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

Oversight role?

@MacFan4000 and Void: Do you think it'd be possible to get an oversight role? Seemplez (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Seemplez: I'm just gonna bump in here, but there's no need for it right now. From what I've seen, everything is fine, and the CheckUser right isn't really needed either, the only use for the Steward permission is that it can revoke bureaucrat permissions from a user. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we already have both kinds of oversight on this wiki, from google I saw https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/oversight which is revision deletion you should already be able to do the admin kind of revision deletion, there is also the suppress kind, which was done to a few entries a long time ago by MacFan4000, but for that you need to be in the suppress user group and only the stewards can assign that. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If a steward thinks you should have it, and assigns it to you, or you become a steward, then yes. Otherwise, no. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast, Justarandomamerican, and BlackWidowMovie0: Thanks. Seemplez (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CptViraj

Please delete my userpage, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

---

•  Done --Q8j (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spam abuse filters

I'd like to propose that we enable automatic blocking on our anti-spam abuse filters, as they have a rare false positive rate (and we can just unblock if there is a false positive). Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Support I Do think we could use filter for that. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I had considered proposing this for a while but had never got around to it. Blocking is a restricted action though, so this will need to be closed by a stewards. Naleksuh (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

We also need it because there is no way in hell I am doing this again. Naleksuh (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Geez, I normally mop up the mess the spambots make, and never have I had to give myself the bot flag, nor flood the log like that. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and prompt autoblocks will also prevent the spambots from creating new accounts on the same IP for 24 hours reducing the hit rate and making it easier to find any false positives. We can always tweak the filters that result in immediate blocks if problems occur. It may be advisable to limit blocks only to registered accounts for now since they are so far responsible for nearly all edits that trip the filter. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we had another Hell load of Bot accounts today and don't worry Nalekshu I can always do mass blocking if you need me to or want me to do it just Message me and I'll do it 🙂 --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Help, abuse filter blocked me

Hi, this is administrator User:PorkchopGMX editing under a VPN, a different browser, and a new account. I was editing one of my subpages, planning to delete it and use my test account to see what it would look like with the “researcher” user group, when the abuse filter thought I was spamming and blocked me indefinitely with autoblock. The only thing I can do right now (besides having to use a VPN) is to email somebody. I don’t know who I should email, so I’m doing this instead. If anybody is skeptical that this is really me, I do have access to my account and can email somebody if they need proof. PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello i already unblocked your main account please Do not use a Vpn i will GO ahead and Unblock your ip aswell so you can edit --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cocopuff2018, I’m unblocked now. PorkchopGMX (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"High chance of spam" filters and false positives

The spam filters have recently falsely blocked two users (User:PorkchopGMX and User:Dmehus) as spammers that were not. As a temporary solution User:MacFan4000 has set them to just disallow again, but they clearly need to block provided we can remove false positives.

I suggest requiring 0 edits for block. Generally spambots trip this filter on their first edit, so anyone who has made any successful edits is likely not a spambot. Any other ideas? Naleksuh (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The filter should also require the creation of a new page. It already does for one of the filters, but it should for the other too. Naleksuh (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, perhaps. Wouldn't requiring 0 edits to block increase the false positive blocks? Administrators are active here, and can revert spam quickly. I'd suggest just setting it to either warn or disallow permanently, with anyone with autopatrol in their user_rights exempted from the filter. Dmehus (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most administrators have more than 1 edit. I support requiring 0 edits. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dmehus: How would narrowing when blocks are placed increase false positives? Naleksuh (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, in my case, I only had one edit, and maybe I'm not understanding the central idea idea, but wouldn't reducing the edit requirement mean I would've been blocked when I made my permission request? Note that I never tried to add an external link—it was just an interwiki link. Dmehus (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because your permissions request didn’t contain anything that would trip the filter. Also, I just tested that change, and it doesn’t work because most spambots are seeming to first make a change to their SocialProfile, which I guess counts as an edit. Or at least & user_editcount == 0 nothing trips the filter when I test it. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay, well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to try it then, since you've tested the filter against recent edits. Plus, yeah, spam only accounts do tend add spammy links into their social profiles. Having said that, on some wikis on Miraheze what we do is simply add the SocialProfile-related rights to autoconfirmed, and that stops the spam only accounts cold, with minimal impacts on legitimate users. Also, if the above community proposal passes, this may end up being moot. Dmehus (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If the above community proposal fails, I support moving updateprofile into autoconfirmed. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Justarandomamerican request for stewardship (2)

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

Unsuccessful MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Statement by requestor: I'd like to request the globe again. I've been active and taking out the trash, and now my account is not newly registered. CU and Oversight rights would be helpful in performing maintenance and counter-vandalism and spam. (which I regularly do) It's been approximately a month since my last request, and I feel I have addressed the opposing argument. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support

Procedural support as requestor and per my requesting argument. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Wasn't planning to comment but then I noticed canvassing at User_talk:LukeSkywalker26. Naleksuh (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: It was a friendly message, not intending to influence discussion in a way. I really shouldn't have to clarify that. I was not intending to canvass, influencing discussion, but rather help to fully achieve consensus. (Notice all the neutrals.) Please remember to assume good faith. W:WP:CANVASS Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Telling someone to assume good faith as a method of deflecting valid criticism is not something someone with steward rights should be doing. I'll also add that it might not be canvassing per se, but it certainly is not something I would do. Clearly it could affect the outcome of this. In addition, this wiki does not appear to need more stewards. --IWI (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

• I'm not familiar with this wiki's policy requirements on access to personally identifying information. If suppressor can be granted independent of checkuser, this is something I could potentially support. My interactions with you, assuming you're the same Justarandomliberal on Miraheze, have been fine, though I don't know you well enough to support for Steward on this wiki. At the same time, MacFan4000 and Void are active enough on this wiki to perform any CheckUser functions, I think. Dmehus (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment:The requirements for PII here are just pretty much pass a RfS and follow the privacy policy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dmehus: Personally I think Oversight is a more larger deal than CheckUser. Naleksuh (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Naleksuh: Potentially, yes, that's true, though I'm not sure what information may have been suppressed. If it is IP addresses, largely, of users who edited while logged out, then it's probably the same. If it's grossly insulting and potentially libelous or defamatory information requiring suppression, then the concern for me is whether the user will be trusted not to divulge that information. The same is true of CheckUser, certainly, though. It's probably a wash, really, with you believing Oversight is the greater concern and me believing CheckUser is the greater concern. Dmehus (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm sorry but I agree with Dmehus I feel we don't need more Stewards Sorry --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Only one steward is active in a community capacity (MacFan). The other is mostly active as a system administrator, semi-active in a community capacity. (which is completely fine) We need one more active steward in a community capacity, certainly. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Abstain While all my interactions so far with Justarandomamerican have been positive, I don't feel I know them (as well as their contributions here) well enough yet in order to be able to vote yes/no on this matter. Reception123 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Proposal: No open proxies policy

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

Involved closure, but consensus is unanimous here. Nobody had an opposing or neutral argument. Cheers, Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Community proposal: To establish as official policy, subject to amendment at Test Wiki:Community portal, No open proxies policy. Such policy shall prohibit open proxies, somewhat broadly construed, VPNs, and web hosts from being used for anonymous editing or account creation. On discovery, a Steward shall soft block with account creation disabled and talk page access revoked said IP range(s) for a period of not less than three (3) and not more than twenty four (24) months. Logged in editors may use them, as is the case on Miraheze, as at least the user will have been likely required to identify their personal IP to create an account. Where, upon discovery, an account was created by a VPN/open proxy, Steward discretion applies as to whether to block, or require a confirmation edit from a Wikimedia or Miraheze wiki. Steward discretion in terms of the length of the block/rangeblock applies, within the defined parameters, but the community recomments at least six (6) months for obvious cases. Where open proxies/VPNs are being used on this wiki by anonymous users, the open proxies/VPNs may be blocked by any sysop, subject to the same discretion as outlined above.

Support

• Strong support as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Open proxies have probably been used for long term abuse since this wiki began. This would help stop that. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support While I'm very new here, I've heard this wiki has had some unfortunate instances of trolling and vandalism. In my experience, allowing account creations from open proxies/VPNs as well as anonymous editing for them usually causes trouble. There has been a NOPP in place at Miraheze since the beginning of 2017 and having a clear policy on the matter could be helpful and allow for routine soft blocks of VPNs and open proxies. While of course a policy likely won't stop trolls, it would make it easier to immediately soft block VPNs and open proxies once they are discovered. Reception123 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "soft block with account creation disabled " Soft block inherently means having this enabled, what did you mean here? Naleksuh (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Naleksuh Yeah, I know that, but I just added that "with account creation disabled" for users who may not know that that's inherent with a soft IP block. Dmehus (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Soft blocking all open proxies upon discovery is a bit much for only stewards to do. There are only 2 stewards around here, unless the RfS above passes (might have a No Consensus closure with all those neutrals). Maybe change it to stewards or bureaucrats? Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, sure, that's no problem, but to be clear, I just mean if they discovered open proxies in the course of a CheckUser from an abuse investigation, but if anonymous IPs are being used publicly on this wiki, any sysop could block. Dmehus (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Proposal: Bureaucrat rights only for trusted users

Proposal: Bureaucrat rights are not given to every user 24 h after admin rights request, rather trusted users. With 'crat rights there are not really any extra testing possibilities but currently it isn't possible to protect pages so that only experienced/trusted users ('crats), who aren't stewards can edit them because everybody can get bureaucrat within 24-48 hours. Since checkuser-limited is also available to sysops, nearly all test features are also possible for admins. Also currently there is only one (1) I only counted stewards, not interface admins user who is active (made edits/log enries in the last 30 days) who has a right that is not given out to everybody.

Support

•  Support. Zhuofan Wu^{Cien años de soledad} 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Morneo06 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Comment: I agree with the proposer, the only extra testing possibilities are deletelogentry, nuke and import. If User:Blueexes would have been waiting 24 hours to get bureaucrat right and removed rights from every bureaucrat than waiting for a steward would have been necessary. --Morneo06 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC); Recent block regarding me by Ronjapatch is also a perfect example why I support this proposal. --Morneo06 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well, in that scenario, they wouldn't have been able to remove the bureaucrat bit from other bureaucrats, so worse case is there might've been some wheel-warring among bureaucrats and administrators (though hopefully not). Additionally, a steward is usually only a ping or two away. Even if MacFan4000 is away and Void isn't in the #testadminwiki channel on IRC, you need only ping me on IRC, and I can ping Void on Discord to take care of it. As I say, perhaps the requirements could be raised a bit, but this proposal isn't it. Best to close it and send it back to the drawing board and propose something else. Dmehus (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Support. --Anton (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Support. –Olipino (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose as the edit requirement is too high. Arbitrary edit count limits may actually encourage artificial or test edits in a sandbox. I'd be supportive of extending the timeframe from 24 hours to, say, 4 days, and require the user to have autoconfirmed privileges, but as written, though a good-faith proposal, I can't support this. Dmehus (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a test wiki. I am in favor of increasing the requirements but what is proposed is excessive. LOCO 🔥 00:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC); (something like 3 days and 50 edits will be good) LOCO 🔥 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not 50 edits, that's far too high. I'd support increasing the number of days to 4 days, but keep the edit requirements to 10-20. Dmehus (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose –Olipino (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am favourable of increasing said requirements, but as @LocoSalas said, this is excessive. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 06:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked user LOCO 🔥 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• How to identify "trusted user"? By edits or others?Zhuofan Wu^{Cien años de soledad} 04:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal:

• Users need to have sysop rights for at least fourteen (14) days
• Users need at least XX _{Suggestions are welcome} edits
  • a significant number of the edits need to be constructive, not only testing edits
• Users need to show, that they are familiar with the Test Wiki policies and that they have made edits/log entries recently that show that the users is working constructively.

Seems well. How about 7 days+50 edits like zhwp`s autoconfirmed user? Besides, remember to sign using ~~~~. Zhuofan Wu^{Cien años de soledad} 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good time period and edit count. --Morneo06 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Let`s start voting: Add following content to Test_Wiki:Bureaucrats.

Standard

• Users need to have sysop rights for at least 7 days
• Users need at least 50 edits

  a significant number of the edits need to be constructive, not only testing edits.

• Users need to show, that they are familiar with the Test Wiki policies and that they have made edits/log entries recently that show that the users is working constructively.

Zhuofan Wu^{Cien años de soledad} 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morneo06: and @ZhuofanWu:, so you are saying 'crat flag should be granted only to those users who have been here for a while and have made a dozens of helpful contributions? Why is it necessary?–Olipino (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Olipino:Since BCs can grant him/herself Bot right, which can hide vandal edits or logs from recent changes unless you choose not to hide bot edits in the page. In a word, to prevent vandalism. Zhuofan Wu^{Cien años de soledad} 12:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, 3 days and 50 edits would be more suitable. LOCO 🔥 02:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Rename request

Could a steward please rename me into CrazyFisherman? Thanks. --Morneo06 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Morneo06 Do you intend to use the username CrazyFisherman for the long-term, and is this part of a synchronization of your username across other wiki farms/wikis? Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I entend to use it for a long term but it is not part of any synchronization. --Morneo06 (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'll ping MacFan4000. Dmehus (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I have a question. Templates like this are necessary? They are not used on any page, as this is not Wikipedia. It seems to me that the appropriate thing would be to delete these types of templates. What do you think? LOCO 🔥 07:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They are orphaned, if nobody opposes, feel free to delete the templates. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)