User talk:Synoman Barris

Protection level of user talk pages, revision deletions, the bot flag, and test edits
Hi Synoman Barris,

I see that you are making the most of the  tools and the   bit. However, as part of my daily review of our public logs, I noticed several important items I thought I should address with you, so that you know them for the future. Most of our policies are outlined, but we do rely a lot on a combination of common sense and unwritten customs and conventions that have normalized over time, so it's often helpful to advise users of these customs and conventions as they occur. Each is discussed in turn.


 * Protection level of user talk pages. User talk pages should not be set any higher than  or   user levels. This is because a bot and/or maintenance script need access to user talk pages in order to administer the inactivity notifications, as applicable, from time to time. Secondarily, as bureaucrats, we grant user rights, which sometimes are requested on our user talk pages. Additionally, non-administrators may have questions of us. Thus, for these reasons, we should not protect our user talk pages higher than those levels, as you did in this edit.
 * Revision deletions. Unless it's on revision deletion test, you should always revert any revision deletions, and never hide the performer (principally, or most often, you) of the action. We value transparency on Public Test Wiki, so there is almost never a reason to hide the performer, as you did in this log action.
 * The  flag. While bureaucrats can grant, technically and procedurally, the   flag, usually to their own account or sub-accounts, it should only be done for a temporary basis to prevent things like Special:RecentChanges flooding, as you did with your sub-account here and here. If you want to apply for a full, permanent bot account, you can request it at Bot approval requests, and a Consul will review your request in due course.
 * Reverting test edits. Per this policy sub-section, you should always make sure you are undoing any test edits or log actions, including test page creations, test blocks, and other actions, broadly construed. I've noticed you are mostly doing this, and this is to your great credit, but have noted a few instances where it was not, so thought it would be a good reminder.

Thanks for your attention to these notes, and happy testing! :)

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Open proxy blocking
Hi Synoman Barris,

I personally have no issues with you blocking open proxy IP addresses per the global no open proxies policy as it's somewhere between harmless and potentially useful in that your blocking the open proxy IP addresses does create an entry in the, which may give it an elevated prominence to Global Sysops and stewards. However, my only question is how you arrived at the varied duration of the blocks? Since they're anonymous only soft or soft-ish blocks, my first thought would be to make the local blocks for a 3-6 months, consistent with the global convention for such blocks. However, I could also see blocking for only a couple weeks to a month, since, presumably, these would be blocked on a global level eventually.

Anyway, hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I use a tool to approximate how long the proxies are open. The two week block are for proxies which I believe can be closed soon, or do you have a suggestion in mind? --Synoman Barris (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of anything, no. If you've used such a tool, I'll trust your judgment. Maybe my Consul colleague, also a Global Sysop, has an idea. Did you see my reply about potential housekeeping in Template: namespace (i.e., unused or little use out of scope test template imports)? Dmehus (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like I missed the ping, where did you post that? --Synoman Barris (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's on my user talk page; I left the thread open until you've read it and replied and/or otherwise acknowledged it (i.e., 'thanks'). Dmehus (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also curious, what did you mean by your blocking the open proxy IP addresses does create an entry in the, which may give it an elevated prominence to Global Sysops and stewards. --Synoman Barris (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, good question. Yeah,  is an IRC RecentChanges feed for all public Miraheze wikis. It's used mainly by stewards and Global Sysops to monitor cross-wiki vandalism or abuse more efficiently. We used to have Proxybot that I mentioned that automatically blocked open proxies, but it hasn't functioned for quite awhile now, so global functionaries mainly monitor, presumably, the same sort of open proxy lists you monitor as well as notifications in that IRC feed. It generally reports AbuseLog and block entries from public wikis, as well as certain keywords that may indicate either (a) vandalism or (b) Code of Conduct harassment or other violations. There are also wiki-specific feeds that you can have a MirahezeBots project developer setup, including for your wiki, if you wish. Well, you can actually create the IRC channel (usually in the format  ), and then a MirahezeBots developer will add one of the IRC bots to your IRC feed. You can also join our TestWiki channel at #miraheze-testwiki or monitor TestWiki's RC feed at #miraheze-feed-test. Dmehus (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Dmehus, how can I know when a wiki of mine has been created. I never receive pings if my Wiki is created or declined e.t.c. Thanks --Synoman Barris (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I have actually just finished creating a new wiki, Netflix wiki. As to not receiving Echo notifications (a.k.a. "pings"), that was a long-standing shortcoming in Special:RequestWiki; however,, as part of a significant feature improvement to RequestWiki, recently resolved this. So, you should be receiving your Echo notifications fairly shortly after a request is updated. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity
Hello, In accordance with Inactivity, I am writing to inform you that your user rights will be removed on or after 26 January 2021 if you do not return to activity.

Please inform me if you would like to retain your rights and/or be made exempt from inactivity rules.

In the event you wish to return to TestWiki after the above date, you may re-request rights via Request permissions.

Thanks,
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Dmehus
 * For the Consul Team
 * 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Inactivity
Per Inactivity, I have removed the user rights that you held from your account. If at any time you wish to re-gain these permissions, you may request for them at Request permissions or my user talk page. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for Dmehus (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2022
Please be aware of the notice regarding your actions at User talk:ApexAgunomu and the warning now in effect. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you seen that the user was actively deleting translation units at that time even after multiple warnings.The best action I sought was to block the user to prevent further disruption as o fixed the mess.If thats what will we call disruption from my part, I consider it best to hand over my tools since I clearly don't understand their use. Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they thought you were being disruptive (though I certainly was). They just prefer that you contact one of them on the IRC channel (the link to which is on the main page) instead of blocking someone as they are readily available and can determine the best course of action. ApexAgunomu ( My changes here |  Drop me a line ) 12:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see that in a log but I don't believe you had to act immediately. You could have contacted any consul first given the sanctions were a consul action. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)