TestWiki:Community portal

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)
 * ❌ 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 ✅, 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. -- Void  Whispers 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 ,

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)
 * 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 . Clearing the cookies and browsing data is doesn't work on it, but using the incognito mode is work for Chrome. SA</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 23:49, 12 June 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 Autoarchive.Thank you for your cooperation.--松 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

I've checked 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)
 * 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)
 * Please　see Template:Bump(Template:Bump).--松 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)

I discussed 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)

Question
May I create a page "TestWiki:Sandbox/Filter test" to test the filter?--松 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Yes, you may. Also, there is the page Filter test for mainspace-exclusive filters. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Thank you for your reply. Adjusted the filter for testing on both.--松 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Just pinging you for your feedback. You can remove when you get it. :) --TFFfan (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * - Now active
 * - Now active
 * - Not marked as inactive
 * - Now active
 * - Now active
 * - Not marked as inactive
 * - Now active
 * - Now active
 * - Now active

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)
 * Welcome back. As you've made an edit and/or a log action, you're considered active. 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)
 * 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 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)
 * ✅, 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 to Autoconfirmed implicit user group
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * 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  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)  As proposer. No reason not to. Dmehus (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Regards,  ZI Jony  (Talk) 11:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 . I'd ideally like to either (a) shorten the account age for   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)
 * 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