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

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)

@Saint: 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:

1. Be amended to include a 3 month inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors,
2. Be amended to include a 1 year inactivity period for Non-steward suppressors; or
3. 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 Saint: 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

• 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)

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

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 above. Saint (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
•  strongest 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 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)