Test Wiki:Community portal

The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one.
Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12

Mind if I suggest something?

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

Consensus in favor of extending the (non-steward/sysadmin) inactivity period to 3 months. — Arcversin (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Instead of having your access to the admin tools after 1 month goes by without activity, why not just have it be 3 months instead? I'd say that 1 month is a bit too short, and I'm not sure how one month would be enough of a reason. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@MacFan4000: @Dmehus: Hello! How long will the proposal close? AlPaD (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Supports

 Support I like this idea, and can't see any drawbacks to it. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I think it should be extended. LisafBia (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support Per nom. I am one (as you are three) 23:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I absolutely agree with that! AlPaD (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 Oppose We're giving out adminship and 'cratship as if they were candies. Isn't that good enough? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely good but it would save bureaucrats some work by not having to re-add user rights so often and also save everyone else the hassle of having to ask for the rights again after just a short one-month hiatus. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk · contribs) Being honest, revocation of an advanced permission after 1 month just seems too short, and I'd recommend at least 3 months, as it's usually fair, in terms of how we all operate on the Public Test Wiki on Miraheze. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral--S871 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Other Comments

---

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

Should the policy be updated now?

Seeing as this has majority support, should one of the bureaucrats update the policy to reflect the new time? Or do we have to get a Steward's approval for policy changes? Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 14:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser request

• User:七海娜娜米2b
• User:七海娜娜米3b
• User:想舞花

These 2 users are blocked intefinite on Chinese Wikipedia and locked on Wikimedia foundation and this action is suspected. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@想舞花: Could you explain the reason for this action please? AlPaD (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@AlPaD: I mean: give him permissions other than admin.--想舞花 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@想舞花: Thanks for reply! AlPaD (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's their test account. Also, I don't know why being indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia or globally locked on Wikimedia matters here. My Wikimedia account is globally locked and blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia, but as long as people behave here, I think they should be welcome here. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 20:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Seiyena: I don't think is a test account because he had requested administrator rights, while the test accounts don't need to be requested. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a sockpuppet issue. It's better steward see the issue and let our know if he needs CheckUser. AlPaD (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw it again and maybe I was wrong. In the Chinese Wikipedia there are daily blocked for sockpuppetry and 想舞花 was banned from the Wikimedia foundation while 七海娜娜米 wasn't. I know that even if someone is blocked on Wikimedia they can contribute here and sorry if I was wrong. AlPaD (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

七海娜娜米2b and 七海娜娜米3b, are technically identical, 想舞花 is not connected to the other two, but the CU results were interesting. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@MacFan4000: Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm block they account.--想舞花 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They had been blocked with autoblock disabled. I've modified block setting and enabled autoblock.--Q8j (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/52

The third line should have been & !page_id == 702. Currently it's checking for spam edits on TW:RFP... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Dmehus. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't admins edit the filters themselves? I know that on another wiki that was possible. Just saying. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Filters with restricted actions (namely, blocking) can only be edited by Stewards. — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It would actually be page_id != 702, since this is an equality check. Also, it's generally good practice to surround any negation that isn't a single function with parentheses, like so: !('x' in y) — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to User:Seiyena.

Noting that the aforementioned abuse filter has been deployed. — Arcversin (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Filter 89

Looks like we're getting a few false positives here; I fixed a typo on an AbuseFilter warning and apparently I was disallowed. See my abuse log for reference.

@Kazrok4545—Courtesy ping if you have ideas. Thanks. —3PPYB6 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the result of the filter filtering for the <br> tag, which is a very common indicator of spam. This is actually unnecessary (already in another filter), so I've removed it and extended the exempted groups. @Kazrok4545: I've temporarily disabled the filter pending clarification on its intent, were you intending to do something akin to filter 88, or was this intended to be an addition to filter 52? — Arcversin (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to switch off this filter. It was created for testing. It is advisable to add these words to filter 52. — Regards, Kazrok4545 Talk 12:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rename Account

Hi,

Could you please rename my account Videojeux4 to HeartsDo, please.

(Proof: here) Videojeux4 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Dmehus: @MacFan4000: AlPaD (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

HeartsDo, though I don't likely doubt this to be you, would you mind confirming your Test Wiki account from your Miraheze account? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I know the account to be legit.  Done. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! :p HeartsDo (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Block Request

Hello, I think it would be good if I took a break from here for a bit. Could someone please block me for a few days, like maybe until May 1? Thank you very much. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 09:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Seiyena: I am willing to give out the block, on condition that:

1. You agree not to evade your block using sockpuppets.
2. You agree to be hard-blocked (i.e. with autoblock enabled).

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree to both conditions.Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You have now been blocked. Enjoy your break. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this proposed change to filter 88?

Right now filter 88 is set to simply disallow the action that is trying to be performed. Given the number of recent triggers to that filter, maybe that should be changed to instead issue a 3-day block any time the filter is triggered as well as remove from any special groups like admin or bureaucrat. I think that might make it more effective at its job and also not cause it to be triggered so much. This proposal would need a steward's help to implement if it's approved since it involves adding restricted actions. But I do think this might be beneficial to the target of the filter.

Any thoughts on whether this is a good or bad idea? Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem if there are at least two non-steward users who can modify that filter. Oligarchy is not really a nice way to work, especially in wikis. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently, filters with restricted actions (i.e. block, rangeblock, and degroup; though the later two aren't enabled at all here) can only be edited by Stewards. — Arcversin (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I know. I'm waiting for this. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Name Change Request

Hi, can I please get my name changed to Bastrop? Thanks! Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Seiyena: Pings will only work if you add your signature in the same edit in which you add the ping. — Arcversin (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Now I realize I messed up the ping yet again lol. Trying this again. @MacFan4000: or @Dmehus: Thanks! Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 08:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Test Wiki:Bots

Proposal

It is proposed that Test Wiki:Bots be amended as described at the policy page. The bot flag must not be granted by non-test administrators on Test Wiki permanently. Requests for permanent/indefinite bot flags should be made at Test Wiki:Bot approval requests. Requests should articulate the described particulars, at minimum. Bureaucrats may grant themselves the bot temporarily, for no more than twenty-four (24) hours, provided they state a clear and valid reason in their log summary. Dmehus (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Rationale:

• Provides for consistent approval of indefinitely/permanently-granted bot flags;
• Ensures bureaucrats and administrators are transparently disclosing all edits and log actions; and,
• Provides overall clarity.

Support

•  Support I agree with it. Though I don't oppose it, #Counter-proposal seems bit complicated to me.
  • Still, I'm confused about 1 sentence. "The bot flag must not be granted by non-test administrators on Test Wiki permanently". "non-test administrators" means steward, correct? Must not steward grant permanent bot flag? I'm not good at English, so I may have mistranslated that(I'm terribly sorry if so), but could you recheck that sentence, please?--Q8j (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Modify. On second thought.--Q8j (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Per nom. I am one (as you are three) 12:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose –CrazyFisherman (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) isn't necessary at all

Counter-proposal

As an alternative to the above primary proposal, the primary proposal is adopted except the bot flag is restricted technically to being granted by stewards and a new pseudobot or flood group is created for temporary uses, which may be granted by bureaucrats along the same terms as the primary propose. Dmehus (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: It is possible for you to support both the primary and counter-proposals and for both to pass.

Support

•  Support creation of the flood user group and  Oppose restricting the bot group to steward-only. However, I also  Support disallowing bureaucrats from granting themself bot (or flood) indefinitely unless they promises to revoke it after a short while (less than 24 hours, after which another crat may revoke the flag(s)). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  By the way, presuming flood consists of only one rights, bot, an admin-flooder will be able to do everything a bot can, apart from preventing notification when marking an edit as minor (minornotalk). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Support As Public TestWiki. AlPaD (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

Neutral LisafBia (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral --想舞花 (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral — Regards, Kazrok4545 Talk 13:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral - Although complicated and long winded, I do prefer and agree with #Counter-proposal. Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 10:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose –CrazyFisherman (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) per abvoe

Stewardship request

Hello, I'm LisafBia. Most butlers have jobs on other wikis and can't help. I think I'm active on this wiki and I think I can help. Please choose me steward! LisafBia (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

• It would be great to have a more active steward here, and you seem to do a good job here. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 17:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• In Test Wiki:Request permissions/Archive10, you handled request requested by Seiyena twice.
  • #Seiyena_2, you granted her BC despite that I had put that on hold. My reason for putting it on hold is as Trayfel said. If you had checked her permissions log in advance, you could have noticed that it's prohibited by steward. And if you had asked me before, I would have answer the reason.
  • #Seiyena_8, you granted admin again despite steward's prohibition.
• Considering these facts, I have to conclude you used permission carelessly. Thus, I can't support this - not yet, at least. Sorry.
• Also, although I don't think you're obliged to do that, I expect steward to enable 2FA.--Q8j (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't hold those two incidents against them. I know that when I myself grant rights on the Miraheze test wiki, I never think to check the past log entries. It just never crosses my mind to do that. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 17:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I don't know what's going on.--想舞花 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)