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

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)

Symbol support vote.png 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)

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

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

  • Symbol support vote.png Support. Zhuofan WuCien años de soledad 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.png 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)
  • Symbol support vote.png Support. --Anton (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.png Support. –Olipino (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOlipino (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am favourable of increasing said requirements, but as @LocoSalas said, this is excessive. ~ Ronja (utc) 06:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked user LOCO 🔥 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

  • I agree that 50 edits is too high but an increase of requirements is still necessary. --Morneo06 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • How to identify "trusted user"? By edits or others?Zhuofan WuCien 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 WuCien 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)

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 WuCien 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 WuCien 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)
 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 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 (utc) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Can my name be changed please?

I'd like my name here to be changed to Seiyena please. Thank you! Fiona (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)