Test Wiki:Community portal

From Test Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community Portal

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05

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)

CheckUser testing

Currently, as shown in Special:ListGroupRights, it seems that only bureaucrats may use the checkuser-limited permission. This permission allows checking oneself for the purpose of testing out the tool. It may be a good idea to grant this permission to administrators as administrators is the primary for-testing group here and it should not be necessary to request bureaucratship for testing. In addition, when it is only possible to check oneself there is very little capacity for damage (checking others will still be limited to Stewards).

Opinions? Naleksuh (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree checkuser-limited is not really that sensitive, and certainly has less potential for damage than many of the other rights bundled with administrator. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree. You can only test checkuser on yourself. Making a phabricator task..... Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Phabricator task Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


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

  • YesY 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)

Symbol support vote.svg 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)

YesY 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)

Proposal : Remove SocialProfile

"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)

Proposal: No open proxies policy