Test Wiki:Community portal/Archive 9

From Test Wiki
Revision as of 15:00, 29 February 2024 by Drummingman (talk | contribs) (Protected "Test Wiki:Community portal/09": Archive, for security reasons ([Edit=Allow only bureaucrats] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only bureaucrats] (indefinite) [Delete=Allow only bureaucrats] (indefinite) [Protect=Allow only bureaucrats] (indefinite)))

Addition of interface admin protection level

Block review of Piccadilly

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)

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)
  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)
  Oppose changing the block as per X's comment. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  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)
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)

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)

@Piccadilly May I ask why you tested on talk pages again after many warnings? X (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)

  Neutral. X (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  Support as the least restrictive method of preventing disruption at the moment. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  Support Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  Neutral. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  Support AlPaD (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
Implementing... could take a while as I haven't used filters like this in a while. Zippybonzo (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
  Done Zippybonzo (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


Please remove X's interface admin rights

Request for System Administrator: Zippybonzo

Block review of Zippybonzo

Request for Stewardship: Justarandomamerican

Proposal to merge editor and reviewer

1 year spam blocks- Automatic, or status quo?

Proposal: Remove the ability for IP editing

Category:Advanced users

Hello, I've observed that @Saint: 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)

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)
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)
I concur, so keep it as it currently is? Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

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).

Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal

Formalize Test Wiki:Blocks and bans as a guideline

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)

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


Block appeal

Move Test Wiki:Request permissions to Test Wiki:Request for permissions

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all those here at The Test Wiki.

Have a wonderful day and all the best for 2024!

Lots of love, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC).

userRightsManager gadget is broken

I tried to approve a user's permission request with the userRightsManager gadget and found that the gadget is not working properly. Can the interface administrators fix this issue? LisafBia (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the code and tested the script. It appears to be working for me. Could you please provide more details on what isn't working for you? X (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  Fixed, the move to Request for permissions broke the script initially. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the fix. X (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for Suppressor right

I request oversight rights from our community for 2 days. I will only use it for testing and I promise not to compromise anyone's privacy. LisafBia (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not done as suppressor is not a test right and will not be given to those who are not stewards or community elected non-steward suppressors, for obvious privacy concerns. X (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
One question: as the suppressor right isn't a test right, is the non-steward suppressor right also a non-test right? – 64andtim (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. And therefore it is not meant to be tested. It is meant only for serious suppression.
The user right is not intended as a test flag like most roles here. It is intended only for serious suppression. System administrator, steward, checkuser, suppressor and non-steward suppressor are emphatically not test roles. Drummingman (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Interface admin is also somewhere in the middle. It isn't a testing right, but some people do use it for that. X (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


My IA right

Could a steward remove my IA permission, please? Thanks a lot, and goodbye! Username (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear, @Username   Done. Thank you for your edits, we look forward to seeing you again. Kind regards, Drummingman (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was ready to go. But I guess I feel like staying longer considering I've worked so hard on keeping this wiki organized, and I have left some things that have yet to look completed. Can somebody grant me my rights back, please? Thank you! Username (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Saint: I have granted you back the crat and admin rights. A steward will have to do the IA bit. EPIC (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Glad to have you back. Courtesy ping @Justarandomamerican & @Drummingman. X (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  Done, welcome back. Drummingman (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Username (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change an abuse filter warning

Hello, everybody.

I propose moving [[MediaWiki:Newuser-externallinks]] to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-newuser-externallinks, and changing the text of the filter warning message to something like this:

Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit containing external links. Test Wiki may not be used as a vehicle for promotion, and may result in being blocked from editing. If this edit is constructive, you may click "Publish changes" again to confirm it. If you received this message in error, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do.

Any inputs or concerns about this? If there are no objections, I'll be happy to do those changes in a few days. Thanks. – 64andtim (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As the original creator of the customized warning, I   support this change. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  Done. X (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Clarify the inactivity policy for Non-steward suppressors

Another proposal to import Edit filter warning template

I was thinking if I could import the Edit filter warning template from the English Wikipedia, but leave out the report error since there is no edit filter false positive page on Test Wiki. Any inputs, concerns or objections?

When triggering an abuse filter, it shows a red box with text; maybe we could add that proposed template under the name "Abuse filter warning", and protect it under an appropriate protection as a high-risk template? Thank you. – 64andtim (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We can also redirect people to here (the community portal) to report false positives, or to contact an administrator directly. I think having some form of template would make things easier, so no objections. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
One more question: is bureaucrat protection appropriate when protecting a high-risk template? – 64andtim (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
In this case, it would be, since the template would be used in the interface, and not protecting it as such would allow users without the edit interface right to edit the interface. You can use discretion when protecting pages. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me! X (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I'll implement them, but do we keep the report error button that can redirect here to the community portal or not? – 64andtim (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you can redirect it to the community portal. X (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  Done, but it took a little bit of trial and error for the url to actually work. – 64andtim (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Mobile edit

Does anyone have an idea why this and this was marked as mobile web edits, considering that I am on a computer? EPIC (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That is weird, never heard of that happening before. Were you using mobile view when making the edits? X (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
It's possible you switched to mobile view and didn't realize it, like X said above. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I was using the normal desktop view, but checking e.g. FuzzyBot, it seems to be the same for some of those edits as well. EPIC (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, FuzzyBot uses the same tags as the edit/log entry that was made to cause it to perform an action. I'm not sure what could have caused that software-wise. @MacFan4000: Not urgent at all, but this is an odd technical situation. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


New filters made today

Today, I have decided to make filter 121 which prevents personal attacks or harassment on user/user talk pages, and filter 122, which prevents new users from editing others' user pages.

Confirmed users and sysops may edit user pages, but they may not add {{unlocked userpage}} on a random user page; it may only be done by the user themselves or a steward.

Any opinions or input? Thanks. – 64andtim (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

LGTM. X (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Mind if I test adding the unlocked userpage template on your userpage if this can be prevented by the filter? – 64andtim (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Go ahead. X (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Per Special:AbuseLog/5852, the filter is working as intended. – 64andtim (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Piccadilly socks

I'm going to be combing over the logs and trying to compile a list of all the account Piccadilly has used and block them all with the same reason. I then might make some LTA pages like Wikipedia has to inform people of a little more about how to detect and deal with specific LTAs. X (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe should we disable filter 92? The target of the filter hasn't returned since 2022. – 64andtim (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It is very specific and isn't hurting anything as is so I don't know if there's really a need to disable it. X (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
You know what? I agree, maybe we should keep it enabled. – 64andtim (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, they were a pretty big issue "back in the day". Would hate to have them come back because they know our protection has been disabled. X (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  Done, feel free to improve. X (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Allow non-steward suppressors to perform "steward actions"

Abuse filter request

I'm not quite confident in using regex the abuse filter rules yet, so can someone who is create an abuse filter that disallows common phrases used by Piccadilly? Check their deleted contributions for details (and most things they do that need to be disallowed need no exceptions.) Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) edited to correct 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with regex, but I can design the code and body of said filter. Will create it, but someone else may need to create the regex. – 64andtim (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not too inclined in the specifics, so likely made a mistake in saying regex, AbuseFilter rules are a custom language. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I have done a lot of trial and error with abuse filters, so I've managed to gather a little knowledge. I can help too! X (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Will create the message later targeted not just for the intended target, but for all LTAs. In addition, another special message if the filter is set to both disallow and block. – 64andtim (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, looks like filter 88 is active. – 64andtim (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Void

Void's userpage is still steward protected even though they are not a steward. Please unprotect. X (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done by @Justarandomamerican X (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RecentChanges pages

Here, I've put this page as a candidate for deletion:

  • Test Wiki:RecentChanges

I don't see a need for this page considering it has always been unused. Additionally, we have always been maintaining this message and it has existed slightly longer than the link listed above. Username (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. X (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done by Justarandomamerican. Username (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)