2,513
edits
TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
m
Updating wikilink target and/or transclusion(s) following requested global rename, using a piped link where possible to preserve the name at the message posting time
m (Substituting templates Template:Discussion top and Template:Discussion bottom that should be substituted.) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
m (Updating wikilink target and/or transclusion(s) following requested global rename, using a piped link where possible to preserve the name at the message posting time) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 272:
== [[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? — [[User:Revi|<span style="color:green"><
:I don't know, it's not in the log. [[User:MacFan4000]] has restored these rights for you. [[User:Kiko4564|Kiko4564]] ([[User talk:Kiko4564|talk]]) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
::For anyone wondering, see [[m:Tech:Incidents/2018-04-26-DataLoss|Tech:Incidents/2018-04-26-DataLoss]]. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px grey;font-family:High Tower Text">-- [[User:Void|<span style="color:#123524">Void</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Void|<span style="color:#353839">''Whispers''</span>]]</sup></span> 00:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Line 418:
== 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? [[User:
:You can either email stewards[at]miraheze.org or appeal your block. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 14:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Line 544:
== 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.<br />
''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.''<br />
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.
Line 576:
: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. [[User:Covid-19|Covid-19]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Covid-19|Covid-19]] ([[User talk:Covid-19|talk]]) 12:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:It’s restricited to sysops. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Covid-19|Covid-19]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Okay, thank you very much. I will be careful and obey all the rules. [[User:Covid-19|Covid-19]] ([[User talk:Covid-19|talk]]) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
== [[Special:UserGroupRights]] - Missing [[TestWiki:Administrators|Administrators]] user group ==
I noticed that [[Special:UserGroupRights]] doesn't list the [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] user group. I wondered if that special page editing was limited to administrators or perhaps to interface administrators, but seeing [[mw:Manual:Configuration settings#Special pages|this help page at MediaWiki]], it seems like it's probably the ''latter'' or, perhaps, to system administrators. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if a [[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]] or an [[TestWiki:Interface administrators|interface administrator]] can edit that special page and list the "administrators" user group there? Thanks. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:See [[Special:ListGroupRights#sysop]]. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px grey;font-family:High Tower Text">-- [[User:Void|<span style="color:#123524">Void</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Void|<span style="color:#353839">''Whispers''</span>]]</sup></span> 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Void}} Doh! Thanks...still, I'm wondering if we should alphabetize, in ascending order, that table for organizational purposes. Thoughts? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::We can't change the order of it. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 11:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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). [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Sysadmins can't change it. There's a task for it. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 13:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::Ah, gotcha, on the Miraheze Phabricator, presumably. Thanks! [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::No, Wikimedia Phabricator. It's a MediaWiki Feature Request. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, thanks. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
== [[User Talk:RhinosF1]] showing up on [[Special:BrokenRedirects]] ==
Hey {{ping|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 [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to link to [[mh:meta:User talk:RhinosF1|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:I could but you could have just pinged me on discord. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk: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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::No, it's a general Miraheze server but DM is fine. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:SA 13 Bro|<b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b>]] ([[User talk:SA 13 Bro|talk]]) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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. -[[User:Examknow|Examknow]] ([[User talk:Examknow|talk]]) 23:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
::See [[meta:SN|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Examknow|Examknow]] ([[User talk:Examknow|talk]]) 23:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Yes, thank you very much to {{u|Examknow}}. Clearing the cookies and browsing data is doesn't work on it, but using the incognito mode is work for Chrome. [[User:SA 13 Bro|<b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b>]] ([[User talk:SA 13 Bro|talk]]) 23:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
== Question ==
May I create a page "TestWiki:Sandbox/Filter test" to test the filter?--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:@{{u|松}} Yes, you may. Also, there is the page [[Filter test]] for mainspace-exclusive filters. Thanks! --[[User:TFFfan|TFFfan]] ([[User talk:TFFfan|talk]]) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|松|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]]). [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 20:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
{{ping|Dmehus|TFFfan}} Thank you for your reply. Adjusted the filter for testing on both.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|松|TFFfan}} Okay, thanks for the update, Pine. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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! --[[User:TFFfan|TFFfan]] ([[User talk:TFFfan|talk]]) 23:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Dmehus}} Just pinging you for your feedback. You can remove when you get it. :) --[[User:TFFfan|TFFfan]] ([[User talk:TFFfan|talk]]) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|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 [[TestWiki:Bots|bot]] of some kind like [[w:User:AnomieBOT|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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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:
*{{RFP/User|~Squiggles~}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|A2093064}} - Now active</s>
*{{RFP/User|AnimeBot}}
*{{RFP/User|Bonnedav-test}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|Borschts}} - Now active</s>
*{{RFP/User|Brownlowe.2}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|Dross}} - Not marked as inactive</s>
*{{RFP/User|DW YoungDLS}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|Fair0002}} - Now active</s>
*{{RFP/User|Mazbel}}
*{{RFP/User|Rots61}}
*{{RFP/User|Shadi12}}
Thanks,
:[[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]])
:For the Consul Team
:12:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I’m active again, hello. pls let me keep my rights :) [[User:Fair0002|Fair0002]] ([[User talk:Fair0002|talk]]) 02:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Fair0002}} Welcome back. As you've made an ''edit'' and/or a ''log action'', you're considered ''active''. {{ping|RhinosF1}} and/or his [[User:RF1 Bot|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
::I have updated the list. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 09:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|RhinosF1}} I thought you were maybe going to manually update [[User:Dross|Dross]] back to being ''inactive'', due to the error in the script? If ''not'', I have {{support|strong}} toward manually removing the user due to inactivity. This request can be treated as a community proposal, and manually closed by a [[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]] in 5-7 calendar days if no meaningful opposition. ;) [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{done}}, pinging [[User:Void|Void]] to see why the script hasn't picked Dross up. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::For anyone following this thread, [[User:Dross|Dross]] was rightfully deemed active by ''patrolling'' a revision earlier this month. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
== Community proposal to Add <code>autopatrol</code> to [[TestWiki:Autoconfirmed users|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. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
----
As part of an omnibus [[Special:Permalink/23514#Inactivity|community proposal]] put forward by our [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] colleague [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] several months ago related to the management of inactive [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] and [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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 [[TestWiki:Administrators|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 [[Special:RecentChanges|patrol]] [[Special:NewPages|backlog]].
To reduce that backlog, I propose that we add <code>autopatrol</code> to the [[TestWiki:Autoconfirmed users|Autoconfirmed]] implicit user group. Indeed, [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] already effected the same change recently on [[mh:login|Loginwiki]], primarily because that [[meta:System administrators|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 [[mw:Extension:GlobalUserPage|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 [[TestWiki:Community portal|the community portal]], should there be a need (or we could just keep it that way as there's no reason ''not'' to).
=== Support ===
# {{Support|Strong}} As proposer. No reason ''not'' to. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} -- Regards, [[User:ZI Jony|<span style="color:#8B0000">'''ZI Jony'''</span>]] [[User talk:ZI Jony|<sup><span style="color:Green"><i>(Talk)</i></span></sup>]] 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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|松}} Yes, that's true, but [[Meta:Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed]] doesn't provide ''that'' many rights on Public Test Wiki. Plus, anyone can request [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] in less time than it takes to become <code>autoconfirmed</code>. I'd ideally like to either (a) ''shorten'' the account age for <code>autoconfirmed</code> from four days to one day, since [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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 [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
*:::From a spam standpoint, I think it's too short.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|松}} Yeah, I get that, but we ''do'' have pretty aggressive [[Special:AbuseFilter|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 [[Meta:Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed]] status? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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 </div>
== 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.
[[User:CircleyDoesExtracter|CircleyDoesExtracter]] ([[User talk:CircleyDoesExtracter|talk]]) 13:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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 [[meta:Discord|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}} I see, but at least I got knowledge as a sysop. [[User:CircleyDoesExtracter|CircleyDoesExtracter]] ([[User talk:CircleyDoesExtracter|talk]]) 14:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|CircleyDoesExtracter}} Yeah, you definitely have a lot of experience as a <code>bureaucrat</code> and <code>sysop</code> 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 {{tl|ping}} you on-wiki and [[meta:Discord|Discord]] to make sure you don't even ''go'' inactive. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 16:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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). [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk: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.)--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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 [[TestWiki:Bots|bot]] flag, or would you like the [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] bit? Let me know by way of a reply to this thread, and I can assign the applicable right requested, linking to the [[Special:Diff|diff]]. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Dmehus}} Thank you for your reply.The page I'm trying to reference is this [[mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|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 [[w:WP:ATT|attribution]]. I see what you mean, as it did nearly time out on me, but, with patience and, perhaps, the [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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 {{tl|int}} as {{tl|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 19:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Outdent|5}}{{ping|Dmehus}}Thank you very much.Great.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Done}} I finished removing the translation tag.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 13:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
== Consul Request (Dmehus) ==
<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.
::Successful [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 14:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
----
I'm requesting the community's assent to promote me to [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] because, like [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]]'s [[TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 2#Consul Request (RhinosF1)|Consul request]], I am the most [[Special:ActiveUsers|active user]] here on '''[[mh:test|Public Test Wiki]]'''. Indeed, it is one of my two home wikis (the other being '''[[mh:meta|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 [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] and [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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 [[meta:Discord|Discord]] and [[meta:IRC|IRC]] and at [[TestWiki:Community portal|this community portal]] with answering questions from potential, new, and existing [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] and [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]].
Among my reasons for requesting [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] is so that I can continue with maintenance and minor copyediting to <code>[[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]]</code>-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 [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] and [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]], and implement configuration changes in [[Special:ManageWiki]] upon their having been first discussed at [[TestWiki:Community portal|this community portal]]. Over the medium- to longer-term, together with {{ping|RhinosF1}} and other [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consuls]], I also plan to further develop and amend our [[TestWiki:Policies|policies]], bringing them forward for discussion to [[TestWiki:Community portal|this community portal]] for discussion and potential adoption.
I would welcome any questions any [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrators]] and [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]] may have, and look forward to their supporting this request for [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]]. Thanks. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
<!--- Please add expressions of support below --->
=== Support ===
# Bold, italic, and underlined. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Neutral/Abstain ===
=== Oppose ===
=== Questions for the [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul candidate]] ===
# 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
#:{{ping|Naleksuh}}, thanks for the question. I think things like the [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] should be protected at [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] because of the potential for abuse or misuse as [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] is still, mainly, a testing user right, albeit to users who've at least demonstrated a higher level of trust than [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]]. [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] is kind of a grey area; I get the ''idea'' behind potentially lowering that to [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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 [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]]. Pages like [[TestWiki:Inactivity/Exceptions]] should remain [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]]-protected for technical reasons as it is used by the [[User:RF1 Bot|Consul-operated bot]] as part of a semi-automated monthly inactivity notification and removal process. Looking through [[Special:ProtectedPages|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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 </div>
:He really should have this. I mean, look at all of his hard work. --[[User:TFFfan|TFFfan]] ([[User talk:TFFfan|talk]]) 18:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
== Should users be able to edit through tor? ==
In [https://publictestwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&logid=9817 this] log action, [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] revoked the <code>torunblocked</code> 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. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support''' as idea creator. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' This idea has effectively been superceded by Proposal 4 as part of this [[TestWiki:Community portal#Community proposal on the future of the torunblocked|community proposal]], which I've now brought forward. You are encouraged to share your views, along with ''all'' members of the community. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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. :) [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}} Thank you for the advice.The replacement is complete.I think that the proposal to Revibot itself needs the proposal to meta RfC.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
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?)--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
{{ping|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}}Please see [[Template:Bump]]([[w:Template:Bump|Template:Bump]]).--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Dmehus}}I discussed {{u|Spike}} and [[meta:Requests_for_Comment/Require_that_RfCs_undergo_a_public_comment_period|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)fix.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 04:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|松}} Why do we need to rename {{tl|Do not archive until}} and template redirect {{tl|DNAU}}? Couldn't we just rename to {{tl|This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days}} to {{tl|Temporary prevention of automatic archiving}} and have {{tl|TPAA}} as a template redirect? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|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 {{tl|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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, <code>2=</code> 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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 [[w:template:Bump/doc|explanation]] unless it corresponds in the original template.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|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?--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
== 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,
Earlier this morning, following a discussion with fellow [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] {{ping|Reception123}}, I took [[Special:Redirect/logid/9817|this action]], which removed the <code>torunblocked</code> user group right from the [[TestWiki:Users|registered, logged in users]] group, primarily, because this should be a right that can be granted on a discretionary basis, ideally by any [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[TestWiki:Consuls|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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor users]] user group ===
Proposal 1 proposes to establish a new [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor users]] user group that would be granted to ''trusted'' users by any [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[TestWiki:Consuls|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, [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] basis.
==== Support ====
# {{Support|strong}} As proposer. By keeping the granting and revocation discretionary, and open to [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} This seems like the best option [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} It makes sense to give bureaucrats this right instead of all users. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
#:{{ping|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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::{{ping|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} Interesting idea, lets try it. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# 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). [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
#:{{ping|Naleksuh}} The idea behind the separate group is for several reasons. For one thing, not every testing administrator wants to request the <code>bureaucrat</code> 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 [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> 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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#:: {{tq|there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::: {{ping|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 [[w:WP:WHEEL|wheel-warring]] and likely grounds for removal of at least the <code>bureaucrat</code> 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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::::: {{ping|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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor user]] hat. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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, [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
#'''Neutral''' I think this would the best choice if TOR started being abused, but right now I don't see that happening. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Proposal 2: Add <code>torunblocked</code> to [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] ===
Similar to Proposal 1, but the downside is, it would only be able to be revoked by a [[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]] and only where removal of the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit was justified.
==== Support ====
# {{Support}} As proposer, as a reasonable second choice. My preference would be Proposal 1, so experienced [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]] can revoke it where needed and appropriate, on a discretionary basis. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support|weak}} Viable option, but I still prefer proposal one [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# I think that this is the best option, if it's necessary at all. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} I don't mind this option. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{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. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#: {{ping|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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor user]] hat to their account. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# {{oppose}} No reason why editing via tor should be restricted to crats. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 15:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
=== Proposal 3: Just eliminate <code>torunblocked</code> ===
Section heading says it all.
==== Support ====
==== Oppose ====
# '''Strong''' {{oppose}}, completely goes against the [https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/No_open_proxies_policy global open proxies] policy, albeit they ''can'' be overridden, they shouldn't be. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{oppose|strong}} I do not believe this to be the right course of action [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
# '''Neutral''' I am neither ''for'' or ''against'' this proposal, as, I guess, a reasonable third outcome. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Proposal 4: Restore <code>torunblocked</code> to [[TestWiki:Users|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 ====
# {{support}} not only does blocking it go against the [https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/No_open_proxies_policy 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 <code>torunblocked</code> right was that no one was abusing it, therefore it shouldn't have been changed. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# {{Oppose}}, possibly ''strong'', per my reasons articulated above, as proposer. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# Four tildes [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
# {{Abstain}} I really don't have an opinion either way regarding this one. [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk: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 </div>
==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:
*{{RFP/User|Geryescalier}}
*{{RFP/User|Hanatole}}
*{{RFP/User|Q-bit}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|QueerEcofeminist}}</s> now active
*{{RFP/User|Tiven2240}}
*{{RFP/User|3oem9}}
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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] action this date.
*{{RFP/User|Syno sock}}
Thanks,
:[[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]])
:For the Consul Team
:23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{done|5 users removed}} [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
== Consul Request - Naleksuh ==
{{Discussion top|1=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! [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk: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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|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 [[meta:IRC|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 {{ping|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). [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
== 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. [[:Category:Candidates for deletion|This category]]'s list of page can be deleted by administrator, so can use this template for all users to request deletion. Thanks, –[[User:S3097|S3097]] ([[User talk:S3097|talk]]) 07:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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 [[w:WP:AGF|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
== Alias ==
Can TW become an alias for Project/TestWiki? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|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)? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} Okay, I've {{Done|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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: I don't think they are needed but see no problem with them. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
[[Category:Non-test pages]]
| |||