Test Wiki:Community portal
From Test Wiki
Latest comment: 17 June 2023 by Dmehus in topic Extension of stewardship flag
| 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 | |||
Rename request for Administrator
Stewards, Please rename me to X.
Thanks,
Administrator (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Done Apologies for the delay, been busy with other stuff. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 00:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! X (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! In this template the image is not displayed, I tried to fix it via Module:TNT but I don't understood what I need to change. Could you see it please? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- This has now been fixed. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Extension request
Please install ReplaceText. Username (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Drummingman for stewardship
Newest Block Appeal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- There is clear consensus from the community here, and, indeed, unanimity in many respects, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu), by their act of not socking, together with their behavioural improvements on other test wiki(s), has demonstrated enough improvement to at least extend another chance here by way of a conditional block. That being said, the community's patience is not endless, and so, per the terms of the conditional unblock described below, to ensure trusted bureaucrats, who are also administrators are able to warn, guard against, or discipline for serious recidivism from their usual infractions and general nonsense, Seiyena is subject, indefinitely, to a community-advised, Steward-imposed user restriction prohibiting them from engaging in racist or racially-insensitive nonsense commentary anywhere and to patent nonsense/gibberish edits outside of their own userspace, as well as limiting them to one (1) user account of their choosing on Test Wiki. What this means is Stewards can tweak or modify the terms and conditions of the restriction, but [rfc:2119 should] seek the community's input, ideally via Test Wiki:Community portal before a blanket removal of the restriction is undertaken. Should recidivism occur, those trusted bureaucrat-administrators, may employ progressive discipline, on behalf of Stewards, taking the form of a formal warning, temporary rights revocation (i.e.,
sysop), and short blocks ranging from three days to two weeks. Still, bureaucrat-administrators are encouraged to measure the severity of the infraction with the type of discipline and [rfc:2119 should] recommend changes to the specially-designed abuse filter designed to assist Seiyena in understanding the type of behaviour the community does not tolerate, rather proceeding immediately to a rights revocation or short block. Where more than three forms of progressive discipline have occurred, they may be reblocked, indefinitely, ideally by a Steward. That being said, I recognize Stewards are not always active, so if a Steward does not show up, a bureaucrat-administrator may reblock, temporarily, for as long as necessary until a Steward shows up to reblock. Regarding the progressive discipline, as described below, should one bureaucrat-administrator disagree with another bureaucrat-administrator's form of formal discipline, they may involve either a Steward or another uninvolved bureaucrat-administrator to assess whether the issuance of progressive discipline was fair and reasonable. Q8j, should you have additional comments or suggestions to add, please feel free to add them below this close, within this section. Dmehus (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is clear consensus from the community here, and, indeed, unanimity in many respects, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu), by their act of not socking, together with their behavioural improvements on other test wiki(s), has demonstrated enough improvement to at least extend another chance here by way of a conditional block. That being said, the community's patience is not endless, and so, per the terms of the conditional unblock described below, to ensure trusted bureaucrats, who are also administrators are able to warn, guard against, or discipline for serious recidivism from their usual infractions and general nonsense, Seiyena is subject, indefinitely, to a community-advised, Steward-imposed user restriction prohibiting them from engaging in racist or racially-insensitive nonsense commentary anywhere and to patent nonsense/gibberish edits outside of their own userspace, as well as limiting them to one (1) user account of their choosing on Test Wiki. What this means is Stewards can tweak or modify the terms and conditions of the restriction, but [rfc:2119 should] seek the community's input, ideally via Test Wiki:Community portal before a blanket removal of the restriction is undertaken. Should recidivism occur, those trusted bureaucrat-administrators, may employ progressive discipline, on behalf of Stewards, taking the form of a formal warning, temporary rights revocation (i.e.,
Hello, I would like to appeal my block here again, as more time has passed since my last appeal and in that time I have not evaded my Miraheze ban and I haven't been on IRC at all (not that I remember ever being inappropiate there but I just wanted to note that lately I haven't even been online there). In addition, I have been active on another test wiki called For-Test Wiki where I have been very careful to obey all the rules here. I would like to be unblocked here so I can show that I have changed, and I hope that by continued good behavior on various wikis, it will eventually help me in re-entering Miraheze. Thank you for your consideration. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 22:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@X: @Seiyena: - Seiyena cannot appeal until Mac and/or Dmehus decides she can. Any future appeal, as previously stated, shall be denied. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)- In a comment above, Sav, you mentioned that when the stewards or bureaucrats felt I was ready, I can appeal. I can't find anything that says only a steward can decide when I can appeal. Since a bureaucrat, X, thought I was ready, I think this appeal is valid, though I do understand that a steward does need to give permission before I can be unblocked. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 11:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to note that nowhere was it said that permission for an appeal to simply be posted was required by a Steward, TPA was recently regranted due to the minimal chance of disruption with it, and a genuine interest in improving and appealing. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- There’s no “clear” stewards decision that “Appealing requires stewards authorization”. MacFan4000’s TPA revocation was lifted by Dmehus, and latest TPA revocation was set by Drummingman, who is bureaucrat. Though I think X should have had discussion to whether to lift TPA block in Drummingman‘s talk or community portal, X’s decision wasn’t clear violation on rules here.
- Considering her behavior before blocking, her words means almost nothing to me. She did lie, break promises/policies, not just once. Regarding “For-test wiki”, if she has behaved good enough to believe she can do that here then I can consider, but as I don’t know what that is and I couldn’t find it, I can’t take it in consideration. Should anyone provide link, I’ll take a look.
- As such, I neither support nor oppose this appeal for now. But I strongly believe Dmehus shouldn’t decide this without community consensus(cf.w:WP:INVOLVED). If Dmehus do that and Seiyena causes trouble again, I may hold his accountable.—-Q8j (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. For your convenience, here is a link to For-Test Wiki. http://fortestwiki.myht.org/index.php/Main_Page Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 07:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not a steward, but as a bureaucrat and the one who allowed your TPA, I am declining this request. I am an active user on Miraheze where I have just seen Apex/Seiyena evade their ban twice. This shows they haven’t changed and are unable to be trusted here again. I am not revoking TPA quite yet in case the user has some response to the accusations that needs to be heard. If this talk page is abuse, I will revoke access to it immediately. Seyiena, I honestly thought you had changed, but your block evasion and abuse on Miraheze shows me you haven’t. X (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)- I can honestly say that I have not evaded my block on Miraheze for several months (last time in January). I really am trying to change my behavior on wikis. I don't know what you saw that makes you think I'm evading my Miraheze lock again but I promise that I'm not the one doing those things. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you explain this, this, and this? The edits are also similar to your past behavior. X (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- My only guess is that somone else made those accounts with my name for whatever reason. I'm not in the habit of using sexual terms in my names, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I wouldn't put my known name so boldly if I were trying to evade, as I would want to try to avoid detection. As for why those accounts are behaving similarly to me, again I honestly don't know. But I swear none of those are me. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am honestly not sure if I believe you or not. When For-Test Wiki is back online, would you consent to a check to see if you did or didn’t operate the Benium, Denium, and similar accounts to prove trust? X (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- My only guess is that somone else made those accounts with my name for whatever reason. I'm not in the habit of using sexual terms in my names, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I wouldn't put my known name so boldly if I were trying to evade, as I would want to try to avoid detection. As for why those accounts are behaving similarly to me, again I honestly don't know. But I swear none of those are me. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you explain this, this, and this? The edits are also similar to your past behavior. X (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can honestly say that I have not evaded my block on Miraheze for several months (last time in January). I really am trying to change my behavior on wikis. I don't know what you saw that makes you think I'm evading my Miraheze lock again but I promise that I'm not the one doing those things. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I consent to a checkuser on myself at For-Test Wiki. I hope it's back soon. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Evidence has show that the user hasn’t evaded their block, as such, I have struck my comment. X (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural comment: I have been in communication with Seiyena since March on IRC and encouraged them to articulate an appeal, via their user talk page, and be sure to specify conditions under which they may be reblocked and by whom should they violate their own conditions and, crucially, their time for minimum appeal. I apologize to Seiyena for my delay in following up here, but I will aim to review this community discussion together with their appeal on their user talk page this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- From Seiyena on their talk page: -First Instance: Removal of Permissions for 2 weeks (which may be enforced with a block from the Request Permissions page)
- -Second Instance: Block by any admin, bureaucrat or steward (either timed or indefinite, will leave to discretion, but preferably with talk page access on)
- I am also willing to accept any conditions that may be placed on my being unblocked. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 11:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Transferred by X (talk).
I have brought this to the community portal so that the community can discuss an unblock as our stewards are inactive. Please comment below your opinions on unblocking Seiyena. X (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support unblock. User has shown they can be trusted on for-test wiki. We could start out that any permissions above administrator require community approval. X (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. Seiyena has been given countless chances, even after Dmehus has given them a last chance. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand your point of view. X (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @X: May I ask if you have looked into the previous history of Seiyena? If you have, I would like to know why you are supporting their unblock request given their bad faith behaviour. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have definitely looked at their history. I wouldn't have started this without looking at their history. I am saying that the user has changed. There is no doubt that this user has misbehaved in the past, I am definitely not denying that. I am saying that the users behavior has changed. As a steward on For-Test Wiki, I can say that the user's behavior has significantly improved. They have edited constructively and never vandalized since we unblocked them. People can change, and I am inclined to assume good faith that this user has too. X (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @X: May I ask if you have looked into the previous history of Seiyena? If you have, I would like to know why you are supporting their unblock request given their bad faith behaviour. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand your point of view. X (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Accept appeal: People change, and based on their current behavior elsewhere, I am inclined to assume that a block/ban is not necessary to prevent further disruption. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seiyena is a difficult case, she has caused quite a bit of disruption cross-wiki, besides, she has already had many opportunities on this Test Wiki. I am taking a neutral stance on it. Should it be decided that she may be unblocked,
this does seem to me to be the very last chance. Anyway, I think one of the current stewards should make the decision, since Dmehus already gave her a chance. To which it can be said that he only opened the talk page for her. Then later I closed it for abuse. Drummingman (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, another note, specifically to @Dmehus: It's definitely fine to at least me to impose a CONDUNBLOCK, or to lift it independently of community discussion if Seiyena agrees to certain conditions. Process this block appeal as you want, being sure to still make time for other things. TL;DR: Support any way of handling this, if they are given a (perhaps last) chance at reintegration into the community, as the block does not appear to be preventing much, if any disruption based on behavior elsewhere. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Proposed terms of conditional unblock. It looks like most of the participants here are in favour of some form of a conditional unblock, so I think we can move forward with proposed terms. For starters, and to be abundantly clear, I've seen some user(s) mention a "final unblock," I am never in favour of a "final chance" unblock. Rather, what I am in favour of is strict terms under which the user may be unblocked and reblocked as necessary. Any reblock [rfc:2119 should not] be a final block, either, but rather, to ensure Stewards' and, where applicable, the community's time are not wasted, I believe it's important to specify the minimum timeframe before subsequent appeals are considered.
- Functionally, I propose the following, as a community-advised Steward conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction. Functionally, what does this mean versus a community block? In practice, there is not much difference, except that it's a Steward conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction, so they are free to manage terms, rather than have the community micro-manage minor aspects. They [rfc:2119 should] still seek the community's input before removal of the blanked user restriction and/or complete removal of the terms of the unblock conditions. It does provide for some flexibility in terms of removing said conditions, though.
- In any case, while there is consensus here to a conditional unblock, I would like to gain Sav's support here and also ensure that Q8j is supportive rather than officially neutral. Similarly, I would also like to have Drummingman agree with my points on why I am never in favour of so-called "last chances." I propose, noting what I've described above, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu) is conditionally unblocked by Stewards, to which Stewards will seek the community's input before a blanket removal of such conditions, provided that they:
- Refrain from using racist or racially-insensitive commentary in the wikitext of pages, templates, etc., broadly construed;
- Refrain from using gibberish or patent nonsense, also fairly broadly construed, outside of community sandboxes, fairly narrowly construed, or their own userspace (including subpages of their own userspace);
- Be limited to the
sysopuser group for at least two (2) to four (4) weeks following closing of this discussion, after which they may be givenbureaucratwhen two (2) or more Test Wiki bureaucrats in good standing agree to grant the group. Steward may also agree to grant the group, but for this purpose, as I will be closing this discussion, should that be me, I will gain concurrence from at lease one other bureaucrat; and, - Be limited to one (1) user account, indefinitely, on Test Wiki, being Seiyena.
- Noting their positive improvements thus far, but also being cognizant of their self-admitted neurodiversity and that recidivism may occur, I propose that:
- The specific abuse filter(s) that Chrs created be maintained, and Test Wiki bureaucrat-sysops are encouraged to request enhancements, as required, where such nonsense/gibberish filters through.
- Where such nonsense/gibberish does seep through, bureaucrat-sysops are encouraged to guide them, by giving them a friendly reminder on their user talk page, including noting the next-level consequence.
- Next-level consequences would include rights removal for a short period of between three (3) days and two weeks (14) days. Where
sysoprights are removed, they may still be granted appropriate rights belowsysop, if useful (i.e., ability to view deleted revisions to analyze their mistakes) - Short blocks, ideally consented to by two bureaucrat-sysops, a Steward, or a Steward and bureaucrat-sysop (if me) of the same duration as the rights removal are considered appropriate next-level consequences
- Once three next-level consequences, including the rights removal, are received, two bureaucrat-sysops may reblock for one-month until a Steward can indefinitely block them. If they are reblocked indefinitely by a Steward, that is not their "last chance," but rather, appeals will not be considered for at least three months.
- Important note: Where sockpuppetry is suspected, the suspected socks may be blocked indefinitely (but do use obvious evidence!) and a warning immediately issued to their user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Opportunity for others to comment and, hopefully, Sav, Q8j, and Drummingman will weigh in.
- I think consent by at least two bureaucrat-sysops is unnecessary for a temporary block to prevent disruption, rather, in the interest of this wiki not becoming a bureaucracy, I request you change consent for a temporary block to independent action. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Justarandomamerican, that's fair and might be a bit much. For context, the thinking here was that Test Wiki is a "training ground" for new administrators and bureaucrats. As such, and at the same time, some may have different standards or views with respect to what constitutes a short block. Perhaps we could modify that to say two-bureaucrat-sysops are needed for the final thirty (30) block prior to be being re-blocked indefinitely by a Steward and, where one bureaucrat-sysop disagrees with a temporary block, they may vacate the temporary block? If further disputes occur, it should fall to a Steward to review and determine whether the temporary block was appropriate? Basically, we need some way to handle disputes over whether to impose a short block. Dmehus (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree to that form of dispute resolution: for the final temporary block, the consent of 2 is required, given that your logic is reasonable. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I also don’t think an indefinite block should be limited to stewards. If our stewards resume their inactivity, it may take 3 months for an indefinite block to be placed. X (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's potentially a fair point, yes. In that case, I would think it would be reasonable a bureaucrat to extend the block for three months at a time until a Steward makes it official, as it were. Certainly that would be common sense and would not consider that something deserving of admonishment. That being said, it does seem likely we may have at least one more steward in the near future, which should help with that. Dmehus (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I also don’t think an indefinite block should be limited to stewards. If our stewards resume their inactivity, it may take 3 months for an indefinite block to be placed. X (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree to that form of dispute resolution: for the final temporary block, the consent of 2 is required, given that your logic is reasonable. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Justarandomamerican, that's fair and might be a bit much. For context, the thinking here was that Test Wiki is a "training ground" for new administrators and bureaucrats. As such, and at the same time, some may have different standards or views with respect to what constitutes a short block. Perhaps we could modify that to say two-bureaucrat-sysops are needed for the final thirty (30) block prior to be being re-blocked indefinitely by a Steward and, where one bureaucrat-sysop disagrees with a temporary block, they may vacate the temporary block? If further disputes occur, it should fall to a Steward to review and determine whether the temporary block was appropriate? Basically, we need some way to handle disputes over whether to impose a short block. Dmehus (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think consent by at least two bureaucrat-sysops is unnecessary for a temporary block to prevent disruption, rather, in the interest of this wiki not becoming a bureaucracy, I request you change consent for a temporary block to independent action. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seiyena's agreement (signature and timestamp); a bureaucrat-sysop can please copy over from their user talk page, linking to the diff there in the wikitext of this page and an edit summary:
- I have read the conditions of the proposed unblock and agree to them. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC), copied per this diff by X (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Dear, Dmehus I agree with you, and am now also against a last chance and have therefore crossed out my comment above. I find the proposals reasonable and agree with them. Drummingman (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am for the above proposals and agree with them, therefore I have crossed out my prior voteSav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sav and Drummingman, thank you for your comments. That was my aim, to have unanimity if possible. I am not in favour of giving Seiyena too much rope, and think rolling three-strikes and indefinite user restriction strike that balance to extend good-faith the user has changed, or continues to change, with not wasting the community's time. For what it is worth, I have confirmed that there has been no abuse, technically speaking, by Seiyena, for the data retention period of Test Wiki. So, that does show baby steps of improvement, I think. Thank you, Seiyena, for your patience, for not abusing multiple accounts, and for your confirmation here. I will just wait for Q8j's comments before closing this. Dmehus (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am for the above proposals and agree with them, therefore I have crossed out my prior voteSav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Dear, Dmehus I agree with you, and am now also against a last chance and have therefore crossed out my comment above. I find the proposals reasonable and agree with them. Drummingman (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have read the conditions of the proposed unblock and agree to them. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC), copied per this diff by X (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Waiting for Q8j’s comments may be unwise. Commenting on this proposal was the first edit they had in 2 months. I think there is enough community agreement to unblock without Q8j’s comments. I am also willing to personally help Seiyena re-integrate here, as I am on FTW and, hopefully, soon Miraheze. X (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Support unblock. My apologies for late reply. I wanted to make some detailed comments but I can’t make enough time for that.—-Q8j (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Q8j, thank you for your comments. Given your historical activity here, it was important for me to have you at least conditionally in support. There is no urgency in closing this discussion, so we can wait a bit longer to effect this, if you'd like to add any some additional comments that will help to inform the conditions. Dmehus (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
X's request for stewardship
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Withdrawn. Drumming man was made a steward, so I don’t think there is a sufficient need for me to become one. Thanks y’all for your participation. X (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello All, I am X, an active administrator and bureaucrat on testwiki.wiki. I have been here for a little over 2 months and I believe I can help perform steward actions when they are requested. I think our community needs multiple active stewards at all times and currently we have 0. If the above request for stewardship is successful, then we would have 1. I believe we need a steward team, which is more than 1. I believe I can assist there because when I requested a rename it took over a month because our current stewards are busy on other projects. I have performed all rights requests since my account was created. I have also performed all inactivity removals. Each of these I have performed appropriately. With steward tools, particularly suppression and checkuser, I understand how they work and can use them well. I will use oversight to hide personal information and extreme threats. With checkuser, I will investigate the IPs of accounts and LTA. I have access to both of these tools on another testwiki, For-Test Wiki (same username). I believe there is a need and, because I am qualified, I thought it correct to apply. Feel free to ask me questions below. X (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Questions:
Discussion:
Votes:
Oppose There is no need for you to have Steward. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sav, this is a valid !vote, but could you clarify a bit why you feel this way? Similar to my question to Drummingman, is it based on fundamental need (or lack thereof) for additional stewards, or do you have concerns with regard to the candidate's experience, qualifications, activity level, or commitment level? I've known you for awhile now and I might assume what you are inferring, but I'm also not a mindreader and that's generally not a good practice. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Dmehus:, I am opposing due to the past request for Stewardships mainly only wanting to hold such perm to "Rename users", "checkusers" and so forth, which this one seems to be for the same reason. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am fine with you opposing, but can you please explain why you don't think there is no need for me to have steward. X (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sav, this is a valid !vote, but could you clarify a bit why you feel this way? Similar to my question to Drummingman, is it based on fundamental need (or lack thereof) for additional stewards, or do you have concerns with regard to the candidate's experience, qualifications, activity level, or commitment level? I've known you for awhile now and I might assume what you are inferring, but I'm also not a mindreader and that's generally not a good practice. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Sav does not make a convincing argument: By what standard does X not need the Steward tools? There are 2 current stewards, both of which are not reasonably active enough to handle community problems. There is no reason not to trust X: They are competent, helpful, and all around trustworthy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Lolkikmoddi also does not make a convincing argument, as X is clearly trustworthy, and the time they've been here does not reduce that, especially because they've been here for 3 months. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Neutral -- X is a steward at another wiki and therefore trustworthy. But prefer to vote neutral. Drummingman (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Drummingman, you have identified that you feel the user is trustworthy, presumably, at least in part, based on the user holding a presumably comparable position on any wiki, but could you articulate why you are neutral? Is it based on fundamental necessity for additional stewards, or not, do you have some reservations (neutral or otherwise)? Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is that I also see edits on this wiki that I don't expect from a steward. "Copied from talk page". Re-instated but changed to 15 day grace period to line up with June 3rd. X (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Reducing an admin period from indefinite to 2 weeks when the 3 months are not yet up, is neither friendly nor polite in my opinion. I had changed my vote from support to neutral when I saw that. But I don't think it's enough to oppose it because there are too few stewards, I kindly ask X to be more careful in the future. Maybe at a later time I will possibly be willing to support it. But for now, neutral. Drummingman (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is wrong with setting grace periods? Their rights will be removed on June 3rd and now I have notified them that their rights have changed. When someone changes your rights, for me at least, I get an email. So by setting a grace period, I am effectively notifying them before their rights will be removed. This has brought multiple users back to activity on multiple Test-wikis. I don’t see a problem with it. X (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- A well-meaning tip from me is that you can give the user a warning that their admin/crat right will soon be revoked due to inactivity. And you do that too, which I find commendable. But reducing rights in advance is unnecessary in my opinion. And I don't read that in the policy. Anyway, In any case, I really believe you are of good will and am inclined to support, but find it hard to make a decision on that now. Drummingman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is wrong with setting grace periods? Their rights will be removed on June 3rd and now I have notified them that their rights have changed. When someone changes your rights, for me at least, I get an email. So by setting a grace period, I am effectively notifying them before their rights will be removed. This has brought multiple users back to activity on multiple Test-wikis. I don’t see a problem with it. X (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is that I also see edits on this wiki that I don't expect from a steward. "Copied from talk page". Re-instated but changed to 15 day grace period to line up with June 3rd. X (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Reducing an admin period from indefinite to 2 weeks when the 3 months are not yet up, is neither friendly nor polite in my opinion. I had changed my vote from support to neutral when I saw that. But I don't think it's enough to oppose it because there are too few stewards, I kindly ask X to be more careful in the future. Maybe at a later time I will possibly be willing to support it. But for now, neutral. Drummingman (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Drummingman, you have identified that you feel the user is trustworthy, presumably, at least in part, based on the user holding a presumably comparable position on any wiki, but could you articulate why you are neutral? Is it based on fundamental necessity for additional stewards, or not, do you have some reservations (neutral or otherwise)? Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose you just passed 3 months, please wait a little more then just one day then asking for stewardship which is very hard to get, maybe a few more weeks then i'll consider supporting Lolkikmoddi (talk)
- If I am aware, there isn't a time limit since account creation to become a steward. X (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural Support as requestor. X (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Potential Rename for Me
Hi, I would like to change my name here to Piccadilly, as I hope to change my Miraheze name to that in the future. Dmehus is willing to do it if two or three people are in support of the change. If you have any arguments to either support or oppose my potential name change, feel free to post them at https://testwiki.wiki/wiki/User_talk:Seiyena#Rename_Request. Thanks! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 00:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I Oppose a rename here. We have specific restrictions on your ability to edit and request rights, so renaming would cause a lot of confusion. X (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
"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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I also agree with you. AlPaD (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- 24hrs is fine with me. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 21:00, 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)
- 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 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)
- I am inclined to agree with you: Further wheel warring should be sanctioned. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:37, 28 May 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)
- Preferably, it open proxies [rfc:2119 should] be soft-blocked, so no existing users are affected. :) Dmehus (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Extension of stewardship flag
Dear, community, talking to the other 2 stewards, I wondered if the steward group could get permission to permanently bundle the user flags suppression and checkuser into the stewards flag? Then we could also see and check each other's actions faster, which is also a core policy on Wikimedia for those flags, 2. In short, this means that checkusser and suppression would thus be linked by default to the steward group. Which is partly already so, but now we have to temporarily assign the right to ourselves each time. Which I actually don't find very convenient, which is why I'm asking the community if you are comfortable with that? I would like to hear your opinions? Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. Although, this does lose the community some knowledge of when checks are performed. If this change is made, stewards must frequently review the checkuser logs for accountability. If the stewards promise to do so, I support. X (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course: that is also one of the reasons why I request this extension of the flag. Drummingman (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. CU and OS are a group of very sensitive rights, which means that high transparency is required. It is perfectly fine to briefly assign either of the rights with a small specific reason for assigning, so that the community can see what the tools are used for. This change erases this transparency, which is not good. — Summer talk 12:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support otherwise stewards can't see what the other stewards are doing when they self assign suppression/checkuser to themselves, which is a bit dodgy. Also, someone could make up a reason and nobody would really notice. Zippybonzo (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Partially Support I think it would be better to add the permissions to the "stewards" group but I think the CU and OS groups should not be removed, because I believe it will be possible to promote users in CU and OS after vote like fortestwiki.myht.org. AlPaD (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Oppose as written While I can appreciate it might be a bit cumbersome to add a
checkuseroroversighthat, I also appreciate the value in the public transparency this provides. As well, X makes a supportive case for addingcheckuser-logto the Steward group, which I could likely support, but I do think there is value in retaining the CU and OS groups as AlPaD describes above. For now, I would recommend no action at this point, on this proposal, but we could consider a subsequent proposal in the near- to medium-term future (i.e., 30-90 days after closing) to add thecheckuser-loguser right to thestewardgroup. Dmehus (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Account rename
@MacFan4000:, could you rename my account to "Summer"? Thanks! Summer talk 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
