Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Latest comment: 26 November 2023 by Justarandomamerican in topic Block appeal
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
(→‎Block appeal: templates)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
(Archive various things)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 83: Line 83:


Add groups to own account: Check user
Add groups to own account: Check user
Remove groups from own account: Check user
Thank you, [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 13:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
*<s>{{support}}: This is a reasonable proposal, and allows trusted community members to assist Stewards in maintaining the wiki if they don't want or need the full steward toolset. Although, if someone is trusted enough for either of these, they should have at least part of the privileges of a Steward, such as the ability to [[Test Wiki: Bureaucrats|indefinitely block in difficult cases,  being exempt from the recommendations for bureaucrats]]. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)</s>
*{{oppose}}: Why do both sets of rights need the <code>unblockable</code> right? [[User:Dusti|Dusti]] ([[User talk:Dusti|talk]]) 14:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*{{oppose}} as written, why should non-steward functionaries have the unblockable user right? If an emergency happens, a Bureaucrat should be able to block them from editing. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
*{{oppose}}. Why do they need unblockable? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 11:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}


==Please remove X's interface admin rights==
==Please remove X's interface admin rights==

Revision as of 03:34, 26 November 2023

The community portal is Test Wiki's all-in-one help, proposal, and on-wiki action request venue.

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10


Addition of interface admin protection level

Latest comment: 16 October 20236 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Not done. Requester block and no consensus achieved. X (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am proposing that interface administrator protection is added to help protect sensitive interface pages, i.e the sidebar and sitenotice pages, and also for protecting highly used templates. Zippybonzo (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Block review of Piccadilly

Latest comment: 18 July 202319 comments7 people in discussion

I'd like to determine whether consensus believes that Piccadilly creating a blank talk page for a test page is worthy of a 3 month block from talk namespaces. In my opinion a block from talk namespaces is unneeded but instead a final warning, and a filter to warn upon creation of talk pages with a size under 256 bytes (a signature and a few words). For the record, this wiki is a test wiki, not the English Wikipedia, meaning people can test, and they aren't random talk pages, they are talk pages of test pages. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or possibly limit the creation to exclude certain words (I.e hello, hi, guys), also, blocking at the request of a steward is mad, as the stewards can block for themselves, they are sysops too and I'd like to see their name in the block log if they authorised the block, as you don't see MacFan telling someone else to update the wiki. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose changing the block. We’ve given Piccadilly so many changes and so many warnings. Why must we give another? I think the partial block is a good alternative to a indef full block. And there’s nothing wrong with blocking on the request of a steward because maybe they can’t get to a laptop or they’re very busy. I’ve done it before and there’s nothing wrong with it. X (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose changing the block as per X's comment. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: -- The blockage was not entirely at my request, only the change from 1 year to three months was made by Justarandomamerican at my request. Drummingman (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally reasonable that they can somehow tell you to do it but not access their computer, I don’t think that’s a very good reason. Zippybonzo (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm neutral on the block, to be honest. I'm just glad it isn't an indefinite sitewide block. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Piccadilly May I ask why you tested on talk pages again after many warnings? X (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure to be honest. I can say that I wasn't thinking about possible consequences of my actions, which I know isn't an excuse. I think I need to make more of an effort to slow down and think about doing things rather than just rush into them like I tend to do. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 13:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternate proposal: Prevent creation of talk pages but allow editing

I have an alternative proposal, to use an edit filter to prevent creation of talk pages for the remainder of the block, but allow editing. Any tampering with the filter will result in a desysop and 6 month block from all namespaces. Zippybonzo (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral. X (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support as the least restrictive method of preventing disruption at the moment. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support AlPaD (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this can be implemented now, and anyone may remove the block as soon as it is implemented. If they edit existing talk pages to test editing functions, the block may be reinstated by any Bureaucrat. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Implementing... could take a while as I haven't used filters like this in a while. Zippybonzo (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be done, give me a bit of time to test it and I'll be back with a full result. Zippybonzo (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Zippybonzo (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Non steward CheckUser & Oversight/Suppressors

Latest comment: 14 September 20231 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Clear community opposition and proposer blocked. X (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am proposing non-steward check user and oversight/suppressors, whilst there isn't an active need for extra check users or suppressors as of now, in my opinion, if there are enough people able to perform the role, then they should be in the role as it's always better to have more people when you don't need them but to have none when you need them. Because the two roles are quite high trust, I am proposing the following requirements for each role.

Checkuser:

  1. Basic understanding of IP addresses and ranges and CIDR syntax.
  2. Pass a vote on the community portal with either 80% support, or 70-80% at a steward's discretion.
  3. Have a good understanding of account security.
  4. Performing unnecessary or abusive checks will result in having your access revoked.

Suppressor:

  1. Basic understanding of suppression criteria.
  2. Pass a vote on the community portal with either 80% support, or 70-80% at a steward's discretion.
  3. Have a good understanding of account security.

I believe that this is also a way for users to gain additional trust.

Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added. These groups may not be added immediately,


non-steward-suppressorNon-steward suppressor

With the following rights:

unblockable

Add groups to own account: Suppressor

Remove groups from own account: Suppressor


non-steward-checkuser Non-steward CheckUser

With the following rights:

unblockable

checkuser-log

Add groups to own account: Check user

Please remove X's interface admin rights

Latest comment: 28 July 20235 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  Not done - X has become active again, so that is no longer necessary. Drummingman (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X writes on his user page, "I don't plan to be active here." Interface admin privileges are very strong and inactive and can be hijacked and should be removed. Chqaz (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's necessary anymore? Drummingman (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X has told me multiple times they would like to retain their rights. Not necessary... Zippybonzo (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I for one can vouch that X would prefer to retain their rights as per an email conversation. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for System Administrator: Zippybonzo

Latest comment: 6 August 20239 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Not done per block. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello TestWiki.Wiki Community,

I am proposing myself for the system administrator position, to help keep the server running and configured as we would like it, as our current sysadmin isn't as active as they could be, and I think I could help supplement them. My experience consists of having a pretty good understanding of MediaWiki and some PHP, and I am pretty experienced with GitHub and SSH.

Thank you for your consideration,

Zippybonzo (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions:

  • Im not convinced there’s a huge need for another system administrator. If elected, what would your first action be, to prove there’s a need for an action. X (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To close my open pull request on GH to add checkuser-log to the steward user group as per an above discussion. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

  •  Oppose -- I'm sorry to say it: To my knowledge, Zippybonzo is not (has not been) a steward or system administrator on a Wikimedia, Miraheze or other large wikifarm. On these wikis, you only become one after a thorough review and vote. To me, that is a hard requirement for a system administrator. SA has the unlimited power to shut down an entire wiki (database lock and unlock) block anyone and deny anyone user rights. Therefore, this right can only be granted to highly trusted users. At the moment, I am not convinced that Zippybonzo meets this requirement. Of course, technical competence is also very important. But I think that is secondary to the above requirement. Drummingman (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just to be completely clear here, I am one of the most trustable users on this wiki, given my reputation on enwiki. Now whether you don't believe that holding trusted positions on the largest wiki in the world is 'trusted' is a different question, which I will not ask. However your definition of trusted is very specific. Based on how you think technical competence is secondary to trust, I don't believe this vote is taking into perspective both the need of a sysadmin for this wiki, and other factors. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongest oppose Per Drummingman and Zippybonzo is blocked for sockpuppetry and abuse on 3 wikis. He has destroyed moviepedia 2 times and he can hack other accounts. AlPaD (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Sav. X (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral

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

Block review of Zippybonzo

Latest comment: 9 August 202322 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Although I am involved by participating, consensus is clear here: All arguments in favor of unblocking Zippybonzo, even conditionally, have been refuted, and therefore there is consensus against unblocking Zippybonzo. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not one to usually interfere with the runnings of other wiki's, however, it's come to my attention that Zippybonzo was blocked here for some schenanigans that went on last week on another wiki. I don't see a policy in place where harmless pranks can result in a block here, and I'd like to call the community's attention to the block and ask that it be lifted.

While it really shouldn't have happened, generally speaking I don't see off wiki conduct (like a prank) needing something as significant as an indefinite block labelled as a Steward action.

The user on the other end of the prank actually threatened Zippybonzo with violence, which resulted in an indefinite block on my TestWiki along with a lock of their global account. That conduct I can certainly see resulting in an indefinite block. Dusti (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree with this assessment. Unless the off-wiki matter involves serious issues such as severe harassment or threats of violence, like noted above, I don't see how people's actions on one wiki should affect their standings on other wikis. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 14:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose. The reason for said block is clearly stated and so, his block should remain active. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A prank requires the other party to laugh. Severely disrupting a wiki and then claiming it was a prank after the owner of said wiki repeatedly attempted to stop said disruption doesn't work. It's like playing a prank on the Wikipedia community as an admin by deleting an article on a president of the United States and then blocking Jimbo. This was intentionally inflicting emotional harm on (trolling) another member of this wiki, Cocopuff2018, and therefore I have no problem with the block. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I simply don’t believe my actions on one wiki should be carried over to an entirely unrelated wiki. The actions were unwise, but I did not violate the policies of that wiki. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) copied to the community portal by X (talk). Reply[reply]
This response is.. not good. A wiki or other community does not have to codify: "Disrupting us is prohibited." That is assumed to be the case. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst that is true, there is no reason the block from an entirely unrelated wiki should be carried over to this wiki. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) - moved to the community portal by X (talk).Reply[reply]
There is a valid reason for extending the block to this Wiki. Even though this is a Test Wiki, we must uphold responsibility and avoid any form of abuse, a concept that seems to have been misunderstood in your case. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 17:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not being carried over. You intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon a fellow member of this wiki, which earned you a block on this wiki to prevent further problems and deter your disruptive behavior. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Zippybonzo on this point. I think each wiki should be a "fresh start" so to speak, where as long as a user doesn't cause any serious disruption on this wiki, they shouldn't be blocked based on off-wiki matters. If we're going by the principle that Justarandomamerican suggests, then to be honest I would probably be blocked here as well because of issues from thetestwiki.org and Wikimedia. So why is it that off-wiki matters don't count against me but they do for Zippybonzo? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 17:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because your issues do not involve trolling members of this wiki. In this case, it actually affects this wiki due to causing emotional distress to its contributors, and deserves a block. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal

I have an idea regarding this block situation. I understand that some undesireable things have happened between Cocopuff and Zippybonzo, but maybe we can unblock Zippybonzo (with a steward's agreement) on the condition that any undesireable behavior here will result in a reblock? I think that's reasonable. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds reasonable, how about we word it like this: "Any behavior that is disruptive to this wiki, in the judgment of a Bureaucrat, shall result in an immediate indefinite site-wide reblock, account creation disabled, autoblock enabled, with other settings being at the Bureaucrat's discretion." Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that sounds good to me. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like clarification on what would become of Zippys sysop/IA/crat status, if this proposal was implemented. X (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IA is already removed, and should stay as such for the foreseeable future. Crat shouldn't be allowed until a certain period of time has passed, around 6 weeks IMO, but sysop should be regranted. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m going to oppose this alternate proposal due to some discord messages Zippy has left me. You can email/DM me if needed. X (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please can you provide me evidence of these Discord messages? You have my contact information. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


strong oppose, im sorry but i dont trust him at all. and he was just recently block I think it's still too early. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request for Stewardship: Justarandomamerican

Latest comment: 27 August 202315 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
With no one voting against and the only neutral reservations/abstain being about a (now closed) another wiki, where otherwise no objection came from other users, there is a clear consensus to promote to steward. On behalf of the steward-team, congratulations. Drummingman (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominate myself for Stewardship due to there only being 1 regularly active Steward, Drummingman. MacFan4000 is semi-active, and Dmehus? He has not been active since the 3rd of July. I've been active here for quite a bit, and it's not really a great idea to have 1 active person taking care of most Steward maintenance tasks, so I volunteer to be the second. Account Security: I have a strong password securing my account and MFA enabled. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions

Self-imposed FAQ

  1. When will you use the suppression toolset?
    I will use it in any of the following scenarios: Personally identifiable information of anyone being shared without their consent, PII of an apparent minor being shared, anything else that the public at large should not be able to view, as sysop rights are easy to obtain, that is the purpose of the wiki, and external links containing one of those three scenarios. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. When will you use the check user toolset?
    I will use it only to investigate, respond to, and/or prevent disruption such as sockpuppetry or vandalism, in accordance with the Privacy policy's abuse provision. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Questions

  1. . What is your take on off wiki/off site behavior impacting a user account here? Let's say on another wiki, unrelated to this site. Dusti (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not feel it warrants a block or other action, unless it materially affects this wiki, such as off-wiki harassment by a contributor to another contributor, or if, in the totality of the circumstances, it could result in disruption here. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Support

  1. I'll kick this off with your first support. Dusti (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Trusted user. AlPaD (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Trusted and experienced user. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 08:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Trusted user. Chqaz (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

Neutral/abstain

  1. I’m going to be neutral here, and I feel that Justa should withdraw this and wait. A wiki that the candidate and I were stewards on was recently closed because of actions taken by the steward team. I don’t think that starting an RfS on another TestWiki days after another one was closed, partially because of our actions, is a good look or idea. X (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has been discussed at length in private by us two and ZB, a user who is de facto banned by the community on this wiki (declined block review) due to their actions, and it was decided that the closure was wrong overall. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that is our personal opinions, not the opinion of the site creator and operator. In his opinion, we completely ruined the wiki. Which is why the above still, regardless, stands. X (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He can operate his site as he wishes, including resetting the wiki even though the community thinks it was wrong, and he could even rule the wiki as an absolute dictator without consequence. There is no rational cause --> effect sequence here: I take action based on off-wiki and on-wiki repeated civility issues, that does not cause the site as a whole to be ruined. I have no other involvement in the points MTzh brought up, I believe, although I do not remember them and they can no longer be accessed. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that a block you placed that, while I do believe it was correct, partially led to the reset and closure of a wiki. I just think it’s too soon. X (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other comments

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

Proposal to merge editor and reviewer

Latest comment: 14 September 20238 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Phab request created: See T68. X (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rights attached to editer and Rights attached to reviewer are exactly the same and one is enough.--Chqaz (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that the only part of this that can be debated is which right they should be merged into. I say it should be reviewer, as the more sensible name. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Username (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree that the editor right can just be deleted. X (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, this has my vote. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with merge. AlPaD (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 11:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1 year spam blocks- Automatic, or status quo?

Latest comment: 2 October 20234 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Done! Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently, our spam abuse filters are set to block anon users for 6 months, and a human administrator extends it to 1 year upon confirmation of spam. Would it be better to simply have our spam abuse filters block for 1 year? Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support blocking for one year automatically. X (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support--Chqaz (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal: Remove the ability for IP editing

Latest comment: 26 October 20239 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
While there is some support, there isn't a strong consensus. Personally I would want to allow IPs to perform legitimate test edits. Since three isn't strong consensus for or against, I will call this unsuccessful. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest removing the ability for IPs to edit all pages. The sole purpose of this wiki is to test administrator tools, which IPs cannot do. In addition, the only IPs that edit this wiki are used by an LTA for spam, which is mostly caught by an abuse filter. X (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support. Username (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support--Chqaz (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created T69--Chqaz (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, leaning oppose Oppose. Weighing the pros and cons gives me a neutral opposing stance. This would prevent some abuse, but multiple accounts can easily be created to continue that abuse. In addition, this may have a deterrent effect on good faith users. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reconsidered, opposing, I think this is overall negative, as it deters good faith users by making them think they are not welcome to test, and prevents abuse only from the laziest LTAs. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose -- I think it's important that people who want to test feel welcome, even if they would rather not create an account yet. Further per Justarandomamerican. Drummingman (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Category:Advanced users

Latest comment: 7 October 20235 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I've observed that @Username: recently created this page and combined other sysop groups into it without prior discussion on the Community Portal. Both @Justarandomamerican: and I have since reverted these edits. Consequently, I'd like to open a discussion regarding the fate of this page—whether it should be retained or deleted. Warm regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 13:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really see a problem with it. Doesn't seem to be a problematic category, but this function is already done by Category:Administrators and Category:Bureaucrats, and similar, so it's somewhat redundant. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say it should be retained, and all the permissions categories should be put into it, to create a category tree. Although I can comprehend what Username was thinking, in that there should be 1 category, the better way to do that is to categorize all the advanced user categories into the advanced users category. Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, so keep it as it currently is? Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies

Latest comment: 14 October 20231 comment1 person in discussion

I deeply regret the oversight that resulted in some of you having your rights removed unfairly. In my sleep-deprived state, I misread "3 months" as "1 month." I want to offer my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

I have taken immediate action to rectify this mistake. All actions against you have been reverted, and your rights have been reinstated. While I won't mention names, I trust that those affected will know who they are.

Once again, I apologize for any frustration or confusion this may have caused. Thank you for your understanding.

Warm regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal

Latest comment: 26 October 20235 comments3 people in discussion

I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added.

non-steward-suppressor:

With the following rights: suppression-log

Add groups to own account: Suppressor

Remove groups from own account: Suppressor


non-steward-checkuser:

With the following rights:

checkuser-log

Add groups to own account: Check user

Remove groups from own account: Check user

These users can be appointed by either: 1) Community consensus, closed by a steward 2) Steward consensus, at least 2 stewards support giving the right

A user may not hold both suppressor and checkuser rights, unless they apply for steward. X (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formalize Test Wiki:Blocks and bans as a guideline

Latest comment: 16 November 20233 comments1 person in discussion

This practically just formalizes practice and existing consensus. However, compliance with it should not be mandatory as with policies, but rather strongly recommended. This contains some things that simply aren't worthy of policy (see the blocks section), but it should be some form of community recommendation. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Block appeal

Latest comment: 26 November 20235 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Though their behavior is utterly unacceptable (as an AuADHD person myself, it's no excuse), I have taken the advice from Dmehus below. Piccadilly, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing Test Wiki due to repeated sockpuppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, you must go through staff@testwiki.wiki, after at least a 6 month abstention from editing Test Wiki, using your main account or other accounts. At least 2 of the current 4 Stewards must endorse your appeal to be unblocked, and they have the discretion to forward it to the community instead. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki. If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat." Are there any community objections or comments about her return? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely

I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is required if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support as such behavior is really unacceptable. 64andtim (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions bureaucrat or Steward. If, and only if, the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, then I support an indefinite block (you can call it a ban, if you want, but I don't personally like the word ban as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban that carries the community's endorsement but would oppose any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably:
    1. Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, not punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all?
    2. This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community consensus
    3. I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're good-faith, have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to excuse it, but I do think it provides a mitigating circumstance
In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to staff[at]testwiki.wiki and to Stewards and (b) that an appeal will only be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) from date of last confirmed sock (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the minimum sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to follow direction from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is always our aim). If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Test_Wiki:Community_portal&oldid=33189"