|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| {{/header}} | | {{/header}} |
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| | | {{shortcut|TW:CP|TW:COM}} |
| == Oversight role? ==
| | == UserRightsManager == |
| {{ping|MacFan4000|Void}} Do you think it'd be possible to get an oversight role? [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 14:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | | The name of the userRightsManager gadget has changed, so some users may have the tick turned off. It may be necessary to re-enable it in [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|the preferences]]. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
| :{{ping|Seemplez}} I'm just gonna bump in here, but there's no need for it right now. From what I've seen, everything is fine, and the CheckUser right isn't really needed either, the only use for the Steward permission is that it can revoke bureaucrat permissions from a user. [[User:BlackWidowMovie0|BlackWidowMovie0]] ([[User talk:BlackWidowMovie0|talk]]) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |
| ::I think we already have both kinds of oversight on this wiki, from google I saw https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/oversight which is revision deletion you should already be able to do the admin kind of revision deletion, there is also the suppress kind, which was done to a few entries a long time ago by MacFan4000, but for that you need to be in the [[Test Wiki:Suppress|suppress user group]] and only the stewards can assign that. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :If a steward thinks you should have it, and assigns it to you, or you become a steward, then yes. Otherwise, no. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :{{ping|Fast|Justarandomamerican|BlackWidowMovie0}} Thanks. [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == CheckUser testing == | |
| | |
| Currently, as shown in [[Special:ListGroupRights]], it seems that only bureaucrats may use the <code>checkuser-limited</code> permission. This permission allows checking oneself for the purpose of testing out the tool. It may be a good idea to grant this permission to administrators as administrators is the primary for-testing group here and it should not be necessary to request bureaucratship for testing. In addition, when it is only possible to check oneself there is very little capacity for damage (checking others will still be limited to Stewards).
| |
| | |
| Opinions? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :Agree <code>checkuser-limited</code> is not really that sensitive, and certainly has less potential for damage than many of the other rights bundled with administrator. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :Agree. You can only test checkuser on yourself. Making a phabricator task..... [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| ::[https://phabricator.testwiki.wiki/T43 Phabricator task] [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[User:CptViraj]] ==
| |
| | |
| Please delete my userpage, Thanks! -- [[User:CptViraj|CptViraj]] ([[User talk:CptViraj|talk]]) 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
| *{{Done}} --[[User:Q8j|Q8j]] ([[User talk:Q8j|talk]]) 08:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Spam abuse filters ==
| |
| | |
| I'd like to propose that we enable automatic blocking on our anti-spam abuse filters, as they have a rare false positive rate (and we can just unblock if there is a false positive). [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| {{Support}} I Do think we could use filter for that. --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :: Good idea, I had considered proposing this for a while but had never got around to it. Blocking is a restricted action though, so this will need to be closed by a stewards. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| ::: We also need it because there is no way in hell I am doing [https://testwiki.wiki/images/a/a6/Spambots.png this] again. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :::: Geez, I normally mop up the mess the spambots make, and never have I had to give myself the bot flag, nor flood the log like that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :'''Agree''', and prompt autoblocks will also prevent the spambots from creating new accounts on the same IP for 24 hours reducing the hit rate and making it easier to find any false positives. We can always tweak the filters that result in immediate blocks if problems occur. It may be advisable to limit blocks only to registered accounts for now since they are so far responsible for nearly all edits that trip the filter. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 23:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| It looks like we had another Hell load of Bot accounts today and don't worry Nalekshu I can always do mass blocking if you need me to or want me to do it just Message me and I'll do it 🙂 --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :{{Done}} [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Help, abuse filter blocked me ==
| |
| | |
| Hi, this is administrator [[User:PorkchopGMX]] editing under a VPN, a different browser, and a new account. I was editing [[user:PorkchopGMX/researchertest|one of my subpages]], planning to delete it and use my [[User:PorkchopGMX test|test account]] to see what it would look like with the “researcher” user group, when the abuse filter thought I was spamming and blocked me indefinitely with autoblock. The only thing I can do right now (besides having to use a VPN) is to email somebody. I don’t know who I should email, so I’m doing this instead. If anybody is skeptical that this is really me, I do have access to my account and can email somebody if they need proof. [[User:PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once|PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once|talk]]) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Hello i already unblocked your main account please Do not use a Vpn i will GO ahead and Unblock your ip aswell so you can edit --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :Thank you Cocopuff2018, I’m unblocked now. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Proposal : Remove SocialProfile ==
| |
| | |
| Does anyone even like it? I would certainly support it being removed [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :<s>I '''honestly don't care''' if it's removed. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)</s>
| |
| :Actually, I '''weakly oppose''' just for the communications options (userboard and such), if somebody wants a wiki user page, they get one, as there's a switch to toggle wiki userpages on. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :: {{ping|Justarandomamerican}} No, it still leaves that stupid banner which people might not want and does random crap like auto-creating user pages and other clutter. It is simply a nuisance to this wiki. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 06:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| ::: Also, I don't love that non-existent user page titles show up as bluelinks. That probably should be fixed upstream, but until then, I think it should be removed. For what it's worth, it's a [[mhtest:TestWiki:Banned extensions|banned extension]] on [[mhtest:|Public Test Wiki]]. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 07:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :I '''strongly support''' removing this extension, at least until such time as [[mw:Extension:SocialProfile|SocialProfile]]'s extension developers migrate the social profiles to a <code>UserProfile</code> namespace and move wiki user pages where they rightly belong, in <code>User</code> namespace. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == "High chance of spam" filters and false positives ==
| |
| | |
| The spam filters have recently falsely blocked two users ([[User:PorkchopGMX]] and [[User:Dmehus]]) as spammers that were not. As a temporary solution [[User:MacFan4000]] has set them to just disallow again, but [https://testwiki.wiki/images/a/a6/Spambots.png they clearly need to block] provided we can remove false positives.
| |
| | |
| I suggest requiring 0 edits for block. Generally spambots trip this filter on their first edit, so anyone who has made any successful edits is likely not a spambot. Any other ideas? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| : The filter should also require the creation of a new page. It already does for one of the filters, but it should for the other too. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| : I'm a bit confused, perhaps. Wouldn't requiring 0 edits to block ''increase'' the false positive blocks? Administrators are active here, and can revert spam quickly. I'd suggest just setting it to either warn or disallow permanently, with anyone with <code>autopatrol</code> in their '''user_rights''' exempted from the filter. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| ::I don't think so. Most administrators have more than 1 edit. I support requiring 0 edits. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| ::: {{ping|Dmehus}} How would narrowing when blocks are placed increase false positives? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :::: Well, in my case, I only had one edit, and maybe I'm not understanding the central idea idea, but wouldn't ''reducing'' the edit requirement mean I would've been blocked when I made my permission request? Note that I never tried to add an external link—it was just an [[Special:Interwiki|interwiki]] link. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :::::No, because your permissions request didn’t contain anything that would trip the filter. Also, I just tested that change, and it doesn’t work because most spambots are seeming to first make a change to their SocialProfile, which I guess counts as an edit. Or at least & user_editcount == 0 nothing trips the filter when I test it. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Oh, okay, well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to try it then, since you've tested the filter against recent edits. Plus, yeah, spam only accounts ''do'' tend add spammy links into their social profiles. Having said that, on some wikis on Miraheze what we do is simply add the SocialProfile-related rights to <code>autoconfirmed</code>, and that stops the spam only accounts cold, with minimal impacts on legitimate users. Also, if the above community proposal passes, this may end up being moot. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::If the above community proposal fails, I '''support''' moving updateprofile into autoconfirmed. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Justarandomamerican request for stewardship (2) ==
| |
| | |
| Statement by requestor: I'd like to request the globe again. I've been active and taking out the trash, and now my account is not newly registered. CU and Oversight rights would be helpful in performing maintenance and counter-vandalism and spam. (which I regularly do) It's been approximately a month since my last request, and I feel I have addressed the opposing argument. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Support===
| |
| '''Procedural support''' as requestor and per my requesting argument. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Oppose===
| |
| | |
| ===Neutral/Abstain===
| |
| * I'm not familiar with this wiki's policy requirements on access to personally identifying information. If <code>suppressor</code> can be granted independent of <code>checkuser</code>, this is something I could potentially support. My interactions with you, assuming you're the same Justarandomliberal on Miraheze, have been fine, though I don't know you well enough to support for Steward on this wiki. At the same time, MacFan4000 and Void are active enough on this wiki to perform any CheckUser functions, I think. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Comment''':The requirements for PII here are just pretty much pass a RfS and follow the privacy policy. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| ** {{ping|Dmehus}} Personally I think Oversight is a ''more'' larger deal than CheckUser. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *** {{ping|Naleksuh}} Potentially, yes, that's true, though I'm not sure what information may have been suppressed. If it is IP addresses, largely, of users who edited while logged out, then it's probably the same. If it's grossly insulting and potentially libelous or defamatory information requiring suppression, then the concern for me is whether the user will be trusted not to divulge that information. The same is true of CheckUser, certainly, though. It's probably a wash, really, with you believing Oversight is the greater concern and me believing CheckUser is the greater concern. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *Neutral I'm sorry but I agree with Dmehus I feel we don't need more Stewards Sorry --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Comment''' Only one steward is active in a community capacity (MacFan). The other is mostly active as a system administrator, semi-active in a community capacity. (which is completely fine) We need one more active steward in a community capacity, certainly. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *Abstain While all my interactions so far with Justarandomamerican have been positive, I don't feel I know them (as well as their contributions here) well enough yet in order to be able to vote yes/no on this matter. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Proposal: [[No open proxies policy]] ==
| |
| | |
| '''Community proposal:''' To establish as official policy, subject to amendment at [[Test Wiki:Community portal]], [[No open proxies policy]]. Such policy shall prohibit open proxies, somewhat broadly construed, VPNs, and web hosts from being used for anonymous editing or account creation. On discovery, a Steward shall soft block with account creation disabled and talk page access revoked said IP range(s) for a period of not less than three (3) and not more than twenty four (24) months. Logged in editors may use them, as is the case on [[mhmeta:No open proxies policy|Miraheze]], as at least the user will have been likely required to identify their personal IP to [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. Where, upon discovery, an account was created by a VPN/open proxy, Steward discretion applies as to whether to block, or require a confirmation edit from a Wikimedia or Miraheze wiki. Steward discretion in terms of the length of the block/rangeblock applies, within the defined parameters, but the community recomments at least six (6) months for obvious cases. Where open proxies/VPNs are being used on this wiki by anonymous users, the open proxies/VPNs may be blocked by any <code>sysop</code>, subject to the same discretion as outlined above.
| |
| | |
| === Support ===
| |
| * '''Strong support''' as proposer. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Support''' Open proxies have probably been used for long term abuse since this wiki began. This would help stop that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| * {{Support}} While I'm very new here, I've heard this wiki has had some unfortunate instances of trolling and vandalism. In my experience, allowing account creations from open proxies/VPNs as well as anonymous editing for them usually causes trouble. There has been a NOPP in place at Miraheze since the beginning of 2017 and having a clear policy on the matter could be helpful and allow for routine soft blocks of VPNs and open proxies. While of course a policy likely won't stop trolls, it would make it easier to immediately soft block VPNs and open proxies once they are discovered. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| === Oppose ===
| |
| | |
| | |
| === Neutral/Abstain ===
| |
| | |
| === Comments ===
| |
| * "soft block with account creation disabled " Soft block inherently means having this ''enabled'', what did you mean here? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *:[[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] Yeah, I know that, but I just added that "with account creation disabled" for users who may not know that that's inherent with a soft IP block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| * Soft blocking all open proxies upon discovery is a bit much for only stewards to do. There are only 2 stewards around here, unless the RfS above passes (might have a No Consensus closure with all those neutrals). Maybe change it to stewards or bureaucrats? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
| |
| *:Oh, sure, that's no problem, but to be clear, I just mean if they discovered open proxies in the course of a CheckUser from an abuse investigation, but if anonymous IPs are being used publicly on this wiki, any <code>sysop</code> could block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
| |