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

"Grace Period"

Greetings,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to draw your attention to an ongoing discussion on the User talk:Euphoria page regarding the Inactivity Policy. The conversation involves myself, @X:, @Justarandomamerican:, and @AlPaD:.

It appears that both "X" and "Justarandomamerican" hold the view that a "grace period" exists within the Test Wiki's process for removing permissions. However, it is important to note that no such provision is mentioned in the policy itself.

I have noticed numerous instances where "X" has repeatedly removed rights without following the established procedure, prompting my intervention to revert those actions.

I kindly request the community to provide their opinions on this matter, as I firmly believe that our actions should align with the guidelines outlined in the policy, rather than making assumptions based on its omissions.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Best regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I  Support the ability for bureaucrats to use grace periods to remove rights for a number of reasons.

1. It notifies the user of their inactivity through email and allows them to regain their rights sooner, almost like a reminder if they forgot about the wiki.
2. It allows inactive users to quickly regain their rights if they come back. Bureaucrat can just assign them back permanently and admins can just request it be made indefinite.
3. If they don’t return to activity, it is a convenient way to remove rights, and the outcome is the same. The rights are removed on the same day.

X (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I  Support grace periods as a common sense measure, I do not understand what causes the absolute letter of policy, rather than the spirit, to be followed. The inactivity policy provides for removal of rights from inactive users. That is it. It does not explicitly disallow grace periods. Disallowing administration in the absence of policy by wheel warring is, more or less, making this wiki appear to be a bureaucracy when it is not. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You both need to follow the policy, same as anyone else. Nobody has has decided that a "grace period" is necessary, so why should you? Even so, before making decisions like that, a vote should be made here, on the community portal. I'll be expecting a response from @Dmehus: to confirm my reports. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain to me how we are violating policy. You have said that we are, so explain it. What policy am I violating by setting grace periods? The policy states that a users rights will be removed after 3 months of no edits/logged actions, and that is what I am doing. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican:, Expanding on your assertion regarding the absence of an explicit prohibition of grace periods, it is worth noting that there is also no explicit endorsement. Consequently, one must question the justification for unilaterally modifying the policy at will. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Does policy state that I can login? Does policy state that I can edit? Does policy state that I can breathe? No, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do it. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this wiki is not a bureaucracy where rules providing for something must be made, and rules providing for something disallow all other handling of a situation, so administration in the absence of policy is allowed. We are not modifying rules, merely maintaining this wiki in the absence of them. The spirit of the Inactivity Policy does not disallow grace periods, in consequence. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are modifying the rules by doing whatever you see fit. Clearly, we are at a crossroads and so, I'll leave this to Dmehus and/or @Drummingman: to decide. 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) – Preceding unsigned comment added by Sav (talk • contribs)

What rules are being modified? Policy states to remove rights after 3 months of not actions or edits. We have not altered this in anyway. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not in favor of an "already lengthwise truncated user rights" where admin/crat rights are already truncated. I find that impolite and not inviting to test here. But giving a warning on the users' own talk page about 2 weeks in advance, "beware you are approaching the activity criteria", is sufficient as far as I am concerned. But what I find worse is wheel warfare with each other. I urge the users involved not to overrule each other and look for consensus. If you still can't come to a consensus, ask the stewards to get involved, and then do nothing until the steward has made a decision. Keep your head cool and let's keep it nice with each other. Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Drummingman:. To put simply, that means no grace period, correct? We are okay to issue a friendly warning stating "You are approaching the activity criteria" yes? Regards. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 19:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is a community discussion, and a Steward's decision is not final, as this wiki's decision making mechanism is not autocracy. We should continue to discuss this matter. I disagree as to it being unfriendly: How is it unfriendly when they are immediately notified by email and have a chance to request the rights be made permanent? Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Stewards don’t hold seniority in discussions. This is a community discussion. I also agree with Justa that it isn’t unfriendly. X (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless if you don't like the decision, Drummingman has given the answer and until Mac or Dmehus gives their input, we should follow what Drummingman stated. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 19:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Elected Stewards have no say in community discussion besides what all other members of the community have, and their decisions are merely temporary dispute resolution. We shall continue to discuss this. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to add here is that this is my own opinion, not a direct "steward decision" but a user who is also a steward. I have not talked to the other stewards about this yet. Moreover, I also think it is important to hear your opinions on this. So, this is not a final decision yet. Drummingman (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my assumption that you were acting under the color of your authority to resolve disputes. That was a wrong assumption. Thank you again, Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. @X:. I really hope you stay active. Your work has been good so far. Don't let this discourage you. Drummingman (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I won’t. I just really hate conflict. I think that grace periods should just be optional. You can do them if you want, but you don’t have to use them either. This is a good compromise. X (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@X: That sounds good. I don't like conflict, either :-). What is most important to me is to respect each other's authority and not start a wheel war over this. I look forward to your opinions, feel free to add anything? Drummingman (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This isn’t really that important, and to wheel war about it was admittedly futile. I don’t think I have much more to add besides grace periods are an optional part of bureaucrat revoking rights. You can close this, if you wish. X (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose I believe that inactive users should be notified 1-2 weeks before their rights are removed but their rights should not be temporary, they should be removed completely after 3 months. AlPaD (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: I support Drummingman‘s opinion. Anyone can(≠must) give inactive user warning like ‘Your rights will be removed in 2 weeks unless’…, and it’s more kind.
• Regarding ‘Grace period’, I’m not inclined to support this. because
  • If you set an inactive user's rights to expire and then they or requested crats revert them, they'll end up with two user rights logs. I don't like unnecessarily increasing logs and complicating records, except in cases where it can't be helped, such as adding a test group or adding a Bot flag instead of a Flood flag. As per Drummingman's opinion, if you give advance notice and the user edits in the meantime, there is no need to remove the rights, so there is no need for logs.
  • If it is chosen to set the expiration date of the rights instead of the permission removal notice on the talk page, the user must extend the rights himself or ask bureaucrats to do so. Whether or not it is a big deal depends on the person, but the only thing that is required in order not to be removed by Inactive Policy is 'edits or logged actions'. If you use the method of setting a expiry on the rights, for example, a user who only edits one week after the expiry is set will have the rights removed one week later. Is this in line with the spirit of the 'Inactive Policy'? (It is a different story if the user who set the expiry is responsible for confirming that it will not happen.)--Q8j (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• I am honestly fine with having a grace period - it seems perfectly reasonable. That being said I do see that there is "edit warring" (with user rights) related to this. This needs to stop. Things should have been discussed further here instead of continuing to edit war. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am inclined to agree with you: Further wheel warring should be sanctioned. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am happy to compromise and agree that an inactive user warning could be issued, but not a "grace period" as Justarandomamerican suggested; it just complicates the matter as Q8j stated. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Expanding upon my previous statement, I would support the inclusion of a grace period. However, I suggest implementing a courtesy warning prior to initiating the grace period. This would allow users to be notified in advance. If no edits are made within 48 hours following the warning, the grace period may be implemented. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be fine with that, but I think 24hrs would be more appropriate. X (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  24hrs is fine with me. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree with you. AlPaD (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I also now agree to allow a non-mandatory grace period. And also to wait at least 24 hours before it takes effect. Drummingman (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

CU Request

Hello, may a steward, perhaps Drummingman, check and see if my recent range block on 38.153.169.128/25 would affect legitimate users? Thank you! Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What I can see is that the IP-range is an open proxy/VPN. That falls under no open proxy policy, so can just be blocked. Drummingman (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Preferably, it open proxies [rfc:2119 should] be soft-blocked, so no existing users are affected. :) Dmehus (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I would soft-block if this were a open proxy with no history of abuse, but given that the range is used for spam, I hard-blocked it. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Account rename

@MacFan4000:, could you rename my account to "Summer"? Thanks! Summer ^talk 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Merging CheckUser and oversight to steward

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

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

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

 Support - That seems like a good and better proposal, which is why I withdrew my proposal. Drummingman (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support AlPaD (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support as proposer. X (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose viewsuppressed as it poses a confidentiality risk,  Support the rest. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate what you mean by “confidentiality risk”? @Drummingman requested I add “view suppressed” to list via Discord, so you may want to discuss with him. X (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I want to include view suppressed is that the logs already show a (partially) suppressed version, but to check each other properly you need view suppressed, and otherwise you have to add suppression yourself. The rest has to do with trusting the stewards to keep suppressed versions secret, which hopefully is already the case. Drummingman (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support: per proposer. Whether non-stewards should be granted CU or SU is a question I will pose in another proposal if this one succeeds. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requests for stewardship X

Nomination

Dear, community, I would hereby like to nominate user X as Steward.

It has now been a little over a month since X applied for Steward. Meanwhile, I see that X has developed positively and is very active. I think X could help the steward team with Test Wiki maintenance, so that an active steward is available more often to help this wiki. For example, to close community discussions that are still open. I hope you will join me in supporting X. Drummingman (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User X, please indicate here whether you accept the nomination?

Yes, I accept the nomination and sincerely thank Drummingman for his kind words. If a steward thinks I can assist the steward team, then I am up for it. :) X (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

•  Support as candidate. I'm very active here and want to help out the current steward team. Ive performed most of the permissions requests since I joined the wiki, and Drumminman thinks I can help as a steward. X (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Struck as you cannot !vote for yourself. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unstruck. A steward will decide that when closing. There is no policy saying you cannot. X (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but it's obvious, your support is automatically counted, it's common sense that you shouldn't vote for yourself, I'm going to strike it again as it's good practise to not vote for yourself. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As it is not forbidden by policy, you should go to the talk page for consensus instead of redoing your edit. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And in addition, it appears that in the past users have voted for themselves, most recently @Drummingman in his successful RFS. X (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleting pages randomly isn't forbidden, but frowned upon, you started the edit war by reinstating a reversed edit. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We both know that unstriking votes and randomly deleting pages are 2 very different things. X (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, my point is it doesn't say explicitly it's forbidden, but you get disciplined for it. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Why not? I also think X can be trusted with the rights and responsibilities of a Steward. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support - As the nominator. Drummingman (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Has done a good job on For-Test and is trustworthy Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user, thank you for your help! AlPaD (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Heavy  Support. Trusted user, incredibly helpful and can be trusted with the rights. Good luck!Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support why not? Zippybonzo (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Moved to oppose. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose I don't think we need a new steward. LisafBia (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @LisafBia! Thanks for commenting on my stewardship request. I completely agree with the point you make. We don’t really NEED a new steward currently, but in my opinion, it would be very helpful. And considering that one of the stewards, @Drummingman, agrees with the need for another steward, it’s probably best to elect one. I’m not attempting to sway your opinion, just provide you with another point of view you might not have considered. Thanks for reading my long comment, sometimes I don’t know how to be less verbose. :) X (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

* Oppose per LisafBia, and on other wikis, they have inadvertently leaked IP addresses when blocking users and the underlying IPs. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. I didn’t “inadvertently leak” IPs. I blocked the IPs of blocked users after a steward discussion. @Justarandomamerican: can tell you that he agreed with the actions, I was just the one who performed them. And with our updated privacy policy to exempt socks, the actions are policy supported too. In addition, our community just reviewed the actions and thought they were appropriate. You were the only one who disagreed. I can definitely see how it would come off that way, but this was a carefully discussed action that the stewards thought needed to be taken. X (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but IPs were still released, whether it was permitted or not is a different question, and I'm leaving my vote as is, and we don't need a new steward in any case. Zippybonzo (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The argument that IPs that were released on another wiki after discussion to block them in order to prevent disruption doesn't seem to be taking the circumstances here into consideration. This is a wiki that permits Stewards to go beyond just releasing IPs to block them. It's fine if you oppose based on need, that's okay. But using the argument explained above as a secondary argument still doesn't make it a good argument. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Example

Greetings, @Drummingman: @Dmehus:.

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

I don’t think any action is needed at this time, considering the account hasn’t edited since March. If the account were to start vandalizing again, a CheckUser may want to take a look, but now I’m not sure it’s needed. However, it’s ultimately up to the stewards. X (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with X. CU also no longer makes sense because the logs are only kept for 90 days. However, I did block the account indefinitely as a Steward action because it is indeed a site risk. Drummingman (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Block numberous proxies

Status:  Done

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

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