TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 2

From TestWiki
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Gadget description

I noticed the gadget description on MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock includes the text "After adding please en:purge the page" and was wondering what the point of it is. After all, the page already says that the tool includes a purge link. wikipedia:en:purge (apparent intended target) is no help either. ping @Reception123: who added it. -- Void Discuss 20:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen this when importing the template. Removed. Reception123 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Shall we remove the background color of the logo just like File:NewLogo2.png? --Gyakusyuu no Amanojaku (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

.........Already changed by Gyakusyuu no Amanojaku.--Tiger (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Bit of advice, don't change the logo by css. I'll upload a new version of the File:NewLogo.png, and, if needed, do a pull request to change the logo. -- Void Whispers 01:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Are bureaucrats allowed to grant administrator right?

I found that bureaucrats are able to grant administrator right to other users technically. Are bureaucrats allowed to grant administrator right when other users request it on TestWiki:Request_permissions? Are they allowed to revoke the right when it is inappropriately used?--Tiger (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are allowed to grant sysop and bureaucrat, and can revoke sysop. If you are granting admin/bureaucrat, just make sure that the request fulfills the requirements at the top of the page. If in doubt, let someone else handle it. -- Void Whispers 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Puffin Web Browser global blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Proposal made by Long-term abuse sockpuppet

Greetings,

As some may know, the entire Puffin Web Browser has been globally blocked on Miraheze through 4 or 5 separate rangeblocks due to suspected and in some cases confirmed abuse. However, this massive block(s) have the serious potential to cause collateral damage. I have locally blocked the same ranges specifically here, anon. only and with account creation allowed. I would like to propose the following:

"Immediately following the closure of this RFC, all global blocks on Puffin Web Browser IP addresses are to be locally disabled. The local blocks made by Primeferac shall be left as is for the time being, but any admin has permission to harden the blocks if obvious abuse occurs."

I personally use Puffin when accessing the Internet from unsecure locations like restaurants and public transportation, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Therefore, I would like to help reduce the potential for collateral damage, which is never a good thing. Primeferac (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

  • Strong support as proposer. Primeferac (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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

Protected

The community portal has been protected from anonymous editing for 24 hours due to excessive vandalism. Amanda (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Userrights update

Just an FYI in a visible place.

  • After a bug was resolved in the config, sysops now have the ability to add Autopatrolled, confirmed, and rollbacker to accounts.
  • 'Crats may now assign the bot usergroup. However, please be aware to only assign the group for testing or to prevent flood, never run a full bot account without consul permission.
  • The exampleuser usergroup will be removed as the only accounts it was assigned to were locked for security concerns. It is no longer useful.

If I'm forgetting anything, remind me. If you have any questions, ask below. Cheers -- Void Whispers 21:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we can set a special usergroup like "flood" on Chinese Wikipedia (can be added by admins and only to admins themselves) to divide test groups from non-test groups. However, I don't think it's necessary because there are no real bots now. --Amanojaku (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the email notice work?

I can't receive emails when someone leaves messages, but I can receive emails when changing the email address in preferences. --Amanojaku (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Already posted to phab:T1738 by Reception123. --Amanojaku (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Spanish PublicTestWiki

Hello, I just wanted to announce that I have established the Spanish Version of PublicTestWiki for native speakers of Spanish and that they need to have more facilities to communicate with the rest of their peers, all Spanish speakers who want to participate can visit the wiki in https://es.publictestwiki.com and begin to be part of the community. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 12:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Que bueno, una versión en español :) Cyborg (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't need to test any more

Please revoke my crat and admin flag. I don't need them any more.--Tiger (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done; if you need the rights back at any time, just let me know. Cheers -- Void Whispers 17:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
5 supports and no opposes therefore this request is approved. It is up to Pywikibot administrators to test it now. Reception123 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Pywikibot official community approval

This is just something for more "formal" reasons, and so that the WMF sees that there is community support for having Pywikibot here (details. It would be nice to get Pywikibot working here so we can have that as a testing option. Reception123 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Reception123 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Videojeux4 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Amanojaku (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support PokestarFan (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

# Strong support Test user (talk) User is indefinitely blocked for disruption --Reception123

# Support 13Reasons (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC) User is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts --Reception123

Oppose

Comments

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

Abuse filter

Please examine my (IP) edits to my named account's userpage, it shouldn't be disallowed even though it starts with an IP address. 83.24.97.195 10:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see your talkpage. Reception123 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I restored pages deleted by User:Anniubbo but please note that translation pages are not restored yet because they can't be undeleted directly. --Amanojaku (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

AlvaroMolina for consul

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Withdrawn by nominee. -- Void Whispers 19:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AlvaroMolina is a trusted user on other wikis including miraheze test wiki (spanish edition) and the test wiki @ https://testwiki.wiki/ . If these users are the same person I hereby propose that the user AlvaroMolina be granted consul to bring the amount of consuls to 4 (1 user makes an action and the other 3 can review it/take action about the first action) which is good for confirming actions made by consuls. He is also very active and can efficiently deal with issues.

Sau226 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think there is need of other consuls. Sherry J. Scott (talk)
  • Support As the founder of https://testwiki.wiki, I think they are doing a great job. MacFan4000 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Sherry. Cyborg (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Only recently have I heard of this, I would like to clarify that at no time was I made known this proposal nor accepted it. For my part I agree with the comments below that there is no need for more consuls since the existing ones for me are sufficient and I have not seen an urgent need of another user, in addition, consul's actions are quite scarce here. For this reason I ask that this be closed as not done. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Temporary feature

Hi, yesterday I used the temporary feature on Special:Userrights and I'm wondering if that feature was created by Miraheze or it comes with MediaWiki. Thank you, Cyborg (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Temporary userrights is a feature that was added in MediaWiki version 1.29. It is not specific to Miraheze. -- Void Whispers 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Cyborg (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Titleblacklist

I've added translation pages to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to prevent vandalism. Only autoconfirmed users can modify or create translations now. The translations of the main page are also protected. Please feel free to change it after it's safe. --Amanojaku (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Good! Sherry J. Scott (talk)

Able to change protection levels

Even though deletion and move rights are consul only, I am able to change them. Why? PokestarFan (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the protect action is not restricted. As a result, unless we decide to modify the configuration, the only way to prevent the modification of protection levels is to remove edit access as well. It would make sense if the software only allowed users to modify protection levels if they had the ability to perform the action with its current restriction level. (eg that an admin would not be able to modify consul level move/deletion restrictions). But, this is not the case. -- Void Whispers 19:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This can be configured said way. That is how it’s done on https://testwiki.wiki . Config is here. MacFan4000 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Got fatal error

I made a test on how long can a user be blocked (except indefinite) and set a block till 31 Dec. 9999 23:59:59 on a wasted account (declared by its owner). Then I met "[cadbecb3fec4cc62aa74674e] 2017-11-29 12:16:46: Fatal exception of type "MWException"" on all the pages that involving the block log of that account.(Block log of that account, Block log of this site, Logs of me and so on.) Sorry for making this trouble and wish it not a big trouble for the consuls.--Tiger (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not a problem anymore (as far as I can tell), so no big deal. -- Void Whispers 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
how can I help you? Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the problem doesn't affect anyone except me........-Tiger (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Asdfugil for consul in here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closed as unsuccessful. Reception123 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys I'm to become consul in here to help or monitoring in here. how your opinions?--Asdfugil (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Arguments in favour

Arguments against

  1. Oppose Maybe if you were more actively involved in the project. Plus, this wiki is not very active. MacFan4000 (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Currently there's no need for new consuls. Esteban (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Has a few test edits, but no real serious edits, or anything that shows a need for this user to be a consul, or that they would benefit from the extra rights. At the moment, I think that three consuls is enough. Reception123 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not in a snowballs chance in hell... Then again who are you? Consuls should be a person thats known in the community not just anyone Zppix (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

comments

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

Enable protect lock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Done, MacFan4000 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to enable protect lock. It should be defined in LocalSettings.php and will stop lower downs from changing protection levels e.g. Sysops removong consul protection. If the community consents to it very soon I can get that set up --Sau226 (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sysops cannot currently remove consul protection, if they could do that that would defeat the point of having it in the first place. Reception123 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Reception123: In some cases only delete and move are protected, such as this page. As long as “edit” isn’t consul protected, any non consul can remove the move and delete protection. This would prevent that from happening. MacFan4000 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know. That is fine yes, we should have the protect lock. Reception123 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Allow bureaucrats to self resign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Done through Special:ManageWiki/permissions.--開拓者 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear community,

I believe bureaucrats should be allowed to resign. A little bit of code like '+testwiki' => array( 'bureaucrat' => array( 'bureaucrat', ), or similar should be added to wgGroupsRemoveFromSelf in LocalSettings.php .

This code would allow a bureaucrat to revoke their own access themselves immediately without letting a bureaucrat decrat another user. Consuls would still be able to remove such access from anyone as required. --Sau226 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone else please comment on this? --Sau226 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I support this. maybe more like $wgGroupsRemoveFromSelf = [ 'sysop' => true ]; like The Test Wiki has to allow admins to remove themself from any group. Bonnedav (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Consul for MacFan4000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Moot. -- Void Whispers 23:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to be a consul. I am currently a sysadmin, and I helped to fix this wiki from the incident. I am familiar with the permissions. I currently have them to work on cleanup.

Support

  1. Support Cy (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Hay, I am new so i can say nothing as to the merits of this candidate, however I do wish that people would vote based on the merits of the candidate rather than weather they believe more Consuls are needed or not. the vote should be to determine whether or not the candidate would be a good fit for the position and weather they are trustworthy or not. After that, if the vote succeeds then it can be put on hold until such time as the current Consuls decide another one is needed. Then successful candidates can be promoted without further discussion, unless they have exibed bad behavior or gone inactive in the meantime. Bonnedav (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for Consul - Kiko4564

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unsuccessful request. -- Void Whispers 17:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish to be a consul and have experience with admin tools both on this wiki and here Kiko4564 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose We have enough consuls already, plus, on wikipedia you are blocked for sock puppetry. Maybe later. Cy / Talk 05:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We have 4 consuls, plus this wiki isn’t very active MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Hay, I am new so i can say nothing as to the merits of this candidate, however I do wish that people would vote based on the merits of the candidate rather than weather they believe more Consuls are needed or not. the vote should be to determine whether or not the candidate would be a good fit for the position and weather they are trustworthy or not. After that, if the vote succeeds then it can be put on hold until such time as the current Consuls decide another one is needed. Then successful candidates can be promoted without further discussion, unless they have exibed bad behavior or gone inactive in the meantime. Bonnedav (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Special:AggregateGroups

Hi. What does Special:AggregateGroups do? Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for consul (Pkbwcgs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Withdrawn, I will not run for consul for a long time. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to be a consul because I have been on this Wiki for a reasonable amount of time and I have experience in combating spambots and combating vandalism on Wikipedia. I think being a consul would be the perfect bit for me. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support you have been very active here and is nice experienced user. No oppose -Psl631 (Let's Chat!) 08:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose, there are enough consuls. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The user does not seem to be trustworthy enough. Malcolm Aces! Aces! 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Cy: In what way am I not trustworthy enough? This is publictestwiki and I have done nothing wrong. Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Hay, I am new so i can say nothing as to the merits of this candidate, however I do wish that people would vote based on the merits of the candidate rather than weather they believe more Consuls are needed or not. the vote should be to determine whether or not the candidate would be a good fit for the position and weather they are trustworthy or not. After that, if the vote succeeds then it can be put on hold until such time as the current Consuls decide another one is needed. Then successful candidates can be promoted without further discussion, unless they have exibed bad behavior or gone inactive in the meantime. Bonnedav (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The worthiness of a candidate is only half the consideration. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Psl631: How about you to be one of the consul in the future? SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can try to become consul here at Public Test Wiki, I are trusted and like testing here :) Psl631 (Let's Chat!) 12:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to comment that the recent demands on Wmf sites for administrator and checkuser powers stands at 6 times, all 6 times were told by others with a firm "no", to put it mildly. and I mean, he really wants power. Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Bureaucrat weirdness.

Why can bureaucrats only add Confirmed users, Autopatrollers, and Rollbackers when administrators can both add and remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnedav (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 September 2018‎ (UTC)

And, that's all cleaned up now. -- Void Whispers 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more like just let them remove the groups as well so it is easier to tell the difference in group add/remove perms between crat and Consul, but it's your call. Bonnedav (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
How about the "Testgroup"? By right "Bureaucrats", "Admins", and "Bots" it should only added by a bureaucrat. SA 13 Bro (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

TestWiki:Inactivity/Exceptions

I thought I was exempted from user right removal? Does anyone know what the heck happened to my admin and crat perms? — revi 10:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, it's not in the log. User:MacFan4000 has restored these rights for you. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
For anyone wondering, see Tech:Incidents/2018-04-26-DataLoss. -- Void Whispers 00:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I need help restoring this page

Hello all. Yesterday I made a bad decision to delete a translated version of the Main Page, https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page/zh. I thought it would be a simple matter of just restoeing the page once I had deleted it. But since it's translated, I guess it has to be manually translated again in order to be restored. I am completely inexperienced with translating pages. Can anyone help me fix this page?

Hereis a little talk about the situation. https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/zh

And I'm sorry for this whole mess to begin with. Marseillaise (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to undelete that page, but it couldn't be restored manually, that page needs to be restored by using the Translate tool. If you want to undelete that page, here have a link to the deleted text which admins can view: HERE.

The link takes to a textbox where you can copy the text, but the page cannot be created manually, it MUST be re-created with the translate tool. Any additional help is needed for users who can Chinese. Unhappily, I cannot chinese :( so you need to ask another user who can chinese that can restore the page. Psl631 (Let's Chat!) 17:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this been done now? Kiko4564 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
YES.Psl631 (Let's Chat!) 18:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Lua Scripting

is the Scribunto extension available for Lua scripting? --Ptwcris (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ptwcris: You might want to open a task on Phabricator.miraheze.org RhinosF1 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Not needed. Scribunto is enabled on all Miraheze wikis by default. -- Void Whispers 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Please since you have the consul user group, can some steward or global sysop create the "Template_editor" user right on hypotheticaltropicalcycloneswiki, and add the protection level "Edit: Allow only template editors" on my wiki? Fungster (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Consul by Zppix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Successful. Not many comments, but not many concerns. -- Void Whispers 23:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting the Consul userright as I would like to be able to imcrease my ability to combat abuse on this wiki and to compliment my CVT rights Zppix (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Support

Support - No issues. Trusted. Btw you have a discord message Zppix RhinosF1 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

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

Rename request

User: User:Ghergher888

New name: Ghery

Thanks Ghergher888 (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ghergher888: Please use m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Void Whispers 15:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please make new interfacepage

Please make MediaWiki:Dot-separator. Copied from English Wikipedia.--デーモン閣下 (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request at Meta too.--デーモン閣下 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done--そらたこ🐙🌈talk 13:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong with the bureaucrat toolset?

Hello, I was wondering if this is intentional or not but bureaucrats cannot access the bureaucrat protection level at all. If this isn't intentional could it please be fixed? Thanks. Hypercane (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Also not related to the bureaucrat toolset, but administrators can only promote confirmed users but not demote them? Is this intentional? Hypercane (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
These should now be fixed, please let me know if this is not the case. -- Void Whispers 17:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

~Squiggles~ for steward

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Steward is not a right that testwiki can assign. See m:Stewards for more details. -- Void Whispers 17:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, my name is ~Squiggles~ but you may call me Squiggs, I have been here for not that long, but am requesting the "Steward" permission, so I can approve certain requests, queries and questions that the TestWiki community may have, I am also a 'crat and admin on The TestWiki and I know what responsibility's the steward permission holds, I am requesting this right for 4 weeks (1 month) as a temporary permission, and if all goes well, will request for permanent, would also like to combat abuse and vandalism on this wiki.

Thank you for taking your time to read this, -- ~Squiggles~ | Talk To Me 💬 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Oppose you do not need itReuben (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) there are just the correct amountReuben (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reuben: elaborate?-- ~Squiggles~ | Talk To Me 💬 09:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

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

Templates

Can Bureaucrats make new templates without useing a computerReuben (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can make new templates without using a computer. Dross (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
How?Reuben (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
if you want to make a template you can type in the url publicteswiki.com/wiki/Template:(YOURTEMPLATENAME)-- ~Squiggles~ | Talk To Me 💬 08:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Database error

When I was trying to make a test account so I can test on it I got the following: Database error

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

[3287968177626a1207610c6b] 2019-12-23 00:19:25: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

I wanted to make a new account because I can not find a test account. reuben (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal request

Please unprotect my upage. Sorry. I forgot to do before remove request. --そらたこ🐙🌈talk 13:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the page? Your talk page is not protected. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry RhinosF1. Posting in meta is incorrect. It's My user page, not a talk page. --そらたこ🐙🌈talk 14:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done RhinosF1 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish you many successes. --そらたこ🐙🌈talk 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Consul Request (RhinosF1)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Successful. -- Void Whispers 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m requesting consul because I heavily monitor TestWiki and participate in permission requests often. This would allow me to handle removal requests as well, handle inactive users as well as manage the few trolls and vandals we get who I’m well versed in. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

  • Support User is capable, very well known in the community, has my support-- ~Squiggles~ | Talk To Me 💬 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support No issues. Quite active here on testwiki.--開拓者 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Kaaaa (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Why not ? Per above --HeartsDo (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

Look into Brownlowe.2 please

I would like to request that someone look more closely into Brownlowe.2 because a user by the same name just got blocked for sockpuppetry on testwiki.wiki

 Done desysopped, blocked 2 sock puppets. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, well, Brownlowe.2 on testwiki.wiki was themselves blocked by a sock, and on that wiki, they have no relation whatsoever to any other account. Here, they are CU likely to Wuebbold.1 and TestPuppet only, so I'm not too sure what to make of it. -- Void Whispers 18:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Question. Please help!

Greetings colleagues! Tell me, how do I add new levels of protection (bureaucrat, Consul)? I would like to improve my wiki with this. Q-bit (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Q-bit: I apologize for the delayed response. You can request additional protection levels on Phabricator for your wiki. dross (t • c • g) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dross: Thank you so much for your help! Q-bit (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Name Change Question

I would really like to change my name here to Brightshine, but unfortunately I can't get a name change through the Meta Wiki because I am indefinitely blocked there. Is there any other way to have my name changed? Bugambilia (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You can either email stewards[at]miraheze.org or appeal your block. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Request

TestWiki:Administrators/bn I translated it from English to Bengali.If this is the significance,Accept it Lēnin (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Give me an hour and I’ll sort it. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok sir-Lēnin (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done RhinosF1 (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Verify

Test Delete/bn,Autoarchive/bn,Move test/bn,Test/bn,Test page/bn,Translate/bn‎‎,Test protect/bn I am translating these registrations from English to Bengala .Requested to verify.Lēnin (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I only see a need for Autoarchive/bn. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lēnin: I am setting Autoarchive/bn as translated. I am not doing the other pages at this time. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New wikitext mode

I suggest enabling New wikitext mode as a beta feature, just like Wikipedia. Thus we can test gadgets on it. --Huawei251 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity

Hello all,

I am now processing the inactive users list. I'd like to adapt the policy slightly. The new policy can be found at TestWiki:Inactivity/Draft and the template for rights removal at Template:Inactivity/Draft.

Thanks

RhinosF1 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: The first removals under this policy, if approved, will be on or after 7th May for user inactive on the 1st May. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
All proposals passed and will be shortly implemented. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Reduce the inactivity time down to 3 months from 6 months.

Support

  1. Support We have a number of users who are unlikely to edit again who fall into this group. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Mazbel (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Aeonia Rose (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support --Huawei251 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support if someone is inactive for 3 months it's safe to say they probably won't be back for a while. If someone does regular testing that is fine and they can request an exemption which may be granted by Consuls and we'll be lenient about that. Reception123 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support No reason to keep useless rights. They can always request them back. Examknow (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support --Sourav Halder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal 2

Remove users from any group rather than sysop and crat.

Support

  1. Support I've done this for highly inactive users but I think this should be done for all groups. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support Aeonia Rose (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support It's not hard to regain rights when returning. --Huawei251 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support no need to keep useless rights, they can be added back if necessary. Reception123 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support per above Examknow (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support --Sourav Halder (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Support I find it redundant to apply this measure. The toolkits such as autoverifier, test group, rollback, do not demand a "great responsibility" as the administrator or bureaucrat would be, I think it would only overload the Special:UserRights.- Mazbel (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Users must be notified at least 7 days before the rights are removed.

Support

  1. Support gives them a chance. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support --Huawei251 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Mazbel (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Yeah, in case they still want to edit and/or were not aware of this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reception123 (talk • contribs)
  5. Support I see no reason why not. It is only fair to notify them in advance.Examknow (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support --Sourav Halder (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support --そらたこ🐙🌈 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

Inactive Rights Removal - 29 Apr 2020

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 7 May 2020 if they do not return to activity:

Thanks,

RhinosF1 (talk)
For the Consul Team
09:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done RhinosF1 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

@Reception123: Towards the end of my administrator rights you took a month to verify me,So the administrative rights will end in a few days.Before the end, I request you to give me the rights of administrator and bureaucrat. Examknow also told me to make a new request after I made this request [[1]] If I apply for the right Examknow Blocks(He was blocking me for that mistake(Disruptive Editing) me.I will make a request to verify my contribution.Then you can catch my mistakes. Later I show this car and release the block(I request you to block after a little discussion with the StewardsI was blocked for the same reason and later released void) I think applying for rights and not Disruptive Editing for rights Discussion.Even then I am requesting to verify

Not done User is blocked indefinitely for disruption -Examknow (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Right

A while ago EkWikiBot Unblocked by Return my rights nowSourav Halder (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your rights will not be returned for at least a week and continuing to demand things will get you blocked again. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonnedav Inactivity exemption

Hello, my activity may be spotty but I do intend to use my rights on occasion. Thus I wish to apply for exemption form the inactivity rule. Thank you. Bonnedav (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ll grant this later. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 Granted for 9 months to expire 2021-02-01 RhinosF1 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Bonnedav (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity Policy Exemption Request

Hi,

Is possible to be exempt of Inactivity Policy, please

Thanks --HeartsDo (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 9 months. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry, full-featured test wiki and automatic reset to zero.

Hello, what I comment on, I do not know if it is feasible at this time, I consult it in case there is a short-term possibility of doing it.
I must clarify that what I express is framed in contributing to the community and I greatly appreciate the important and enormous work that all the volunteers do in this wiki. I apologize in advance, that if, due to my misinformation, I comment something wrong, related to a particular situation.
I am very happy to know about this wiki for testing, since I have requested the creation of a new wiki and I am building it out of hand. There are options that I would like to implement in my wiki, this test wiki is ideal.

Current working format on the wiki

I was hoping to have a fully manageable wiki like the one I currently have on my newly created wiki, with the idea of ​​testing from the start, I understand that this is not possible because we are working on the same testing wiki (it would be interesting if this wiki is entirely to organize and document how we could carry out tests to later be able to implement in our wikis, something similar to Meta, a Meta test wiki).

Suggestion

If possible, it would be interesting to have one or more wikis as feasible, in addition to the resources available, perhaps to start one per language of the most widely used languages ​​or they may be requested. These wikis are automatically reset to zero, by giving a choice, every 24 hours or whichever time is most optimal for testing. These tests carried out by users of the community, which could be increased in greater quantity, would allow us to build in the test wiki (publictestwiki com), perhaps on a special page, How-to manuals (very good option to strengthen the community) .

Documentation suggestion

It is good to put into practice some option, functionality, permission, etc., starting from scratch, I consider that it is not optimal, this because it has not been documented somewhere, we can effectively take advantage of the work already done by other people from the community by documenting some test carried out (I understand that not all of us document, this for various reasons, but those that we can do will allow other members of the community to advance much faster, compared to doing it from scratch). Thank you very much, kind regards,--Geryescalier (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nuking pages

Hi. Where do you go to nuke pages? I couldn't find it on the Amin Links page. Thanks. Covid-19 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Nuke RhinosF1 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 21 May 2020

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 28 May 2020 if they do not return to activity:

Thanks,

RhinosF1 (talk)
For the Consul Team
21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for admin and bureaucrat

Hello, since it has been a week since my admin and bureaucrat privileges were removed, I am wondering if I can get them back again. I will undo all my tests and not test on any pages in the non-testing category. Thank you. Covid-19 (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done It’s barely a week which for me shows a hat collecting like desire, you’ve made 4 tests since. I am not convinced you are trustworthy. For now, If you make a few more non-admin tests, I’ll be happy to allow sysop in 24 hours. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sending mass messages

Sorry if the answer to this is obvious, but I made a test mass message list but I can't find where to send a message to that list. It wasn't on the list of Special Pages. How do I mass message people (it would only be myself in this case)? Thank you. Covid-19 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s restricited to sysops. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I see. Since I have made more tests (and will continue to test), can I be promoted to admin please? Covid-19 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Given your history and slightly inappropiate username, I am granting a 5 day admin trial. You will not be able to regain crat and must follow policy clearly without warning or it will be removed. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Now  Done, please let me know if you need it extending 24 hours before it expires for review. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. I will be careful and obey all the rules. Covid-19 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:UserGroupRights - Missing Administrators user group

I noticed that Special:UserGroupRights doesn't list the administrators user group. I wondered if that special page editing was limited to administrators or perhaps to interface administrators, but seeing this help page at MediaWiki, it seems like it's probably the latter or, perhaps, to system administrators. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if a consul or an interface administrator can edit that special page and list the "administrators" user group there? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See Special:ListGroupRights#sysop. -- Void Whispers 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Void: Doh! Thanks...still, I'm wondering if we should alphabetize, in ascending order, that table for organizational purposes. Thoughts? Dmehus (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We can't change the order of it. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: Okay, but on other wikis, like Meta Miraheze, it appears above or below the autopatrolled group. Is it something only system administrators can change? If so, then yeah, it's pretty minor and not worth bugging the system administrators and/or stewards (if they too have access). Dmehus (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sysadmins can't change it. There's a task for it. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, on the Miraheze Phabricator, presumably. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No, Wikimedia Phabricator. It's a MediaWiki Feature Request. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User Talk:RhinosF1 showing up on Special:BrokenRedirects

Hey @RhinosF1:,

I'm trying to clear the Special:BrokenRedirects report, and there's only two items left on there, one of which is your bot's talk page that redirects to your talk page that itself is essentially a soft redirect to your Miraheze Meta talk page. The other is User Talk:RhinosF1 that is essentially a soft redirect to your Miraheze Meta user talk page. I'm wondering, though, wouldn't it be easier to update your Public Test Wiki preferences to link to talk in your signature and then creation protect (at either sysop or consul level), infinitely, User talk:RhinosF1 and User Talk:RhinosF1? This would get us down to only one broken redirect, and we'd eliminate extra clickthroughs of people hitting your soft redirect to your Meta user talk page, until the Phabricator ticket resolves that other known issue.

Note: I'm posting this here as I didn't want to post about Public Test Wiki on your Miraheze Meta talk page. Dmehus (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I could but you could have just pinged me on discord. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Doh, that's true. Do we have a separate Public Test Wiki Discord server? Didn't want to clutter up the Meta Discord server. I could've DMed you on Discord, though. Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it's a general Miraheze server but DM is fine. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A strange issue for me to login

On public test wiki I am able to login but unable to access other wikis on Miraheze, when I attempt to login on Meta, I've received an error message There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. Could any consuls help me for the guide? SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: I would try 1) Logging out globally on another wiki and then 2) Clear out your browser's cache and cookies. That usually works. -Examknow (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
See Stewards' Noticeboard where Rob Kam is having the same issue; however, he has since withdrawn the question. Clearing one's cookies and full closing one's web browser should resolve the issue. Dmehus (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Really, you do not need to close out the browser. Clearing out the browser data should work fine. If that does not work, trying in incognito mode or the equivalent for your browser should do the trick. -Examknow (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much to Examknow. Clearing the cookies and browsing data is doesn't work on it, but using the incognito mode is work for Chrome. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

May I create a page "TestWiki:Sandbox/Filter test" to test the filter?--松 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@松 Yes, you may. Also, there is the page Filter test for mainspace-exclusive filters. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@松 and TFFfan: That sounds like a good way to test abuse filters, limiting them only to a certain test page as opposed to all or certain namespaces. If you would like TFFfan to help you with that abuse filter, I'm sure that would be fine as it is limited to only a testing page (a subpage of Sandbox). Dmehus (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus and TFFfan: Thank you for your reply. Adjusted the filter for testing on both.--松 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@松 and TFFfan: Okay, thanks for the update, Pine. Dmehus (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

I just copied some templates from Wikipedia and imported them here for top icons and a padlock icon. This would be used if a page is protected. I want to know if I can go and add the icons to all protected pages not in the User namespace? Here are some links. Template:Pp Template:Top icon. In addition, the top icon can be used for other purposes, such as a custom one for an official policy page. I just wanted some feedback on those ideas, and I can add them and/or make more proposals as well. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus Just pinging you for your feedback. You can remove when you get it. :) --TFFfan (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
TFFfan In theory, I like the page protection top icons as I do think they're useful and clearly show whether a page is protected. However, my concern is that in practice, on wikis where there is not a bot of some kind like AnomieBOT on English Wikipedia that checks protected pages or titles at regular intervals and automatically adds, and removes, the protected top icons, we could very easily end up in a situation (especially on a testing wiki) where we have unprotected pages with protected top icons (or vice versa). So, at this point, let's maybe hold off for now until we devise an error-free/problem-free solution? Dmehus (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-07-15

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-07-22 if they do not return to activity:

Thanks,

RhinosF1 (talk)
For the Consul Team
12:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m active again, hello. pls let me keep my rights :) Fair0002 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fair0002: Welcome back. As you've made an edit and/or a log action, you're considered active. @RhinosF1: and/or his bot will verify again on the stated removal date whether anyone has been active since the notification date. So, you've done everything you needed to do, as far as my understanding goes. Dmehus (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have updated the list. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: I thought you were maybe going to manually update Dross back to being inactive, due to the error in the script? If not, I have Strong support toward manually removing the user due to inactivity. This request can be treated as a community proposal, and manually closed by a consul in 5-7 calendar days if no meaningful opposition. ;) Dmehus (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done, pinging Void to see why the script hasn't picked Dross up. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
For anyone following this thread, Dross was rightfully deemed active by patrolling a revision earlier this month. Dmehus (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Community proposal to Add autopatrol to Autoconfirmed implicit user group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Done. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As part of an omnibus community proposal put forward by our Consul colleague RhinosF1 several months ago related to the management of inactive administrators and bureaucrats, proposal # 2 specified that all user groups were to be removed from all inactive users who hadn't made either an edit or a log action in the preceding ninety (90) days. The reasons for removing administrator and bureaucrat due to inactivity are obvious and center around security, primarily. For the other user groups, largely, they're added for reasons of testing user group additions and removals, and, since anyone can become an administrator, they're generally unneeded and thus create extraneous clutter.

As part of recent quality assurance testing, I came across a confirmed bug (will be tracked in Phabricator shortly) in one of our deployed extensions such that when a previous administrator loses their user rights, their previously automatically patrolled revisions become unpatrolled, adding to the patrol backlog.

To reduce that backlog, I propose that we add autopatrol to the Autoconfirmed implicit user group. Indeed, RhinosF1 already effected the same change recently on Loginwiki, primarily because that system administrator-managed central coordination wiki has no user groups and no local administrators yet still creates a fair amount of edits due to users maintaining their global user pages. As there is no set end date for fixing this bug, I propose that this change be indefinite. When it's resolved, we can easily propose to remove it from the group at the community portal, should there be a need (or we could just keep it that way as there's no reason not to).

Support

  1. Strong support As proposer. No reason not to. Dmehus (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/Neutral

Comments

  • It is difficult to remove the authority of Autoconfirmed, so I feel that the date before granting Autoconfirmed is too short.--松 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @松: Yes, that's true, but autoconfirmed doesn't provide that many rights on Public Test Wiki. Plus, anyone can request administrator in less time than it takes to become autoconfirmed. I'd ideally like to either (a) shorten the account age for autoconfirmed from four days to one day, since bureaucrat can be granted to any trustworthy user whose account is at least 24 hours old and has made at least ten edits or (b) increase the account age for bureaucrat to four days from one day in order to simplify the wording of the eligibility requirements. But, I don't want to run too many concurrent proposals nor do I want to create confusion with this proposal that's essentially a housekeeping amendment. Dmehus (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    From a spam standpoint, I think it's too short.--松 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    @松: Yeah, I get that, but we do have pretty aggressive abuse filters, local and global, and we don't really have a problem with, well, much if any automated spam on Public Test Wiki (at least I haven't seen any in the past several months since I've been here). Plus, I think it's pretty consistent with the way in which most of the Wikimedia projects grant autoconfirmed status? Dmehus (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

CircleyDoesExtracter Inactivity Exemption

Hi. I am CircleyDoesExtracter.

As I tell I casually use the rights on this wiki for testing, but they are casual.

Thus, I wish to apply for an exemption from the inactivity rule. Thanks.

CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@CircleyDoesExtracter: I'm not opposed to you being granted a temporary inactivity exemption, but you need only make one log action or edit every three months. And, you will receive an e-mail message (if you have talk page notifications enabled for your user talk page), so even just replying to the talk page notification on-wiki is enough to count you as active. Even patrolling a page revision or thanking someone for an edit should be enough to keep you as active. We're also in the process of redoing our inactivity policy going forward, but I would have no problem with granting you an inactivity exemption, if you'd still like, until the date specified by the latest most recently added exemption request. I meant to also add, you are active on Discord, as well, and keep in contact with RhinosF1 and I, so since we're both active on this wiki, both of us will keep an eye out for you and if we see you haven't made a log action or edit here in 2-2.5 months, we'll nudge you ahead of time on Discord to make one, which will also keep you active. Dmehus (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I see, but at least I got knowledge as a sysop. CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@CircleyDoesExtracter: Yeah, you definitely have a lot of experience as a bureaucrat and sysop on other wikis. As I say, I would support you being granted a temporary exemption until winter 2021 (about six months). By then, we should be able to have further clarified our policies with respect to inactivity exemptions. In any event, it will probably be moot as I will personally make sure that you do not go inactive, and {{ping}} you on-wiki and Discord to make sure you don't even go inactive. Dmehus (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've seen the Global rollback group suggestion and I thought that if each of the admins on the local wiki was able to successfully use the abuse filter, vandalism would be reduced.However, setting a abuse filter seems like a high threshold for light users.So, I thought it would be nice to create a page on this wiki with a lecture on how to set filters and a useful and simple example.I myself do not know how to set the filter.Thank you for your consideration.--松 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@松: We have Filter test, which can be used as a page for testing actual filters, so as to impact very few (if any) users. Feel free to improve upon that page to provide some instructions. As we fill out documentation on creating abuse filters, we'll probably want to utilize Help: namespace. Nonetheless, in regards to your suggestion, it's a good one, and I have no concerns with doing this. I'll try and work on this in the next month or so (that proposal, as written, probably will not pass, and will likely take yet another RfC in a few months to work towards having a global rollbacker group). Dmehus (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thank you for your reply.I'm glad you could help me with my suggestions. I'm not familiar with abuse filters, so it would have been difficult to complete this suggestion myself.I thought it wasn't enough to just import the wikipedia filter usage filter description page. (If I import, could you help me edit?).I thought I would say that in RfC, but I stopped thinking it would be off-topic.--松 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: I have noticed that in order to perform the import, unlike the template, you have to import not only one format but all the formats. (i.e. The amount of data is too large for me to do.)--松 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@松: Yes, you should usually include templates transcluded on the given template when importing. Are you saying you're getting a rate limiting error? If so, would you like me to temporarily assign you the bot flag, or would you like the bureaucrat bit? Let me know by way of a reply to this thread, and I can assign the applicable right requested, linking to the diff. Dmehus (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thank you for your reply.The page I'm trying to reference is this page.As it is, I feel that there are not enough examples, and since the translation code is inserted, it is better to remove the translation code.I also think it's better to import it into the help page.If we only need the latest version,I can probably import it.In my own private wiki(i.e.With bureaucrat and bot permissions), even smaller pages (but somewhat larger) have failed because they take too long, so I'm assuming they'll fail even with permissions.--松 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@松: Thanks for your reply, too. As to whether we need all revisions for CreativeCommons copyright compliance, I believe the answer is technically no (one revision is usually sufficient); however, I do like to for the purposes of attribution. I see what you mean, as it did nearly time out on me, but, with patience and, perhaps, the bureaucrat bit, I had success, and imported it to a subpage of User:松 (your userspace in a Drafts initial subpage). I opted to not include the transcluded templates with this import and, fortunately, that seemed to be helpful, as I see we only need to likely import {{int}} as {{caution}} can probably be replaced with an existing message box template we have. As well, because of that, the "translate this page" template wasn't included; however, we'll still manually need to remove the translation tags. I chose to import it into a subpage of your userspace first, as I imagine you'd like to do some fine-tuning, removing of the translation tags, and so forth. Dmehus (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Dmehus:Thank you very much.Great.--松 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Translation tags across section have been removed.With this,we can perform the work of removing the translation tag for each section.I'm going to sleep, so I'll take a break.--松 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I finished removing the translation tag.--松 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@松: Wow, thanks. I started to try and help with that, but there were a lot of translation tags and tvar tags to remove, so that's appreciated. This will be useful for formulating our abuse filter help pages. Dmehus (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Consul Request (Dmehus)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Successful RhinosF1 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm requesting the community's assent to promote me to Consul because, like RhinosF1's Consul request, I am the most active user here on Public Test Wiki. Indeed, it is one of my two home wikis (the other being Meta), and my total edits on this wiki represent more than 25% of my total global edit contributions across all Miraheze wikis. I am very active in actioning permissions requests at TestWiki:Request permissions, mentoring new administrators and bureaucrats, providing guidance to the same new users in the aforementioned two groups where and when appropriate, and cleaning up after the same. I am also very active on Discord and IRC and at this community portal with answering questions from potential, new, and existing administrators and bureaucrats.

Among my reasons for requesting Consul is so that I can continue with maintenance and minor copyediting to Consul-protected pages and redirects, implement a redirect categorization scheme to better manage and track our cross-namespace redirects, develop a long-planned school for new administrators and bureaucrats, and implement configuration changes in Special:ManageWiki upon their having been first discussed at this community portal. Over the medium- to longer-term, together with @RhinosF1: and other Consuls, I also plan to further develop and amend our policies, bringing them forward for discussion to this community portal for discussion and potential adoption.

I would welcome any questions any administrators and bureaucrats may have, and look forward to their supporting this request for Consul. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Bold, italic, and underlined. Naleksuh (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

Oppose

Questions for the Consul candidate

  1. How will you choose when to protect a page at consul level? Personally I feel that it is overused currently. While some pages should certainly be kept away from administrators, bureaucrat protection exists for a reason. Naleksuh (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh:, thanks for the question. I think things like the MediaWiki:Common.css should be protected at Consul because of the potential for abuse or misuse as bureaucrat is still, mainly, a testing user right, albeit to users who've at least demonstrated a higher level of trust than administrator. MediaWiki:Sidebar is kind of a grey area; I get the idea behind potentially lowering that to bureaucrat, but, at the same time, I could see that end up being quickly cluttered with links to tools only one or two editors might use, so would likely want to retain that protection level. Redirects, especially those with few if any inlinks, to policy or information pages could probably be lowered, at least to bureaucrat. Pages like TestWiki:Inactivity/Exceptions should remain Consul-protected for technical reasons as it is used by the Consul-operated bot as part of a semi-automated monthly inactivity notification and removal process. Looking through pages protected at Consul level, the only two that I would say could probably be lowered would be Donate (a cross-namespace redirect to TestWiki:Donate, with few if any inlinks linking to the redirect) and Request permissions (a cross-namespace redirect from main space to project space, again also with few if any inlinks).
    But, a TestWiki:Protection policy is one of the things I'm hoping to begin drafting over the medium-term, that gives some guidelines on when to protect a page and what protection level should ultimately be used under certain conditions, the result of which I would ultimately bring forward to TestWiki:Community portal for a community discussion. Prior to bringing it forward, though, I would notify the community via that same portal page of the location of the draft, and invite the community to discuss the guidelines that should go into the draft (presumably, on the draft's talk page). Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
He really should have this. I mean, look at all of his hard work. --TFFfan (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Should users be able to edit through tor?

In this log action, Dmehus revoked the torunblocked right from all registered users without warning and without consensus. As a big advocate of tor, I want the communities input on this, as to whether or not users should be able to edit through tor. TrustedInstaller (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Support as idea creator. TrustedInstaller (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment This idea has effectively been superceded by Proposal 4 as part of this community proposal, which I've now brought forward. You are encouraged to share your views, along with all members of the community. Dmehus (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please give feedback on template:Do not archive until

Please give feedback on template:Do not archive until.Adjusted to take into account that auto-archiving will take place two weeks later.See also meta:Autoarchive.Thank you for your cooperation.--松 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@松: I like the Meta archive templates. These are the ones that use a bot to archive them when you tag a thread with that template, correct? In any case, I would only make one small change, by replacing the transclusions of the Template:Intricate redirect with Template:Intricate template, the actual template, so we can delete the extraneous and unneeded redirect. Other than that, seems fine to me. :) Dmehus (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Wait, I think I'm getting confused by the two Meta templates; I would actually prefer us to drop the use of the Revibot automatic archiving as I do feel 14 days is too short and, since Revi has "de-facto retired" from the Miraheze wikis, it's unlikely it'll be setup on other wikis. My preference would be to adopt the Wikimedia Meta method of archiving whereby a different bot archives the thread when a human editor has tagged it with an applicable "okay to archive" template. Dmehus (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thank you for the advice.The replacement is complete.I think that the proposal to Revibot itself needs the proposal to meta RfC.--松 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@松: Yeah, I think replacing Revibot on Meta would definitely need either a (a) local RfC or (b) some sort of community discussion on the Meta community portal. What do you think? We could possibly replace, though, Revibot on TestWiki without too much discussion, as long as we talked it over with RhinosF1 and/or Void (the two most active consuls here). By the way, are you the same Pine from Wikimedia's Outreach Wiki? Dmehus (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:No, but unfortunately, the "松・Pine・Matsu" account could not be created because it has already been acquired.I'm thinking about when to reissue the suggestion requesting the introduction of this template in the Community noticeboard of meta.It might be better to collect opinions on testwiki.--松 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Where can I find a page on the testwiki where I can check if the template I created this time works as expected? (i.e.Where is Revibot valid page?)--松 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus:I've checked TestWiki:Rightsbot and I'm worried that if Revibot doesn't exist on this wiki, I can't test how the archive works on testwiki.--松 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@松: I thought you were trying to design an archiving system without Revibot? As far as I'm aware, I don't think Revibot is set up on Public Test Wiki; it's just set up on Meta. Maybe I'm a bit unclear on what the end goal of this template is. If it's just about telling Revibot not to archive threads before a certain period of time, why don't we just increase the days to archive value on Meta? Dmehus (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus:Please　see Template:Bump(Template:Bump).--松 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@松:, thanks. Saw it. What did you want me to look at? That just effectively works like a relisting template by adding a timestamp to prevent a thread from being archived, no? Dmehus (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:I discussed Spike and RfC rules.At that time, I came to the conclusion that I had to delay archiving the Community noticeboard during the draft period.The original template I'm creating now is supposed to be used for pages that will be archived in 2-3 days.Therefore, if we copy it to meta as it is, the archive becomes too slow.Since meta is an important wiki, you should be careful when introducing new templates.So, I'm making a beta version of the template on testWiki and requesting opinions.--松 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I saw the voting in the CN and resumed the template creation. I changed the name to Template:This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days for clarity of purpose.The name of this template is too long, so I think we need a redirect to a short name.We also need to rename Template:Do not archive until and Template:DNAU.I do not use English on a daily basis, so I would like to ask you, who uses English on a daily basis, for the opinion of the template name.thinks.--松 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)fix.--松 (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@松: Why do we need to rename {{Do not archive until}} and template redirect {{DNAU}}? Couldn't we just rename to {{This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days}} to {{Temporary prevention of automatic archiving}} and have {{TPAA}} as a template redirect? Dmehus (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus:Thank you for the advice.The reason we changed the name is that this template was created assuming that it will be archived by Revibot two weeks later.(i.e.If the bot settings are different, another template is required.) It seems good to set the name to {{Temporary prevention of automatic archiving}} so that we can select the bot to use instead of entering the comment as the second argument so that it can support multiple bots.--松 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@松: Thanks for the reply and clarification. Doesn't the template code show a parameter for defining a custom archiving time, though, with the, I think, 2= parameter? I may have misread the code (was looking quickly), but if that's not the case, perhaps we could add a custom time parameter? Dmehus (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thanks for the reply.For the time being, the only bot running on meta is Revibot, so it may be good to maintain the current status.Regarding the time parameter, it may be difficult because there was an explanation unless it corresponds in the original template.--松 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I am currently importing a template description page and trying to propagate the template changes to the description page.As for the section Examples, what do you think about reflecting the commented out part?--松 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Community proposal on the future of the torunblocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is consensus here to adopt either, or both, proposals 1 and 2. Indeed, nothing in the wording of proposals 1 and 2 indicates that either proposal is a zero-sum proposition. There is a fairly clear consensus against proposal 3 and some consensus, somewhere between a rough consensus and a slightly weak consensus against proposal 4. Accordingly, proposals 1 and 2 are adopted, and the informational page will include both this discussion, as now official community policy, and customs and conventions that evolve over time in terms of suggested granting guidelines. Dmehus (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Earlier this morning, following a discussion with fellow Consul @Reception123:, I took this action, which removed the torunblocked user group right from the registered, logged in users group, primarily, because this should be a right that can be granted on a discretionary basis, ideally by any bureaucrat or consul, and revoked for misuse or other discretionary reasons. We have a number of options here, so wanted to put them forward for a community vote and discussion, which will run for at least seven (7) calendar days.

Proposal 1: New Tor users user group

Proposal 1 proposes to establish a new Tor users user group that would be granted to trusted users by any bureaucrat or consul where there's a clear need. Need would be discretionary and formed through customs and conventions that evolve over time. It could be revoked by the same on a similar discretionary, common sense basis.

Support

  1. Strong support As proposer. By keeping the granting and revocation discretionary, and open to bureaucrats, we allow this user group right to granted to any trusted registered community user with a clear common sense need and, similarly, we can revoke it for similar broad reasons. Dmehus (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support This seems like the best option Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support It makes sense to give bureaucrats this right instead of all users. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Reception123: You may have misread. This proposal is not to give bureaucrats the right, it is to make a brand new group separate from bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh: I did note the slight discrepancy in the rationale, but I don't think Reception123 misread the proposal. I think what Reception123 meant was that it could be granted by both Consuls and Bureaucrats, both of whom are trusted. Dmehus (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Interesting idea, lets try it. Bonnedav (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Seems like an unnecessary new group. Since it would only be given to trusted users, it could be applied to an existing group like bureaucrat (the only exception would be if the trust level for it is higher than bureaucrat, but I'm guessing this isn't what dmehus has in mind, since he proposed bureaucrats being able to grant it). Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh: The idea behind the separate group is for several reasons. For one thing, not every testing administrator wants to request the bureaucrat bit, yet they're still trustworthy. Second, as I noted in the rationale, there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking bureaucrat, but where an administrator has either misused torunblocked or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right. The idea behind giving bureaucrats the ability to grant and revoke this right is so that trusted bureaucrats, who engage in non-test functions and duties, such as yourself, could be able to revoke this right from administrators on a discretionary basis. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking bureaucrat, but where an administrator has either misused torunblocked or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right This proposal doesn't solve that, since you're proposing bureaucrats being able to grant it. Either only consuls can grant it, or we just tie it to bureaucrat and revoke the bureaucrat of people who misuse it. I'd say the second, since I can't think of any instance where a user who can't be trusted with tor could be trusted with bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh: If a bureaucrat re-added to their account the Tor user group, for which they'd been advised the reason(s) for revoking, that would be wheel-warring and likely grounds for removal of at least the bureaucrat bit, so I did actually consider that possibility, and that's one of the reasons for why I proposed adding it as a separate user group. In other words, if we didn't quite have cause to remove bureaucrat then, we certainly would in that event, as the user was operating contrary to the restriction or right revocation that had been imposed on them. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    I still think it should be tied to bureaucrat though. I don't envision a situation in which a users tor has been revoked, but they should still have bureaucrat. The only advantage to this group would be only consuls granting it, and I don't think that's a good idea and just unneeded bureaucracy. I think the best approach is to give torunblocked to bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh: I should've mentioned that it's possible for up two of these proposals (proposals 1 and 2) to pass together. That is, proposal 1 could be implemented for the reasons articulated above, and proposal 2 could be implemented as well, for similar reasons, to reduce the need for trusted bureaucrats who wish to use Tor for testing purposes to be able to do so without adding the extra Tor user hat. Dmehus (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    Also, where you say that the "only advantage to this group would be only consuls granting it," actually, as I outlined, bureaucrats would be able to grant and revoke this user group because we have a good number of trusted bureaucrats (including you) that engage in non-testing 'crat duties and functions, so it makes sense to empower them with this ability. Dmehus (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

  1. Neutral I think this would the best choice if TOR started being abused, but right now I don't see that happening. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Add torunblocked to bureaucrat

Similar to Proposal 1, but the downside is, it would only be able to be revoked by a consul and only where removal of the bureaucrat bit was justified.

Support

  1. Support As proposer, as a reasonable second choice. My preference would be Proposal 1, so experienced bureaucrats can revoke it where needed and appropriate, on a discretionary basis. Dmehus (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Weak support Viable option, but I still prefer proposal one Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. I think that this is the best option, if it's necessary at all. Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't mind this option. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm actually thinking both this and 1. Since bureaucrats can add it anyway, why not have it be part of the bureaucrat toolset, that way they don't have to all grant it to themselves. Bonnedav (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Bonnedav: Good question. Absolutely, if there's support for both proposals 1 and 2, it's indeed possible for both proposals to pass, to reduce the need for trusted bureaucrats to add a second Tor user hat to their account. Dmehus (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose No reason why editing via tor should be restricted to crats. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

Proposal 3: Just eliminate torunblocked

Section heading says it all.

Support

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose, completely goes against the global open proxies policy, albeit they can be overridden, they shouldn't be. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    I would like to note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the NOPP. The global policy simply says that users may not edit anonymously from open proxies, and that these are blocked upon discovery at a global level. It does not apply to this situation at all, as it doesn't in any way regulate what local wikis decide regarding editing. A local wiki could block all Tor editing as well as any anonymous editing, and it would have nothing to do with the current policy which only applies to anon editing via open proxies and nothing else. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose I do not believe this to be the right course of action Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. There can be valid uses to be connecting from TOR, and I want to support this, but it is also used for abuse so frequently. Weak oppose. Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

  1. Neutral I am neither for or against this proposal, as, I guess, a reasonable third outcome. Dmehus (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  2.  Abstain I'm not sure what I think about this so I'm not going to take a side, but I feel that if someone really needs to be using Tor to edit, they should probably just get a global exemption. However, I don't mind if we locally give it to users. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Restore torunblocked to registered, logged in users group

Again, section heading says it all. I personally wouldn't support this, per my above explanation, but this gives the community an option to have its say.

Support

  1. Support not only does blocking it go against the global open proxies policy, blocking tor was a really unnecessary and targeted choice, as I am the only one using it. The main problem here with changing the torunblocked right was that no one was abusing it, therefore it shouldn't have been changed. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Please see my comment above regarding the incorrect claim that this in some way violates the NOPP. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, possibly strong, per my reasons articulated above, as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Four tildes Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I personally don't see why all users would need to be allowed to edit from Tor. Yes, this is a testwiki and we are more lenient but Tor can also be used to evade serious local and global locks. If there is a legitimate use for Tor, a global exemption can be requested. And even if Tor hasn't necessarily be abused yet on testwiki, that doesn't mean we need to wait for it to be abused before taking action. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

  1.  Abstain I really don't have an opinion either way regarding this one. Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion on the Proposals before us

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

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-08-24

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-08-31 if they do not return to activity:

Additionally, the following alternate account(s), with zero edits or log actions and which showed up on the inactivity report, has had its/their user groups removed by Consul action this date.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)
For the Consul Team
23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 5 users removed RhinosF1 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Consul Request - Naleksuh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unsuccessful. Due to the absence of any comments indicating either support or opposition to this candidature there is a complete absence of consensus for promoting Naleksuh to Consul. Thank you for helping us out on TestWiki, and I'm sure even without this position you can continue helping us as a bureaucrat here! Reception123 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey all! Similar to Dmehus' consul request, I am requesting consul as I am the second most active user here (after Dmehus) and believe I have proven myself to be trustworthy and active. I request consul so that I may help the community by importing and gaining consensus about local policies (currently we are just clinging to Wikipedia's policies, which while a fine short-term solution, we should have our own). This includes a much more rounded and polished protection policy (currently, we have way too many pages protected at Consul level, which Dmehus has also been working to fix). I also hope to clerk things such as inactivity requests and in general help the Test wiki much more as I prove myself to be constructive. If there are any questions/comments, let me know. Naleksuh (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Comment While I have not yet formed an opinion yet and am not necessarily opposed, I do think this may be a case of being too soon. For one thing, my own Consul request only closed a little over a week ago. In my request, I did say I was going to work on draft deletion, protection, and blocking policies, as three of the more important policies here on TestWiki. However, I am cognizant that TestWiki relies a lot on unwritten conventions and customs, as it allows us to be flexible, so am hesitant to propose to implement too many policies as one of our hallmarks is that we don't have very many rules. In terms of the pages protected at Consul level, I did remove Consul protection on two little or unused Consul-protected redirects, and had an initial look at what were Consul-protected, but couldn't see any glaring ones that needed lowering of protection levels. To be honest, as I suggested on IRC, I think we should have a community discussion on what Consul protected pages should be lowered. As far as the inactivity clerking, well, we do have @RhinosF1: who is still fairly active here. I assisted him this month with that, primarily because he's taking a very short break this week and has been so involved with the MirahezeBots project, trying to get the major version 9 release out (which completely overhauls the code, adds new functionality, and resolves known issues and/or bugs). Dmehus (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, having way too many policies is a bit of a bad thing, however, if we find ourselves having to link to Wikipedia policies about things here, I would say this "somewhat" justifies a change. Not that the policies here have to be different. Some can be similar, others can be opposites, depending on what the situation is. Naleksuh (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Give feedback on Template:Delete

I imported and fixed the template from Meta, this can be notified administrator delete. I would like to establish a new deletion policy and become a formal policy. This category's list of page can be deleted by administrator, so can use this template for all users to request deletion. Thanks, –S3097 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@S3097: When you say you would like to establish "a new deletion policy and become a formal policy," do you mean on TestWiki or Meta? While we may want to have a formal deletion policy, it needn't be too detailed, and would mainly revolve around after what timeframe other administrators can delete long abandoned userspace sandbox content of long departed former administrators. With regard to this deletion template, it's a good-faith idea, to be sure. And if this were any other wiki, I'd say, "yes, implement it"; however, the number of potential users who would utilize this is very low (I can think of only one, maybe two, non-administrator users who might use it). Since essentially anyone can become an administrator, they can just delete the page for which they're requesting deletion. Dmehus (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree with Dmehus on this one. Since essentially anyone can become an admin, the page can simply just be deleted and I don't think it's necessary for such a template to exist, although it certainly isn't harmful. I think a deletion policy is a good idea but in a different respect (policy of how the deletion tool is used). Naleksuh (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Alias

Can TW become an alias for Project/TestWiki? Naleksuh (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Yes, absolutely, this was on my list of things to do, actually. What do you think should be the aliases for the other namespaces, other than Main namespace (which doesn't need one)? Dmehus (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they're necessary for other namespaces. I have no opposition to them being created if a use is found though. Naleksuh (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: Okay, I've  done this then, with TW: the alias for Project: namespace and TWT: the alias for Project talk: namespace, as that seemed logical. Other aliases I would primarily add would be U: for User: namespace; UT: for User talk: namespace; T: for Talk: namespace; and CAT: and CT: for Category: and Category talk: namespaces. The others probably don't really need aliases in the medium term, if at all. Any objections to those as the aliases? Dmehus (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they are needed but see no problem with them. Naleksuh (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: It appears that non-project shortcuts are on wikipedia's list of perennial proposals. Since we generally try to follow Wikipedia, maybe they should be removed for that reason. Naleksuh (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: I'm a bit confused because my understanding is that English Wikipedia does have non-project namespace shortcut aliases; however, I was also told by another Consul, if I recall correctly, that English Wikipedia does their namespace shortcut aliases differently than Miraheze. At any rate, I haven't added any of the other aliases yet, so can certainly off for now. Dmehus (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/TestWiki:Community_portal/Archive_2?oldid=42855"