamming it. he has also posted nonsense into the server, and the server link was once again provided by globe by his request WHile of course user agent might not be valid proof i still have a reason to beleve zippy is behind the multiple accounts used to sock the wiki including "Coconutworst owner" and a few others i wont mention at this time, with all this being said zippy is the only user with a negative opinion towards me as a owner of filmpedia.us and therefore is a valid reason for me to believe he is behind the sockpuppeting of filmpedia.us and his other actions. i wouldn't recommend unblocking his account at all. nor would i recommenced or trust him for any user rights --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 14:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+<s>*{{oppose}} Per Cocopuff's comments. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 15:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)</s>
+::Hi Sav. As a former steward and checker on Filmpedia, I can confirm that Cocopuff is behind all of the socking on his own wiki. He has a history of doing so on Miraheze as well. It is true, though, that Zippy did troll the wiki, but that was months ago and only because he wanted to give cocopuff a "taste of his own medicine." I say this not to justify Zippy's actions, but to provide some context to them. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::Once again user agent is always accurate and you can't just believe what someonr says without proof @[[User:X|X]] [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::Fyi I didn't troll my own wiki if you are gonna say zippys proof isnt valid than nor is mine also tast of my own medicine isn't a valid reason for what he did [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Nor is it an excuse you just believe whatever someone tells you without valid proof [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. I would disagree that it "isn't a valid reason" because you literally did the same thing to your own wiki. I also have screenshots of you calling Zippy racial slurs. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 15:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::I don't really care again user agent Isnt valid proof you are also banned from filmpedis netwotk for what you did in the server, I'm not commenting anymore on this my vote stays the same youve done what zippy told you what to do multiple times this isn't the first time [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::I do understand your points and would like to discuss this further via a private conversation on Discord. Could you please send my account, brelade, a direct message. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::@[[User:Sav|Sav]] user agent isn't valid see the link I posted from Google [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::"I'm not commenting anymore" [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::::You know you are gonna be blacklisted if you share the ips @[[User:X|X]] [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Nervous your socking will be discovered? Also, I just said above "I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. " [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::I'm never giving you perms again @[[User:X|X]] [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::If u do it [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+* {{support}} - After communication between X and myself, it is clear that Zippybonzo deserves a second chance. I have striked my initial vote and I agree with revoking the ban on Zippybonzo. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{d}} -- By concensus, [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 19:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
-== Request a rename ==
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==[[User:Zippybonzo (testing account)]]==
-I want to rename myself to HIM303
---[[User:Herobrine303|Herobrine303]] ([[User talk:Herobrine303|talk]]) 11:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
-: {{Ping|Void|MacFan4000}} ^ -- [[User:CptViraj|<b style="color:black">CptViraj</b>]] ([[User talk:CptViraj|talk]]) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
-::{{Done}} [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
+Should this account perhaps also be unblocked now that the owner is unbanned? Asking as the block is a steward action. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 18:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
-== Case for Stewards ==
+:Indeed. {{d}}, Thanks for the notification. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
-Page [[User:Qq808ms]] as a wiki page has been deleted. But problem hasn't been solved, because that user had inserted spam into own social profile. Only stewards are able to remove it. [[User:Neonek12|Neonek12]] ([[User talk:Neonek12|talk]]) 19:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
+==Nomination of EPIC for Stewardship==
-== Hey, i need to change my name. ==
+{{Discussion top|Unsuccessful: Firstly, I would like to thank the participants for voting. Looking at the results, I see 1 weak support and 2 normal support. 2 votes against and 1 neutral. The general consensus is that EPIC can be trusted as a Wikimedia-steward, but that the nomination is actually too early, since the user has only been active here for a relatively short time, and we already have enough stewards. In short, no consensus to promote. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)}}
+Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce a candidate for the Steward tools, [[User:EPIC|EPIC]]. Already a member of our suppression team and a Wikimedia Steward, I believe he could use the extra tools to combat long-term and cross-wiki abuse, especially where that same abuse is occurring on Wikimedia projects. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
-I need to change my name to DarkShadow please.
+:Thanks for the trust and for the nomination! I have acknowledged it, and will add that I am currently thinking about it, and will come back in a short while for my final decision. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
-== editsitecss/js restricted? ==
+::It's my pleasure to introduce you for consideration. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+Please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OK, I have been thinking about this for quite a while. I am a little hesitant, considering we do have two active stewards for the moment. But OK, I am here regularly and I do already have CheckUser access on Wikimedia Login Wiki as part of my steward role, and access to other steward tools which are also included in the toolkit here on Test Wiki. So, with some hesitation, but also with pleasure, I accept. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
-Hay, I noticed that bureaucrats can no longer add/remove the interface administrator group and that group has been removed from all users. The GitHub commit states that this was done to restrict <code>editsitecss</code> and <code>editsitejs</code> to sysadmins and stewards only. I would like to ask why this decision was made and what the reason behind it is as theas are permissions that an admin/'crat is likely to have on a real wiki and thus is useful to have on here for testing purposes. Also other test wikis still allow 'crats to have this permission, so I don't understand its being removed here. Also if you must restrict those rights, I would suggest removing them from interface admin then re-allowing add/remove of that group for 'crat. That way to group can still be used for testing and rare cases where and admin wants <code>editinterface</code> but not full bureaucrat. Thank you. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 08:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
+<!--*Procedural note: Votes/comments will not begin until EPIC decides whether to accept the nomination. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)-->
-:{{Ping|MacFan4000|Void}} See question above. [[User:Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker|Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker]] ([[User talk:Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker|talk]]) 08:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
+===Discussion:===
-::Just a bump incase this was not noticed. Thank you. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 07:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::{{re|Bonnedav}} As [[Test_Wiki:Request_permissions/Archive5#Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] has done, you can request interface administrator at [[TW:RFP|RfP]]. [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 08:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
+*{{support|Weak support}} EPIC is quite trusted. But given the active stewards, I don't think a steward is needed for now, but still support. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 16:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{support}} as nom. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*I support him becoming a steward. I think he'll do a great job. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 14:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) copied from talk page by [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]])
+*{{o}}. The same comments I left in the NSS request still apply. The user still has a relatively short tenure. Our four current stewards have been active members of the wiki for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 8 years. EPIC has been a user of TestWiki for around two months. I do not feel that this is near enough time to gain access to our most advanced toolkit, especially checkuser tools. If the user wasn't a Wikimedia steward, I doubt this request would have any chance of succeeding because of all of these reasons. I also have concerns about how active the candidate will be now that they have large responsibilities at Wikimedia. I find it unwise to apply two high level permissions at almost the same time without knowing how much time you will have to fulfill both duties. Lastly, I don't find the reasoning (combat crosswise abuse) to be persuasive because we only have one LTA here, Piccidally, who is currently not fully blocked. For all of these reasons, I am opposed. Best of luck. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 14:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:I do agree with these concerns, and would probably not have applied for this myself (it's also why I was a tiny bit hesitant). In this case one of the stewards had endorsed the request, and I have used some of the steward tools, which is why I accepted. Regarding the activity concern I'm here every now and then and I mostly see this as a side wiki (just like Drummingman is a sysop at nlwiki while being a steward here). [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{o}}. As it's been said many times before "we do not need another Steward". You are new to this wiki and only just been granted NSS. We have active Stewards that have made a name for themself over the span of multiple years. EPIC has been active for roughly 2 months. Good luck! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*{{neutral}}, given the supporting/opposing votes happening. You are trusted, but since you're around a couple of months, I decided to remain neutral for these reasons. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] 🤔 ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#1830C4">problem?</span>]]) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:Quite honestly, there's a perfect balance of argument strength between support and oppose; both sides have a point. This is likely to be closed as no consensus to promote. I think the lack of history on this specific wiki can be forgiven due to them being a Wikimedia Steward, but others may not think the same.[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Discussion on a [[User:Justarandomamerican/Usernames|potential username policy]]==
-== Test Blocking ==
+{{discussion top|{{done}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 11:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}
+What does everyone think of this? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
+:Looks good, but we could add a list of what is and what is not allowed, and could use some better formatting. Also, we have a filter that warns users creating accounts with misleading usernames. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] 🤔 ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#1830C4">problem?</span>]]) 05:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
-Can I test blocking options here ?? How to do that ?? --[[User:Emad4ald|Emad4ald]] ([[User talk:Emad4ald|talk]]) 07:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
-:Hello [[User:Emad4ald|Emad4ald]], you must go to [[Special:Block/Example]] and then select the kind of block you want to do [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 15:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
+::List is {{done|done}}.  Any suggestions for formatting? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
+::I've fixed the formatting up a bit based on intuition. Any other suggestions? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::LGTM [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:I have made a change that does not allow "Usernames that contain any non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about another person or contain any other information that would be deemed appropriate for suppression." [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+===Adoption discussion===
+As a policy, this would practically just codify community norms around usernames. I propose (and support) adopting this as policy. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+*{{support}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+*I don't think it is necessary at the moment, but it can still be given a chance. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+*{{support}} [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Rename request from 64andtim to Codename Norte==
-== [[Test Wiki:Inactivity Policy]] ==
+I am requesting a rename from 64andtim to Codename Norte, and 64andsomeone to Códigonombre Alguien to match the same usernames on Wikimedia; these usernames also look better. Thank you. – [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#0024FF;">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] 🤔 ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#1830C4">problem?</span>]]) 18:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Rename Request: Piccadilly to Fullegente==
-I'm not sure if I should edit one of the official policies of this wiki myself without asking here first, so: Does this line "A steward or sysadmin will be removed after a year of activity." means what it means or is here a mistake somewhere? [[User:Meiræ|Meiræ]] 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
+{{Discussion top|{{not done}} Piccadilly will not be renamed at this time. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 18:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)}}
-:{{re| Meiræ}} I’m not sure what you mean. It is correct; stewards and sysadmins will be removed after a year. --[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|IWI]] ([[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|talk]]) 12:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
+Hi, I would like my name to be changed to Fullegente, as that is the name I use in several online games and some other online communities. This will be my last rename request here, as I am aware that I have changed my name a few times here already. Thank you! [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 12:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
-:: {{re|ImprovedWikiImprovment}} after a year of ''activity'' (as is stated in the policy) or ''inactivity''? [[User:Meiræ|Meiræ]] 19:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
-:::It is now fixed. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
+:{{oppose}} That username was used by a LTA on EnWiki and then locked for XWiki abuse, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Fullegente&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50], presumably you, since you claim to be Skiyomi who is '''WMF Banned'''. You don't need to change your name ''again''. [[User:Seawolf35|Seawolf35]] ([[User talk:Seawolf35|talk]]) 15:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
-== Main Page error? ==
+::Yes, I did use that name on Wikimedia (and yes I am Skiyomi), but I'm not sure what my status there has to do with matters here. As long as I behave myself here, I don't think that's relevant. And like I said, this will be my last rename request here. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk to me</span>]]) 15:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{neutral}} due to Seawolf35's concern, but as long as you don't violate your one-strike rule, no issues here. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Need for new system administrator==
-Instead of "Test Wiki, is" on the Main Page it should say "Test Wiki is", as it does on the engb Main Page. [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 12:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
-:Yes it looks wrong, but IDK how to fix it. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
-::{{re|Fast}} I think editing is restricted to stewards, pinging {{ping|Void}} and {{ping|MacFan4000}} [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 13:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
-:::Yes, when someone fixes this typo, could the same person also out the links inside tvar tags? The way it is now, users without the necessary rights can't translate the two units that contain external links without going directly to the source page and clearing captcha. Which I didn't even realise until {{re|Fast}} told me that.
-:::I also think that [[Main Page/ase]] should be deleted since it's not a translation but a copy of the English main page.
-:::--[[User:Sabelöga|Sabelöga]] ([[User talk:Sabelöga|talk]]) 22:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
-::::[[User:Sabelöga|Sabelöga]] {{done|deleted}} [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
+As we presently only have 1 system administrator, I encourage anyone who would meet the technical requirements to be a [[Test Wiki:System administrators|system administrator]] to apply here on the community portal. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
-== Special:UploadAvatar error ==
+:I know I'm nowhere near active enough, and I don't know any PHP, but, out of curiosity, what exactly is the role of a system administrator here? [[User:Sneezless|Sneezless]] ([[User talk:Sneezless|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
-The error message:
+::Dear, @[[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] can you tell about your work here? [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- [16a4f3b18084e0081fae1b27] /wiki/Special:UploadAvatar ValueError from line 125 of /var/www/html/extensions/SocialProfile/UserProfile/includes/avatar/UploadAvatar.php: Path cannot be empty
+:::Sysadmins are responsible for keeping mediawiki up to date, installing extensions and skins, and maintaining the linux server that Test Wiki runs on. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
+:Considering this is a small Wiki, wouldn't one SysAdmin be fine? [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
+::One is actually not enough because you are dependent on one person, which is very undesirable, vulnerable and also potentially dangerous if that person leaves or is inactive for a while, you have no one else. So, a second one is very desirable. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+::Hello, Harvici, it is as Drummingman eloquently communicates above. Having a second system administrator would serve many useful functions, such as redundancy and utility. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::Yes I now understand the need of another System administrator [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Template Merge==
+Good morning, everyone!
+I'd like to propose turning [[Template:Wikibreak|User:Sav/Wikibreak]] into a fully-fledged template. I've invested about a day refining it to better suit The Test Wiki and its needs. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:I will do it. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+::It was for a vote, to see what everyones opinions would be. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::I meant that I will implement this if there are no objections, to clarify. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:Sure, why not? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+::Thank you! I'm going to fine tune the documentation for this wiki also. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 01:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{done}} ([[Template:wikibreak|Wikibreak]]) [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Proposal: Reduce non-system administrator steward inactivity period==
+{{discussion top|{{done|Activity requirement increased}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}
+With the ability of any Steward to use CheckUser, a year is much too long for one to be inactive. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. Non system administrator stewards' maximum inactivity period is reduced to 6 months. <s> 2. The 1 hour reclamation of rights period is increased to 3 days (72 hours). </s> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC) partially withdrawn 03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} - This makes a lot more sense. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 02:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+*<s>{{oppose}}.</s> While I agree with reducing the steward inactivity period to 6 months, I don't agree with changing the hour to three days. If you are completely inactive for half a year, you shouldn't be able to get your permissions back without another community weight in. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+*:I have removed proposal 2. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::Thank you. As such, I now {{support}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{comment}} What is the difference between Non System administrator's steward and just a steward [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
+::The former is a steward who is not a system administrator. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::I don't have much experience here, but why should the inactivity period for only non-Sys admins change and not for Sys admins? Since both of them have checkuser [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+::::That has to do with the fact that we have, only, 1 System Administrator. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{support}} [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Discussion on a [[User:TheAstorPastor/Signatures|potential Signature policy]]==
+As there is a discussion on a potential username policy, I thought this would be the perfect time to get through [[User:TheAstorPastor/Signatures|a potential signature policy]]. Please feel free to add your own suggestions. [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
+:Seems unnecessary. We haven't had signature issues with people ever. Appears to be a solution looking for a problem. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 01:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+::X, you hit the nail on the head. Nobody has been blocked due to a signature issue, or even approached and warned about one. People have been blocked for having usernames like those in the username policy. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{not done}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 11:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Question==
+How to get translate admin right?
+Thanks
+[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodo]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{ping|DodoMan|label1=Rafdodo}} Welcome to Test Wiki! The translate administrator right is bundled into the administrator group. You automatically have its rights. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Error in filter==
+What I was trying to do: Hi, I was trying to create my user page... <!-- (Please describe what you were trying to do) -->
+What message I received: Error<!-- (Please copy the exact message you received here -->
+[[User:SilverTester|SilverTester]] ([[User talk:SilverTester|talk]]) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done|Disabled}} until a user more experienced with filters can assist. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
+::Now actually {{done|fixed}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+==Help==
+I’m Rafdodo but a2f not work.CAN I havé my privileges?[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodohelp]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:I can confirm I operate this account.[[User:Rafdodotestacc|Rafdodotestacc]] ([[User talk:Rafdodotestacc|talk]]) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::{{done}} - but note that {{user|DodoBot}} still has crat/admin rights. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::Please stop I re-have access!!!![[User:DodoMan|Rafdodo]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::It’s not April fool,I’ve re-forgot access.[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodohelp]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Rename request==
+Can you rename me to DodoMan? [[User:DodoMan|Rafdodohelp]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}. Note that the links above no longer work, as no redirects have been created. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::Please rename my account pls.[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodo]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::I presume you'd like me to reverse the rename on your alternate account and rename yours to the name mentioned above? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::Yes.[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodo]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::{{Done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Oh m’y god,I’ve re-forgot access.Please rename me.[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodohelp]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Your main account has been renamed as you requested. Try to use your password and a 2FA scratch or regular code with the username DodoMan. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::I have already tried.[[User:DodoMan|Rafdodohelp]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 13:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::{{done}}, then. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::Can I have rights?[[User:DodoMan|DodoMan]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 13:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Proposal==
+Hello, I happy to here to discuss on my new proposal to make a mediawikipage for this [[User:Kiteretsu/js/all-in-one.js|this]] JavaScript that help to easily block and oversight or suppress the revision of block user, spammers. etc, this script is originally based on [[metawikimedia:User:WhitePhosphorus/js/all-in-one.js|User:WhitePhosphorus/js/all-in-one.js]] of metawikimedia, but this script needed to modified them, then it's script ready for use on Tesrwiki.
+*I think [[User:Kiteretsu/js/all-in-one.js]] is move to mediawiki namespace, then add this script in gadget and allow to sysop, crats, stewards for use on you're preferences.
+{{Ping|MacFan4000|Dmehus|Drummingman|Justarandomamerican}}
+Thanks ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
+:I would be fine with adding this as a gadget, but not on the common.js. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
+::{{Ping|X}} Hello, Well! we have no probelm, If you like more gadgets for use, please see my common. js and this gadget is very helpful, firstly please test this js and then we think what can I do later?.
+Thanks ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
+:This gadget would likely need to be restricted to stewards due to just how powerful it is. Being able to revert all of a users edits, delete all the pages they've created, and block them in one click is simply a lot. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::X, You're right this js script is very powerful Use of this JavaScript should only be allowed by stewards and not allowed to use by any other privileged persons. ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  03:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::I've commented it out of your common.js page for the moment, as it could cause some serious mayhem if used improperly. Ask me if you need a test performed. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::@[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] Hello, Thank you for removing this script from my common. js, I've already performed the after adding this script on my common. js, I think this js script is more useful for the stewards. {{thanks}} ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  15:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Replace text==
+I've used it a lot in the past, and it saved a lot of time. But as of now, it's restricted to <u>stewards</u>. Why's that? [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Saint]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 04:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+:It was found that a vandal who gained sysop rights could vandalize the [[Main Page]] or similarly important Steward protected pages using ReplaceText. I know it has a lot of utility for you, so feel free to send me a message on my talk page, or Drummingman on his with a request, ensuring that original text, new text, and namespace(s) are provided. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+::Is it possible to allow interface administrators to use it? [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::I suggested that to MacFan when I originally opened a security task about the issue. Me personally, I think it would be better to create a separate group that's able to use it, as IA is ''primarily'' intended to allow editing of script pages, though I am fine with bundling it in to IA (and Stewards) along with creating a separate group. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
+=='Crat sysop first requirement==
+{{ping|EPIC|X|DR}} as interested persons.
+Recently, upon DR requesting bureaucrat, they were given it without first being an administrator. EPIC removed the crat right, and X restored it, stating that the requirement was pointless. To prevent a wheel war, I think it's best to set down community consensus on the issue. What do you, the reader, think of the requirement to be a sysop before being a bureaucrat? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]]: I've support you're thoughts, This is test wiki not Wikipedia, we are here to testing of specific permission, firstly If any new user request for both rights, then firstly grant only sysop permission but not crats, because sysop have more permission on his group, crats is most important permission on the wiki, I don't understand why both user's make editwar in removing or adding crats permission from @DR, who received both permission after reviewing his request by an other crats. ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  04:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+::I personally think that just like on other test wikis, there should some kind of requirement before being able to request crat, either an edit requirement (maybe something like 10 edits before being able to request bureaucrat would be a fair requirement if so?), or a requirement of a specific amount of days of having sysop before requesting crat (a day or two perhaps), or maybe a mix of both of those requirements.
+::The reason I think so is because unlike on other test wikis, the crat permission is quite powerful and can remove both bureaucrat and sysop rights. If it's given very liberally it can be quite dangerous. Now, I know DR from Wikimedia and they are a trusted user who I certainly don't think would abuse the bureaucrat rights, so I have nothing against them having crat. But, I don't have any intents to wheel war, the permissions have been given back and it can remain so. [[User:EPIC|EPIC]] ([[User talk:EPIC|talk]]) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::My intention was also not to wheel war. I know EPIC mentioned some suggestions for "requirements" for the 'crat role. However, as of now, those do not exist, making the rule about being a sysop first pointless. There is some Wikimedia essay about not following the policies if doing so would prevent you from improving the site, but I can't remember what it was titled. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+:You can remove the bureaucrat right from my account since I won’t be using it. I have MediaWiki installed on my local machine for testing purposes, and I already have all the advanced rights there. Here on this test wiki, my goal is to assist others by deploying some important and useful scripts and translating help pages. Initially, I thought that crats have access to grant the interface admin right, but it appears they do not, so I no longer require this role. Could any Steward please grant the interface admin right to my account? I would like to deploy some useful gadgets. Also, for granting requirements, I believe granting the bureaucrat role should be discretionary. [[User:DR|DR]] ([[User talk:DR|talk]]) 09:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+:We should definitely set requirements for gaining crat. It is a powerful position, and any disruptive user can easily misuse it. Since EPIC knew DR , there would not be a problem, but if a random user came and requested sysop and crat, there is a chance of vandalism or disruption. I propose that a user must wait 24 hours and make 10 edits before requesting crat rights [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 06:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
+::It's not a terribly powerful position, since it's mostly a testing right, but that being said, it ''does'' require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like <code>nuke</code> and <code>import</code>, which ''can'' cause vandalism that is time consuming to revert if used by unscrupulous actors. Since Justarandomamerican initiated the discussion, I will contribute here and allow Drummingman or MacFan4000 to close. Your suggestion of 10 edits is a good one, but I'd also add a time requirement and would suggest a minimum of a four day wait ''unless'' the user previously held user rights here, then the waiting period requirement is waived. We could also add in an alternate pathway to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:It happened to me too! Well, I am already an administrator, but not for 4 days! On the one hand, this guideline is a hindrance for serious users, but what if they are just spammers? Or something similar? One can trust me, but others... [[User:Justman10000|Justman10000]] ([[User talk:Justman10000|talk]]) 11:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
+::You can always ping Stewards to make an exception for yourself. See [[TW:STEWARD#Current stewards|the list of stewards]] to know who to ping [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::I have already [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJustman10000&diff=44046&oldid=44041 said] that the user can start requesting crat rights in three days. It seems best to keep it that way. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 13:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
+==Permission revocation request==
+Hello, I am currently suffering from high powerful stress which is impairing my ability to work on test wiki and elsewhere, hence, I request the admins of test wiki to please remove my sysop + crats permission on my account, I will try to come back and edit here. Thanks to all the editors of test wiki for giving me a chance to test the tools of sysop and crats and I hope I have not broken any rules and regulations of test wiki.. {{Thanks}} ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  04:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}} — You are free to reapply for user permissions when you return. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 08:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Interface Right==
+Hello everyone, I try to re- modifying Twinkle tool for use, but I don't think Twinkle Tool are working on Test Wiki; If you like I like to fix Twinkle tool for working on Test Wiki, so, I needed, please grant me Interface right for permanently for successfully complete this work.{{thanks}} ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+:I think that for the moment you can rework this script into personal subpages and we will see later about the rights because other interface admins will be able to add it as a gadget.[[User:DodoMan|DodoMan]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 16:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+::{{Ping|DodoMan}} Hello, Do you know Twinkle Tool are not currently available in gadgets section and it's subpages are not currently exist here, We recreating those pages and interface admin right are more help to edit and create js pages on Test Wiki.Cheers!~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Kiteretsu|label1=Aviram7}}Yes I know the tool it’s inavailable but you can rework script on your subpages. At worst, I will create these mediawiki pages and rework them with you. And also you need to request rights to Test Wiki:Request Permissions.[[User:DodoMan|DodoMan]] ([[User talk:DodoMan|talk]]) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|DodoMan}} That's Great! well I going to request for Interface permission on request page and try to creating twinkle subpages on userspace and I beleive our hard struggle will be positive result proved.~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::I requested for Interface permission on [[TW:RfP]]. ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Filter 120==
+I propose converting it to an abusive username prevention filter. Any objections? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 15:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
+:Nope,is good for me.(oh no is my bot account)[[User:DodoBot|BotRafdodo]] ([[User talk:DodoBot|talk]]) 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)~
+:None. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
+::Standby... writing the regex... [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 02:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::and WHEW!!! {{done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], you might want to remove the account creation conditions from filter 92 since I implemented them to filter 120. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 03:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::Any objections if I set this to disallow? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 01:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::LGTM. I'm not sure the likelihood of LTAs and blocked users trying to use variations of known usernames, but it can't hurt, either. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::No, if there's a helpful message. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::{{done}}. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 02:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+==Crat requirements's [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrat policy|policy]]==
+{{discussion top |{{done}} After 2 weeks and with 3 votes in favour and 1 in opposition and no comments by any other users even after pinging I am closing this discussion as successful [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)}}
+As in the above discussion, I have established [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrat policy|policy]]-related criteria for the CRT position, as previously stated by Dmehus, " {{talk quote inline|It's not [...] require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like nuke and import  which can cause vandalism [...]}}. [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+===Adoption Discussion===
+As a policy, this would practically just codify community norms on how to grant crat rights. I propose (and support) adopting this as policy.
+*{{support}} [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 18:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+*{{support|Conditional support}}: I'll support this with the modifications I have made. There should be some level of discretion granted to Stewards, as this is a test wiki, and trusted users should be able to bypass the requirements, along with Stewards being able to requalify a person. Otherwise, I'd say this is a reasonable security requirement. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+*{{Support|Conditional support}} The draft policy isn't ''exactly'' as I would've liked, but it's reasonable. Justarandomamerican's reason for additional, [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] exceptions by Stewards is also reasonable, and so I support that. It arguably goes without saying Stewards are able to do this anyway, but I support making this a conditional requirement for my support. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 19:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+*What do you guys think about Dmehus suggestion {{talk quote inline|to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there.}}Should we make a change with respect to this? [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+*{{comment}} Changed the criteria from ''"must have been a registered user for a minimum of 4 days"'' to ''"must have been an'' '''administrator''''' for a minimum of 4 days"''As any user can ask for crat rights before they even get sysop (the registered criteria is also mentioned on the top) [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+*:I'd prefer that, [[User:TheAstorPastor|Harvici]]. I would've preferred your language originally, but wasn't enough to cause me oppose the proposal. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+*{{oppose|Strong oppose}} How long has it been since someone has abused their bureaucrat permissions? Months, at least. This simply makes it harder for users to test, and as such, I oppose. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+*:This isn't about adding revocation criteria, [[User:X|X]]. As it stands, if you're an existing bureaucrat, you meet the exception criteria to have the bit re-added without the waiting period requirement. I would, however, potentially suggest adding a requirement that the <code>bureaucrat</code> user group is limited to the user's main account only. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], thoughts? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+*::I do suppose that ''could'' be added, but how would we handle legitimate test (such as testing the bureaucrat right on its own, without sysop) or cratbot accounts? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+*:::We wouldn't be able to technically restrict it, no, but, rather, it would provide automatic revocation criteria for the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit if Stewards suspect the two users are the same, or where the user has confirmed the two accounts are the same. That is, the bit would be removed from the legitimate sockpuppet accounts and a Steward would remind users to '''pick one''' account they want their bureaucrat bit on. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::With the provisions for common sense exceptions by Stewards, that's fine. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
+*{{comment}} It has been 2 weeks since the start of the discussion, and there are 3 votes in support and 1 in opposition. I wouldn't close this discussion today and wait for 24 hours more to see if anyone else wants to opine and also suggest others do the same.The following users were active in the month of May (5TH May) so pinging them if they want to opine: @[[User:Kiteretsu|Aviram7]],[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]], [[User:C1K98V|C1K98V]],[[User:Codename Noreste |Codename Noreste ]], [[User:DodoMan |DodoMan ]], [[User:Sav |Sav ]],[[User:Gepard|Wüstenspringmaus‎]] [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators==
+{{discussion top|Closing. The first proposal {{not done|has no consensus}}, and the second {{done|passes}}. Though there were alternates to the alternate proposal, they failed to gain sufficient consensus. I believe this is an action any reasonable Steward would take. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)}}
+<del> I would like to propose all of the following: 1: Unbundle all abusefilter-related (excluding basic rights already included in <code>*</code> or <code>user</code>) from the sysop group.
+. Bundle these rights into the Steward group.
+. Create a new <code>abusefilter-edit</code> group with these rights, and a <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group with view-only access, both grantable by a Steward upon request.
+Though this would be taking away a permission used by many, the AbuseFilter extension is a ''very'' powerful tool: There is the potential for evasion of restrictions imposed on specific users by the ability to view private filters, let alone the fact that a vandal that gets access to it could actually block  innocent, or even potentially all edits. If this is implemented, I plan to grant the edit right to those who already work with our edit filters. </del> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) <small>withdrawn, see my comment below [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
+:This sounds good to me. Thanks for starting the RfC. I'd only suggest a small change, by allowing any <code>sysop</code> to ''view'' the abuse filters; they just wouldn't be able to ''edit'' them unless they have the <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group. I'd also suggest adding both a time-based inactivity requirement (something like 30-90 days) whereby someone not having used the permission in the given time period can lose the permission and also broad Steward discretion to remove the permission where it's either misused or no longer used recently. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+::That sounds good to me. I only added the "view private filters" unbundle because with a bit of knowledge of the language of abuse filters, you could probably bypass a filter restricting you, but I suppose there isn't a problem with that ''yet''. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{comment}} I am not a sockpuppeteer or something, and I assist with abuse filters almost all the time, but is the abusefilter-edit group not allowed to have the abusefilter-modify-restricted because of the potential of actions that can impact actual users? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 03:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::I don't have strong feelings about that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Should the abusefilter-edit group have the restricted action modifcation right, community consensus or similar is mandatory. [[User:Codename Noreste|Codename Noreste]] ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|talk]]) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::The <code>abusefilter-modify-restricted</code> user right is currently restricted to [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] for mainly security and abuse reasons. I ''suppose'' we could sub-delegate this user right, but I'd rather see it be a ''separate'' user group, like <code>abusefilter-sysop</code> or something, that would also require a community vote (like non-Steward suppressors) (since it requires an extra degree of trust and also has some real, non-test administrator responsibilities). [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I would propose all of the following in addition:
+::::::*All admins should keep the abusefilter-log-detail right.
+::::::*The <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group should only have the abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private permissions.
+::::::*The <code>abusefilter-edit</code> group should just simply have the name <code>abusefilter</code>, and have the following rights (in addition to having a community vote requirement):
+::::::1) Create or modify abuse filters (abusefilter-modify) [this may or may not need the two rights listed on the abusefilter-helper permission since this permission allows you to view the filters and their logs, whether public or private]
+::::::2) Create or modify what external domains are blocked from being linked (abusefilter-modify-blocked-external-domains)
+::::::3) Modify abuse filters with restricted actions (abusefilter-modify-restricted)
+::::::4) Revert all changes by a given abuse filter (abusefilter-revert)
+::::::*Stewards do not need to assign the abusefilter or abusefilter-helper permission to themselves, but they can assign and remove either of the two to trusted users following a community vote.
+::::::[[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::A community vote and/or Steward discretion (for helper, or granting edit to those who have worked on abuse filters before) or consensus (for neither of those cases), I presume? Appointment by community vote only would be a higher bar than we set for our [[Test Wiki: Suppressors|non-steward suppressors]]. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::{{support|Conditional support}} per my comment above. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::I am writing a proposed policy about the abuse filter and their proposed user rights; anyone can help. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 01:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::{{support|Strong Support}} I support this proposal. ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Kiteretsu|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Kiteretsu|(tαlk)]]</span>  09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::How long has it been since someone has abused abuse filter access? Months, years? I don't ever recall this being an issue. Like the above proposal, this simply makes it harder for users to test and I will always {{oppose|Strongly oppose}} that. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::::This also makes it extremely difficult to make small changes to abusefilters, or fix bugs. This is a solution looking for a problem, in addition to being extremely bureaucratic. Must I remind everyone that this is a testwiki, where people test tools like abusefilter? [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::{{support|Strong Support }} I added a lot of content to the [[User:Codename Noreste/Abuse filter|policy]]; feel free to add your own suggestion :) [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::{{oppose}} I haven't found any vandalism in the abuse filters so far. It seems unnecessary to make such a change when there is no vandalism. Therefore, I am opposing this proposal. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:I now {{oppose|withdraw my proposal and oppose}} the policy proposal upon reading the two rational oppose comments. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+===Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group===
+Rather than the above: Create a <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> group, grantable and removable only by Stewards at their discretion or upon a community partial ban from the abuse filter, with rights related to modification and private filters actively revoked. This would curb abuse (such as of the guidance filter), whilst making allowance for testing. In addition, I will also propose the AbuseFilter sysop group mentioned above in this proposal too, with the modify-restricted right, grantable upon consensus of at least two stewards or of the community. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{ping|X|LisafBia|Dmehus|Codename Noreste|TheAstorPastor|label5=Harvici}} as participants in the RfC above. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::I'd support that. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::So what will we name this group? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::In terms of human readable language, something along the lines of "Users restricted from editing the edit filter" (or a shortened version that conveys the same information) would be the first choice for a name (to me). [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::How about "Users blocked from the abuse filter" for the <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> right, and "Abuse filter administrators" for <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>? The former would be useful for say, Piccadilly if they have one more chance (which I doubt) while they may not edit any filter or view any private filters, including one that restricts their disruptive actions. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Both of those sound good. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Abuse filter administrators have the additional ability to modify filters with blocking abilities in the same fashion as stewards do, while users blocked from the abuse filter may not edit any filter or view private filters; however, they can still see said public filters and the abuse log. I will update my proposed policy on the abuse filter. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 01:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::It is also possible that users blocked from the abuse filter will be able to view private filters to learn from their mistakes/abuse, seeing my discussion with [[User:Dmehus|Doug]] below. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::Couldn't we simply revoke the <code>abusefilter-view-private</code> and <code>abusefilter-log-private</code> in the abusefilter-restricted right, and that trusted users experienced with abuse filters should take care not to discuss private filters in public? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 01:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::That is one of three possibilities. I would be more supportive of a separate group restricting view access or of not doing so and simply restricting edit access, due to the rational possibility of a restricted user looking at a filter to learn from their mistakes. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::{{support}} [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:That could be a good way of doing it. So you're proposing to use [[mw:Manual:$wgRevokePermissions|<code>$wgRevokePermissions</code>]] essentially, to revoke all abuse filter permissions normally granted to the <code>sysop</code> group by way of a new user group, though I'd suggest a friendly amendment, if you're amenable to it, of permitting ''view only'' access to the filter (so such partially blocked/banned users could use it to actually ''learn'' from their mistakes)? You would then propose to give access to the restricted abusefilter permissions as part of a new group? If ''so'', I'm in favour of the former, but a little lukewarm on the latter. Not necessarily ''against'' it, but also not entirely sure the ''need'', given the level of active stewards we have now and being concerned with regard to [[w:WP:HATCOLLECT|hat collecting]]. I'd be ''more'' favourable, if we added some removal criteria (i.e., unused completely in the last 30-60 days), by community revocation with a 75% net support ratio, or by consensus of two or more stewards. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+::I would support the removal criteria for the modify restricted right (or abusefilter sysop). Though I am definitely amenable to view only access for the group restricted from modification, I am also thinking of how that could be abused by a user with a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps that could be left out for now, to avoid creating 2 separate groups? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::I propose that we create three seperate rights <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>, <code>abusefliter-restricted</code> ,<code>abusefilter-view-restricted</code> .If the crat [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrat policy|policy]] passes then we could remove all the abusefilter rights from the sysop and bundle them into <code>abusefilter-sysop</code> which would only be granted if the user is a crat (since to become a crat they have to prove us that they are trustworthy). <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> only let the user only view the abuse filters (steward will only place this right if a user has misused the abusefilter or the user just wants to view and not edit) and <code>abusefilter-view-restricted</code> will not allow the users to even view any abuse filter (this would only be placed if the user has caused serious disruption ) [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 01:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I would NOT suggest removing the abuse filter modification rights from the sysop toolset, and if an admin only wants to view abuse filters, including private filters, then they should not edit said filters at all. As for the revocation of viewing abuse filters, I think you meant the revocation of viewing private filters and editing all filters, which should probably be merged to the abusefilter-restricted right. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 02:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::Well, then we can create one right: <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>.We would remove all the abusefilter filter-related rights (except the ability to view) from sysop toolset.All the users don't have experience with abuse filters (they can also cause disruption even in good faith), and there is no need to give them until they request <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>which would have the ability to edit the filters and it would be granted by stewards [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 13:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::We should add some criteria for granting and removing. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 22:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Umm... removing criteria would be misuse or inactivity or both and granting can be passing a vote of community portal or steward deems the user trusted or both [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 05:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Non-controversial changes to filters with restricted actions are allowed such as simplifying filters, but controversial changes such as enabling those actions on filters without determining consensus are not. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 17:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Are we circling back to the above proposal which was pile-on opposed? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I meant the alternate proposal. [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 04:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+==Umm....==
- Backtrace:
+I have another <s>one last account</s> rename request for the stewards: Jody. [[User:Renamed user 159304387|Saint]] ([[User talk:Renamed user 159304387|talk]]) 00:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}. Feel free to come back and request another, within reason. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- #0 /var/www/html/extensions/SocialProfile/UserProfile/includes/avatar/UploadAvatar.php(125): getimagesize()
- #1 /var/www/html/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(579): UploadAvatar->performUpload()
- #2 /var/www/html/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(214): SpecialUpload->processUpload()
- #3 /var/www/html/extensions/SocialProfile/UserProfile/includes/specials/SpecialUploadAvatar.php(58): SpecialUpload->execute()
- #4 /var/www/html/includes/specialpage/SpecialPage.php(600): SpecialUploadAvatar->execute()
- #5 /var/www/html/includes/specialpage/SpecialPageFactory.php(635): SpecialPage->run()
- #6 /var/www/html/includes/MediaWiki.php(307): MediaWiki\SpecialPage\SpecialPageFactory->executePath()
- #7 /var/www/html/includes/MediaWiki.php(940): MediaWiki->performRequest()
- #8 /var/www/html/includes/MediaWiki.php(543): MediaWiki->main()
- #9 /var/www/html/index.php(53): MediaWiki->run()
- #10 /var/www/html/index.php(46): wfIndexMain()
- #11 {main}
-*[[User:ZhuofanWu|ZhuofanWu]] ([[User talk:ZhuofanWu|talk]]) 10:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
-:Avatar uploads are working just fine for me. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
-::emmm,It works fine now.<span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #002366">[[User:ZhuofanWu|Zhuofan]] [[User_talk:ZhuofanWu|Wu]]</span><sup>Cien años de soledad</sup> 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Test Wiki:Community portal/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 01:11, 26 October 2025

Apologies

Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal

Formalize Test Wiki:Blocks and bans as a guideline

Block appeal

Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely

Move Test Wiki:Request permissions to Test Wiki:Request for permissions

Merry Christmas!

userRightsManager gadget is broken

Request for Suppressor right

My IA right

Proposal to change an abuse filter warning

RFC: Clarify the inactivity policy for Non-steward suppressors

Another proposal to import Edit filter warning template

Mobile edit

New filters made today

Piccadilly socks

RFC: Allow non-steward suppressors to perform "steward actions"

Abuse filter request

User:Void

RecentChanges pages

Proposal to upload higher quality user rights icons

Faulty wikilink

EPIC

Clearly define suppression criteria in policy

RFC: Redo suppression page

Sav

Name Change Requests

Proposal to delete example user right

Zippybonzo's ban

Discussion

User:Zippybonzo (testing account)

Nomination of EPIC for Stewardship

Discussion:

Discussion on a potential username policy

Adoption discussion

Rename request from 64andtim to Codename Norte

Rename Request: Piccadilly to Fullegente

Need for new system administrator

Template Merge

Proposal: Reduce non-system administrator steward inactivity period

Discussion on a potential Signature policy

Question

Error in filter

Help

Rename request

Proposal

Replace text

'Crat sysop first requirement

Permission revocation request

Interface Right

Filter 120

Crat requirements's policy

Adoption Discussion

Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators

Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group

Umm....

Navigation menu

Search