TestWiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From TestWiki
Line 155: Line 155:
== Community proposal on the future of the <code>torunblocked</code> ==
== Community proposal on the future of the <code>torunblocked</code> ==
<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.
::There is [[w:WP:CON|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 [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] ''against'' proposal 3 and some consensus, somewhere between a [[w:WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Hi everyone,
Line 230: Line 234:
=== Comments/Discussion on the Proposals before us ===
=== 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 </div>
==Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-08-24==
==Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-08-24==

Revision as of 15:18, 27 August 2020

Community Portal

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3
Welcome to our Community portal. Post your questions, issues, or problems below by clicking either here or the Start a new topic big blue button to the immediate right.

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.-- (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Dmehus: Thank you for the advice.The replacement is complete.I think that the proposal to Revibot itself needs the proposal to meta RfC.-- (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@: 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)[reply]

@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.-- (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?)-- (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.-- (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@: 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)[reply]
@Dmehus:Please see Template:Bump(Template:Bump).-- (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@:, 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)[reply]

@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.-- (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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.-- (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)fix.-- (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@: 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)[reply]
@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.-- (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@: 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)[reply]
@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.-- (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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?-- (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

@ Yes, you may. Also, there is the page Filter test for mainspace-exclusive filters. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ 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.-- (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

Dmehus Just pinging you for your feedback. You can remove when you get it. :) --TFFfan (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I have updated the list. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
 Done, pinging Void to see why the script hasn't picked Dross up. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Community proposal to Add autopatrol to Autoconfirmed implicit user group

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@Dmehus: I see, but at least I got knowledge as a sysop. CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]


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.-- (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@: 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)[reply]
@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.-- (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.)-- (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@: 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)[reply]
@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.-- (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@: 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)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Dmehus:Thank you very much.Great.-- (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.-- (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@: 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)[reply]

Consul Request (Dmehus)

He really should have this. I mean, look at all of his hard work. --TFFfan (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support as idea creator. TrustedInstaller (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Community proposal on the future of the torunblocked

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.


Dmehus (talk)
For the Consul Team
23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Consul Request - Naleksuh

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)[reply]





  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]