TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assume good faith

Hi everyone. Please see the proposed policy TestWiki:Assume good faith and let me know if you have any problems with it. Otherwise, it can be set to policy page. Naleksuh (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Only due to the considerable lack of content in the policy. If @Naleksuh: were to add more content, description, etc., then based on the content I would probably change my current Weak oppose to Strong support. @Dmehus: What do you think of the policy? BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlackWidowMovie0: I have removed the support/oppose sections you added, because this is not a numerical vote. As for it being short, you are free to expand it once your block expires. Naleksuh (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: I am not going to expand it right now for a couple reasons. First, it is YOUR policy. You get to make it, make the decisions around it until it is ready. Also, I am really busy right now with a lot of things, sorry, but I'll get around to it as some point if I can. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor 20:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlackWidowMovie0: That's fine, you don't have to expand the policy, but I would just note that it is a draft policy, and this isn't yet a community vote to adopt a finished policy, so anyone is encouraged to contribute, or not contribute, to said draft policy. It's not just up to Naleksuh, even though he did propose it for discussion. Secondly, I do find it a bit interesting that you're citing the same rationale I have given you for not being able to look at certain things you've asked me to look at it. Finally, any reason why you've chosen not to include a link to your user talk page in your signature, or was that just an oversight? Dmehus (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I made that rationale up on the spot, probably remembered it from when you told me it lol. And there was no link to the talk page because I needed the block to expire to set my new signature, you'll see it in this message. Also, just a quick question. You can't upload files to loginwiki, how do you get a picture to get onto the global userpage? User:BlackWidowMovie0/signature 22:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlackWidowMovie0: You can use Miraheze Commons to upload images that can be used on any Miraheze wiki Naleksuh (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Thanks! User:BlackWidowMovie0/signature 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-09-22

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-09-29 if they do not return to activity:

• GrahamSH ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• JavaHurricane ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

RhinosF1 (talk)

For the Consul Team

14:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 2 users removed per the Inactivity report. Dmehus (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Forum error

I attempted to close a test forum topic, but got a MediaWiki exception for database query error. Anyone else experiences this? Naleksuh (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

When the conditions of the abuse filter are met, a database query error was displayed, but I'm not sure if it is related to this case.--松 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: I haven't tried to close a forum topic, but I do get similar errors when editing a forum's description or adding forum description that exceeds 255 characters. That's likely a bug and should be upstreamed (assuming Wikimedia Phabricator handles that). I also plan on creating an upstream task to revamp the extension's error handling to instead reject the user's input where it's not acceptable (i.e., descriptions greater than 255 characters). For that reason, I don't plan on using the WikiForum extension here for anything other than strictly testing purposes, at least until most of the bugs are fixed. Dmehus (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to adapt an archive bot to this page and Rp, what about the time to archive?

Would you want it to be the same as meta?--松 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think an archive bot is necessary here. Especially for pages like cp that should definitely be manual archive. Naleksuh (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@松 and Naleksuh: Thank you for the question. I wondered about enabling archiving on the community portal, but given the length some discussions may stay open for (usually can be closed after 5-7 calendar days, but some may need longer, to encourage participation), I tend to agree with Naleksuh here that this page should be manually archived. I must say, though, that I am generally quite happy to have TestWiki:Request permissions being automatically archived again, and on a shorter timeframe (14 days versus the previous 60sd when Revibot last operated here). Dmehus (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC) ^{Amended 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC) by Dmehus (talk)}

60 s as in 60 seconds? Revibot only wakes up every 24 hours (and do nothing for the rest of the day), so anything less than 1d or 24h practically becomes 24h. — revi 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

—revi LOL, no I meant 60d, yeah. Thanks for the head's up on my inadvertent typo. Dmehus (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment.Certainly, this page also seems to double as a meta RfP.By the way, if we manually archive a section that uses a ping template, wouldn't we ping it again?--松 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Echo requires the signature of the editor for their "ping" to function [to be precise, either one of (userpage|user talk|contribs page)], in this case Revibot, and Revibot never signs their post. — revi 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Revi: Thank you for teaching me.--松 (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-10-19

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-10-26 if they do not return to activity:

• 3oem8 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• A2093064 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) ; now active
• Borschts ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Dross ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Fair0002 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Kiko4564 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ZI Jony ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) ; now active; subsequently resigned

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: Do you intend to use the rights within the near future? If you don't, you can always just ask for them back then rather than make 1 edit every few months. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@RhinosF1:, I am really very busy with my personal life. If you'd like to remove then go ahead and I'll ask you once will be back to the normal. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: It's sound like real life is keeping you busy, so am going to go ahead and mark this as  done. Thank you for your service. When you're able to volunteer with TestWiki again, please rerequest rights at TestWiki:Request permissions or on the user talk page of any Consul. Dmehus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Rights removed from five (5) users. Dmehus (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "autopatrolled" and "confirmed" user groups

Similar to the reason rollbacker was removed. Sysop is granted more readily than those groups, and are generally only used by sysops granting it to themselves for hat collecting. Naleksuh (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: The thought had crossed my mind to remove either autopatrolled or confirmed; however, I am reluctant to do that mainly because we do get known or trusted users who come to TestWiki on occasion to test a few things, but they don't necessarily need nor want administrator privileges and, because autoconfirmed is not granted automatically by MediaWiki software until at least 10 edits are made and four days has elapsed, they don't have the user rights inherent in those groups. So these groups are mainly used not for requests but rather for administrators, bureaucrats, and consuls to grant to known or trusted users to eliminate the need to patrol their edits—much like on Meta. If administrators are hat collecting, any bureaucrat or consul can remove the unnecessary duplicate user groups after a reasonable period of time as "test done" or something like that. If they re-add the user groups, we wouldn't remove the groups again, as that wouldn't be appropriate, but instead engage with them on their user talk pages to have them provide a valid reason for the extra user groups, not including hat collecting of course. If no valid reason is provided, then we would remove the extra user group(s). Dmehus (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: True, it is common for established editors on other projects to then come here, which is especially an issue with confirmed. But I don't see why they couldn't simply be granted administrator then. Unlike other wikis where adminship may require an RfA process or entail obligation, that is not the case here and infact autopatrolled is harder to get than administrator. So I just don't see where it would ever come up. Naleksuh (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That's true, though we do want to make administrator and bureaucrat granted only by request (ideally on-wiki, but on Discord and IRC is also acceptable per local customs and practices), mainly to prevent new administrators and bureaucrats from granting rights to users who haven't requested them. What about this idea, merging the user rights from confirmed into autopatrolled, deleting the former group? Related to that, what do you think about deleting the forumadmin user group, since the rights are all included within administrator? Dmehus (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: How about changing "sysop must be given on request" to "sysop must be given for a reason"? That is to say, that it being requested is a reason, that the user is trusted on other projects is a reason, but that the user simply registered is not a reason. Is that okay? Naleksuh (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Hrm, that would be a major change to our existing practice, though. I'd say I'd favour merging confirmed into autopatrolled and deleting forumadmin. This would allow for the same net result of two unnecessary duplicate user groups to be deleted. If users unnecessarily add autopatrolled as obvious hat collecting, any consul or bureaucrat can simply remove the hat. I don't see a massive need to upend our existing practice just for the sake of not interfering with a user's rights log, if that was your concern against removing the duplicate hats. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Okay, so I'd be okay with that merge. However, that's not to say it is the permanent solution, and changing the sysopship policy could still be discussed. Naleksuh (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like us to keep the groups. My main reason is the fact that this wiki is supposed to simulate a MediaWiki environement, and that usually includes such groups, so I believe it's useful to keep the groups and allow users to test them out. Reception123 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

True, and while I was waiting for your reply, I thought of another idea, what about discussing a TestWiki:Hat collecting policy to formalize a procedure by which certain positions (whether consuls, bureaucrats, and/or administrators) may remove user groups from other users after a set minimum time where all user rights are contained in one or more other user groups that the subject administrator also has. It would be inspired by English Wikipedia's policy of the same name, but it would be written and adapted for TestWiki's purposes.

I should also mention that I did discuss this proposal with @Reception123:, and he reminded me that autopatrolled is a useful test group (besides testgroup) that is also part of the core MediaWiki software. One of his main reasons for creating TestWiki with @NDKilla: was to have it as a fairly pure MediaWiki configuration. Certainly, we've added extensions over the years, and even deleted some groups, such as rollbacker and interface-admin over the years; however, we do want to keep at least some of the default non-administrator user groups, I think. Dmehus (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is not a default group. The only default groups are sysop, bureaucrat, bot, and interface admin. So if we are keeping groups for being default, interface admin probably should not have been removed. However, it might have a reason to remove autopatrolled in that case. Naleksuh (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Question Regarding Reverting Edits on User Sandbox

If I test stuff on my sandbox (under the User namespace), do I still need to revert edits? R4356th (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

R4356th In general, no. My only concern is with protecting your sandbox then deleting your sandbox, I'd prefer you remove the protection first prior to deletion. But, no, you can actively tinker as much as you want in subpages of your userspace and no one will question you, unless you revision delete something that doesn't need revision deletion, of course. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to @Dmehus:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4356th (talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Superfluous page

@Dmehus:, @HeartsDo: If you guys don't mind, can I delete TestWiki:Policies as it's practically a duplicate of Category:Policies? --Sabelöga (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sabelöga: While I agree it is essentially just a disambiguation page delineating our policies, it is linked to in many locations, so, in this case, I'm going to say, no. I have no objection to, and would support, you instead preparing and marking that page for translation however. Dmehus (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll do that then :) --Sabelöga (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-11-23

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-11-30 if they do not return to activity:

• AVHellraiser ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) rights already removed by another Consul unfamiliar with our new-ish inactivity notification and removal protocols. Rights can be rerequested at TestWiki:Request permissions
• Applemasterexpert ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Cuddly Rainbow Guardian ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Eugene Friedriechsen ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) rights already removed by another Consul unfamiliar with our new-ish inactivity notification and removal protocols. Rights can be rerequested at TestWiki:Request permissions
• Path slopu 102 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) rights already removed by another Consul unfamiliar with our new-ish inactivity notification and removal protocols. Rights can be rerequested at TestWiki:Request permissions
• SpongeDiamond ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SunAfterRain ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

00:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Rights removed from six (6) users, three (3) of which were inadvertently removed in good-faith by another Consul, but this formalizes the notification and removal process. In the case of Applemasterexpert, the activity that reinstated them as active was by blanking a subpage in their own userspace, which, by established conventions, is treated as a request for deletion. Since I deleted that page, it became a deleted contribution, which caused the Consul script to not recognize that as a live edit contribution and, thus, the user was not removed from TestWiki:Inactivity/Inactive administrators. As such, due to this technicality and in absence of a formal community proposal to clarify this, this becomes the removing Consul's discretion whether to treat a single page blanking by the user as qualifying activity or not moving forward. Dmehus (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Testing Deletion in Special:WikiForum

If I am not mistaken, someone tried to test deletion in Special:WikiForum and deleted a category and a forum which had been there since the WikiForum extension was enabled making it impossible to create testing topics. I have created them again. From the next time, I would suggest just creating those by yourself and testing deletion. I hope this helps. Thank you. R4356th (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Favicon

Should the favicon of this wiki be the same as the logo instead of the regular miraheze favicon? Naleksuh (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: It probably should be. Do you happen to know the dimensions of a favicon, so I can resize the image, upload, and set in ManageWiki? Dmehus (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: That's not necessary, just take the same url being used for the logo and use that for the favicon. I did that for dev wiki and it worked out fine. Naleksuh (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Ah, I wasn't sure if the favicon would automatically resize, as I know the site logo has to be an exact 135x135 (or 135xx or xx135), so I'll try and make this change now then. Thanks for the good suggestion! Dmehus (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: This seems to be  done now. Thanks again. Dmehus (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

For me the Miraheze logo is still the fav icon. PorkchopGMX (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@PorkchopGMX: That is very strange and shouldn't be happening. Have you tried reloading your cache for publictestwiki.com? Reception123 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this, but the correct fav icon is showing up now. PorkchopGMX (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's great. :) Dmehus (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-12-21

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-11-28 if they do not return to activity:

• Applemasterexpert ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• CircleyDoesExtracter ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Huawei251 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MarioSuperstar77 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• QueerEcofeminist ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SA 13 Bro ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Wikitext ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• デーモン閣下 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Rights removed from seven (7) users. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-01-19

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-01-26 if they do not return to activity:

• Dano ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Helper ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Killarnee ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Lois ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MacFan4000 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• MusikAnimal ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Sardine123 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Seemplez ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Synoman Barris ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Whitetiger0423 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Wikiwater2020 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• 开炸弹车 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users. Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-02-15

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-02-22 if they do not return to activity:

• A2093064 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Ans ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• BlueFox ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Cactus755 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Fizz fam ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ImprovedWikiImprovment ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Random77 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Scian ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• SecurityXP ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Shadowdrake ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Wgyt ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

21:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users. Dmehus (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation not possible

Hello, I have tried to translate the main page, but I receive an error: The title "Translations:Main Page/2/de" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " Translations:.* " Is anybody able to activate the translation system again? Thanks --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ameisenigel This is very strange because you're already logged in. I've referred this to Void to see if he can take a look. Dmehus (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ameisenigel Void has found the cause, and it seems it was an issue with our local title blacklist, which, arguably, seemed unnecessary, so I've now  deleted the given interface message. Please try translating now. Dmehus (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dmehus Thanks, now translating works. --Ameisenigel (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay,  great. Thanks again for reporting this. If I had to guess, we'd probably disabled translations by non-administrators due to poor quality machine translations and translations being done outside the translation system. Dmehus (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-03-21

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-03-28 if they do not return to activity:

• Applemasterexpert ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Bonnedav ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Cactus754 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Gomdoli ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Gomezsil ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Hirok Raja ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Hsl0 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Hypercane ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) resigned
• MS Sakib ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Mrheadman123 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Sabelöga ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Voidwalker ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) unneeded rights voluntarily removed from Void's alternate account
• 松 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

09:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users, notwithstanding the two users who voluntarily removed their user groups above. Dmehus (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can my name be changed?

Hi, can I please have my name changed to Namielle please? Thank you! Theory of Eternity (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

See meta:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. --Anton (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Change in the TestWiki:Main policy#Blocking and unblocking

Hello fellows, the policy clearly states that

You may create test accounts to test blocks or you can place blocks on yourself.

It is ok to test blocks on yourself (your own/main account), but it also states

You may create test accounts to test blocks

which, in my opinion is wrong. If users create an alternative account, the underlining IP address remains same and if they block the alternative account, their main account will also get blocked and won't be able to test anything since the IP address will be same in both the accounts. This happened to me (probably on my second day here). I'd suggest to replace

You may create test accounts to test blocks or you can place blocks on yourself.

with

As a best practice, test blocked should be made on User:Example or yourself.

-- Jusl¡t (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Users can create alternate accounts, though. Nevertheless, this is fairly non-controversial, so if there's no objections, I'll close this as a non-controversial amendment after three calendar days by replacing the above with, "You may place clearly marked test blocks on yourself, on User:Example, or on any alternate accounts you create for this purpose. As a best practice, it's recommended you (a) create any alternate accounts while logged into your main account and (b) identify any alternate accounts via your local or global user page in some way." How does that sound? Dmehus (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dmehus, since the IP block exemptions have been added to the sysop group, I have no objections. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Olipino Okay,  great. If you or Anton want to add the ipblock-exempt to the TestWiki:Administrators page, that'd be great, but do link to my Consul action in your edit summary using [[Special:Redirect/logid/15678|this Consul action]]. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've added (ipblock-exempt) to TW:A. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding requirements to request Bureaucrat

I noticed that both TW:B and TW:RfP list different requirements to be eligible to obtain bureaucrat. TW:B states that a user must be a registered user for 24 hours before requesting bcrat, where as TW:RfP states that a user must be an administrator for 24 hours before requesting bcrat. Typically I would correct this issue myself, but I do not know what the real requirement is, so I am bringing it up here in hopes that someone else can rectify the issue. Joritochip (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Joritochip, I think bureaucrats can only promote admins to bureaucrats user right (but I may be wrong). That's why it may be necessary to be an admin for 24 hours. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Joritochip Interesting point. In theory, I would say TestWiki:Bureaucrats would be correct, as one could theoretically have had a TestWiki account for more than twenty four hours but simply never requested administrator, so they've demonstrated that they're trusted. In practice, though, TestWiki:Request permissions' language may be the way to go. Reception123, do you have any thoughts? It is a policy page, but this a non-controversial administrative change I think we can clarify administratively as a Consul action. Dmehus (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested move

While testing, I came across the template, RfPdone. I'd suggest to move it to the new more suitable title, AdminGranted or something similar. I'd also like to make a new template to use when we will add someone to the bureaucrats group to let them know about the policies. Let me know who supports this. Dmehus, Anton, what do you think. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It serves a different purpose than {{AdminAcceptRfP}}; however, I personally don't think it's needed, as everyone can be a TestWiki sysop. I'm checking with Reception123 to see what he thinks. Dmehus (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dmehus, you took me in the wrong way. I know it serves a different purpose. What I mean is "this template should be posted on the talk page of a person who got the admin flag, to let them know about the TestWiki policies. Posting at the talk page produces a notification and a user is bound to see what it is. I know everyone can be admin but, not everyone knows about the policies. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I just think we don't necessarily need to be creating a user talk page message for every user who requests permissions at TestWiki:Request permissions. I mean, we can keep the template, but my preference would be for deletion. Arguably it would be better to encourage Bureaucrats and Consuls to use {{AdminAcceptRfP}} and {{BureaucratAcceptRfP}} at TestWiki:Request permissions when granting permissions, as then the diff to the completed permission's request can be included within the requesting user's user rights log, no? Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-04-18

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-04-25 if they do not return to activity:

• Avengium ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Eltomas2003 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• JJPMaster ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Justarandomamerican ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) rights removed per requested leave of absence
• NameIsA ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SHEIKH ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Hi, I've been busy for quite some time because of my exams. It will take me another week to return. Thanks SHEIKH (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

SHEIKH No problem. In any case, the act of you replying to this thread has now made you active, so I've now updated that. Dmehus (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I'm taking a long break from wikis in general because I have a lot of stuff to do in real life. Remove my rights if you wish. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Justarandomamerican Alright, sounds good. When you return, please feel free to request rights at TestWiki:Request permissions or at my user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from three (3) users, notwithstanding the user who requested voluntary removal of their rights while they are on an extended wiki leave of absence. Dmehus (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

AWB testing page

Hello an AWB testing page would be really useful.--Angelo Pisani (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Angelo Pisani Sure, I can see a use case for that. Please feel free to create AutoWikiBrowser test as the title for the page, then categorize it with Category:Special test pages. Dmehus (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dmehus Done--Angelo Pisani (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Angelo Pisani That's great. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

PS the page must be added here.--Angelo Pisani (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Angelo Pisani:  Done. --Brewster239 ^(T/C) 14:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the japanese version too.--Angelo Pisani (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-05-23

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-05-30 if they do not return to activity:

• Avengium ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Cortex ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• FunctionalMetatable ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• JavaHurricane ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Kepler-1229b ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• LukeSkywalker26 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MdsShakil ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Scian ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Rainy. ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SoyokoAnis ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• VfB Vereinspolitik ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Yahya ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• 开炸弹车 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users. Dmehus (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wordmark

I propose that we use the following as our new wordmark. What does people think?

MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This is so small, and our logo already includes the words "Public Test Wiki." I'm not certain we need this here. I propose we just have the space allocated for the wordmark in New Vector be whitespace instead. Dmehus (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This is too small –Shakil ^(talk) 08:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MacFan4000, I would like to say that the proposed wordmark is small and, at least to me, it seems it's width is more than its height. And well that's not an issue.

I can't read what is written on the two sides of the triangle. It looks like it's pixels has broken and the current one seems to be more clearer. Thanks:) Mazzaz (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-06-24

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-07-01 if they do not return to activity:

• Ameisenigel ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• C.Syde65 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Greggy123 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Jetnet ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Paladox ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• PorkchopGMX ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• QFQ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SMB99thx ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Sabelöga ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SpacetimeTesting ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Waki285 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-07-29

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-08-04 if they do not return to activity:

• EpicPupper ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• InspecterAbdel ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Joritochip ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• MarioMario456 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Naleksuh ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Sario528 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Yin Ding ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Zachary Daiquiri ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

02:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from five (5) users, notwithstanding Naleksuh's removal of own rights. Dmehus (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Install Variables and Arrays extensions

Hello.

May Variables and Arrays extensions be installed so that I test their behavior?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkPaladin125 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

DarkPaladin125 Apologies for the slight delay in responding, but this is quite a reasonable request and has now been  done. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem regarding the delay. Thanks a lot. 😄

DarkPaladin125 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and no problem. :) Dmehus (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Various skins and extensions

Could you please enable the Cosmos skin and install Message Walls so that I could test replicating Fandom on Miraheze? Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cosmos  Done, Wikia extensions we can't do because Wikia use too far an old & forked version of MediaWiki. It's also not in its own git repo. Something like WikiForum might work. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Cosmos was already available. You should be able to set it in your Preferences. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to just download that section of the repo, or do I have to download the entire repo? Firestar464 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think it's because SocialProfile is required to use message walls. We'd rather prefer not to enable SocialProfile here, as it's got issues with GlobalUserPage, amongst other things. Dmehus (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

TestWiki:Request permissions

Hello. One user requested permissions without having written what permissions. In case he does not answer in how many days the request must be closed? Thanks! Fffv7787 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fffv7787 I think such those request should be closed immediately. I did not find much in the policy --MdsShakil (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@MdsShakil Thank you! Fffv7787 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Fffv7787 and MdsShakil, no! Such requests should not be closed (declined) immediately. The best practice to deal with such requests is to ask which permissions they want and put the request on hold. If they didn't reply close the request as stale after the few days (preferable after 4-5 days). --Mazzaz (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mazzaz Hello. I reopen this request. Fffv7787 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

AlPaD, Magogre, and MdsShakil, I thought I'd jump in to clarify the uncertainty in response to AlPa's question. Magogre's response is generally correct, but there's not a specific timeframe. It really depends. It could be two or three days, or 4-7 days, and then closed as stale, but yeah, basically (a) don't close it immediately and (b) don't close it as declined; rather, use stale. Hope that helps. :) Dmehus (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-10-09

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-10-16 if they do not return to activity:

• HeartsDo ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Heidenlarm ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Lily ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Repolho123456 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Rots62 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Scian ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SHEIKH ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Tomasulo ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Vulpix037 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Walhouse ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ロープTA ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

22:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Dmehus (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from ten (10) users, noting that HeartsDo was given a temporary, three-month inactivity exception, with Consul discretion due to their activity from StructuredDiscussions seemingly not counting. Dmehus (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

New policy for abuse filter

Hello guys, I am Matttest. I have created a new proposed-for-policy page for abuse filter. In fact now there are no policies or guidelines related to the abuse filter test, and I think it’s better to create one. Currently, I think this page can be merge into the TestWiki policy TestWiki:Main policy. What do you think? Please give some suggestions for the community. You may also change this proposal page. Regards, —-Matttest (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I think the testing of abuse filter is a serious action, and it may be misused. It has its importance to be part of the policy of TestWiki (and maybe by merging to TestWiki:Main policy or TestWiki:Testing policy). I hope you guys can give out some opinions concerning this. Matttest (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

TNT module

Why does my module that works good in meta doesn't work here? The imported module here links to Module:TNT for some reason, TNT does nothing for the template, and there's not even an invoke code or require code in lua Anpang (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-12-27

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2022-01-02 if they do not return to activity:

• 54nd60x ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Anton ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Chrs ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Aspallar ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• C1K98V ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• DarkPaladin125 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Dot ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• FFFFF+1 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Hykell ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• InspecterAbdel ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Jonathan5566 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Joritochip ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MONUMENTA ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MacFan4000 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Nightwolf1223 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Prodipto Deloar ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• QueerEcofeminist ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Soronos ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SoyokoAnis ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Тишина ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ぴの＊えむ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• メイプルポイ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

03:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Rights removed from fifteen (15) users. Dmehus (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I restore this page?

https://publictestwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page/fi&action=edit&redlink=1 I deleted this as a test but can't figure out how to restore it. Lugia Ann (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Lugia Ann, that is a translation subpage, so you cannot/should not restore it in the traditional way. You have to either import the translations using the Translate extension, or just retranslate it. Dmehus (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will see if I can use those ways to restore the page. Lugia Ann (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Consul request - unprotect

These pages should be unprotected. They were protected back when crats could assign interface-admin as a security precaution, but now only consuls can assign it. They should be unprotected so authorized interface-admins can edit them. Naleksuh (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Though the CSS and JS script pages are sensitive from a security standpoint, I'd be willing to lower protection for the skin-specific CSS/JS pages to interface-admin, on a provisional basis; however, the reasons by which MediaWiki:Sitenotice, MediaWiki:Sidebar, MediaWiki:Common.css, and MediaWiki:Common.js are Consul-protected is because these either control the sitewide CSS/JS for everyone or they relate to matters which are within the purview of the non-test bureaucrats on TestWiki, Consuls. Dmehus (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dmehus: First, Common.js and Common.css are protected for security reasons (infact, they were incorrectly protected before until I had Void fix it), second, interface admin is a non-testing group, and non-test edits are permitted. It is the same reason I have interface admin. Naleksuh (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh, yes, I remember that the pages in question were protected with creation protection rather than as blank pages with edit protection, and I thank you for your report. However, interface-admin is not, strictly speaking, a non-test permission. It is somewhat of a hybrid test/non-test permission. Regardless, it is nonetheless a Consul-delegated role, and I'm both (a) not seeing a high volume of edit requests that Consuls cannot handle for these pages and (b) given the widespread end user impacts MediaWiki:Common.css, and MediaWiki:Common.js can have, I'm inclined to defer to the pre-existing Consul practice of maintaining these at Consul protection. Dmehus (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

​ If that's the case, then there's no reason to have the interface-admin group at all, might as well delete it. Right now, interface-admins can editsitejs except for the part where they can't because it was protected, and was only protected back when it could be assigned by anyone. Naleksuh (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the group was deleted before, but I can see a valid reasons for non-Consuls to be able to perform gadget maintenance, upgrades, and various other tasks on TestWiki. I can also see a weaker case for it being used for testing changes before deploying to a non-TestWiki Miraheze wiki or another wiki. The idea is that it can be used for both testing and non-testing purposes, but rather than the permission being granted by any bureaucrat, which any user can request, in theory if not in practice, after they have made at least ten (10) editing contributions and had an account for at least four (4) days, it was felt that was too weak of a granting criteria. For those reasons, I see a case for maintaining the group, but I'd certainly be open to hearing what other users, and especially interface administrators, have to say on the matter Dmehus (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not suggesting deleting the group, that was rhetorical. Naleksuh (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2022-02-19

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2022-02-26 if they do not return to activity:

• -Haryad ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Avengium ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Conspirational ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• FrancisM56 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• IronclawFan ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MirahezeBots ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MrApocalisse ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Oscitare ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• PorkchopGMX ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SakuraHanaExperiment ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• U.ayaao.p ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Ugochimobi ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Vicckz ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

23:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Ten (10) users removed per the above, with an administrative note to Ugochimobi. Ugochimobi, please note that, going forward, StructuredDiscussions activity is not counted as activity, pending a fix to the the inactivity script by Void, so you will need to demonstrate some other form of activity by the next time the script is run later in March. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dmehus: for example, the edit I made here ? Thanks :) Ugochimobi (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugochimobi,  Exactly. Thank you. You are now active for three (3) more months. Dmehus (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Doug :), it's been a while we actually chatted but I'm sure you're okay 😊 Ugochimobi (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor amendment to the TestWiki:Inactivity policy

I've made the following minor amendment to the TestWiki:Inactivity policy, mainly due to the way in which the findInactiveSysops.js script works. Unfortunately, it is not able to consider StructuredDiscussions activity, or is it able to consider edits which are subsequently deleted by another administrator. Views from the community are welcome on this, but do note that the alternative would be to revert to determining inactivity based on Consul discretion, rather than a semi-automated activity based process. Dmehus (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to take into account deleted edits by updating the script to make use of mw:API:Alldeletedrevisions, and it should also be possible to take into account StructuredDiscussions activity via parsing the HTML of Special:Contributions/Special:DeletedContributions as a final check. — Arcversin (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Arcversin, yeah, Void said on IRC he figured he'd be able to correct the deleted contributions issue, but hadn't yet found a way to resolve the StructuredDiscussions issue. If you have a way of correcting the latter, I'm sure we could probably temporarily lower protection on User:Void/findInactiveSysops.js for you. Dmehus (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What can be done is directly requesting Special:Contributions and Special:DeletedContributions without using the API so that the Structured Discussions contributions are added, then looking over that in the script to check if the last contribution by the user was via Structured Discussions, and if so, check the timestamp. This should get everything except deleted topics. — Arcversin (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but it's much harder to implement than it sounds, especially considering the likelihood that this would not be consistent for all users. Instead, I have the much more interesting idea of having the API parse {{Special:Contributions/<username>}}. This, when combined with a few specific options should produce consistent results for all users, provided I can figure out an accurate method for parsing out the timestamp. -- Void ^Whispers 03:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. — Arcversin (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to enable extension

I'd like to request that the TemplateSandbox extension be enabled. — Arcversin (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Arcversin, sure, that extension could be quite useful here, so  done. Dmehus (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hello, for test and information on MediaWiki is it possible for a CheckUser to check User:Naleksuh BOT and privately send the results back to me? This would need to be done by a consteward, so User:Dmehus or User:Void can help, if this is allowed. Naleksuh (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh, getting to your DMs on IRC as I suspect this is what they are about. Dmehus (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is permitted, per Data Request Process. Let me clarify with Owen whether he'd prefer Trust and Safety or Stewards to handle this request. It's essentially a limited in scope private user data request. Dmehus (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

​I don't remember any previous conversation but it is not "about" anything I've mentioned to someone else before, it is about something contemporary. I do wish you would stop "getting to" real-time communication though, it defeats the purpose of it. Naleksuh (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your DMs and that was unrelated to this request. Dmehus (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh, I have received clarification from Owen on this. Either role is capable of handling such requests. It depends on the channel in which was requested. Since you've made the request of Stewards, then it is fair for Stewards to handle it. Would you be able to direct message me on IRC your preferred method of private data delivery? I assume you'd probably prefer e-mail, but I'd prefer you didn't share your e-mail address publicly. If you have a different preferred private data delivery method, then you can also share that privately as well. Dmehus (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

​Basically I just want anyone with CheckUser access here to load the IP addresses for User:Naleksuh BOT (as many as can be fetched, 5k in 3 months) and send back the results, either via IRC or email, whichever works. Naleksuh (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh, this has now been  done, but is just awaiting further response from you on IRC to see if you need additional data returned. I'll leave my checkuser flag on for a little bit longer, to provide you an opportunity to reply privately. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Cannot delete a file

I uploaded File:Test png.PNG for test use,but when I done my test,I cannot delete it.The page tell me "Deleting page: An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-backend"."How can I do then? SD hehua (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SD hehua: I've opened a ticket on Phabricator regarding this error, please see T8913 for further details. — Arcversin (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SD hehua (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

---

• fixed--SD hehua (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin Training/School

After looking at the main page and finding it talks about a possible admin school existing in the future, I think that we should spend some time creating one, I have an idea currently but it would help if others helped with it, currently my draft of what it could look like is stored in userpage as User:Zippybonzo/Admin School and I would appreciate if you had time to drop by and help or give some feedback, Thanks, Zippybonzo Zippybonzo (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm wanting to import admin guide from Wikipedia which is more information. Thingofme (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sysop

Hello. This userpage is owned by a user who does not have a local TestWiki account. That's why I suggest deleting it or creating a local account. Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

AlPaD, thank you for noting this. I'm not sure what the story is here, as it was from something like five years ago, but if I had to logically guess from WikiHow Contributor's local TestWiki contributions, this was likely their sockpuppet, except they didn't ever use it on TestWiki, so no local account was created. Given that an user page was created, though, I've  done this for you. I actually contemplating giving this account a courtesy global rename, but on the other hand, doing so could allow the username to be recreated on a wiki where a local bureaucrat has the user right to override the title blacklist, so likely will leave as is. I'm not sure what point there is to keeping the user page on TestWiki, though. So, if you want to delete it, that'd be fine, but do remove the page protection first before doing so. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Hello! Global hide (centralauth-oversight) it's a good idea? Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

De-Sysop Request

Considering some not-so-wise things I have done here lately, I think it would be best if I take a step down for a bit. I will be blocking myself from some namespaces until May 1, and I would appreciate it if someone could remove my sysop permissions for now. When I come back on May 1, I will re-ask for both sysop and bureaucrat (assuming that's okay). My talk page will be open for any questions or comments. If anyone feels the need to adjust the block in any way, feel free to do it.

Thank you and I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused here so far. I hope that after this break things will go more smoothly. ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ApexAgunomu:  Done HeartsDo (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TestWiki:Consuls

Hello! Could you inform on the page that bureaucrats aren't allowed to grant a bot flag? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

AlPaD,  Done. Thank you for identifying this. Dmehus (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki version

I think we should upgrade this wiki to 1.39. LisafBia (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's an alpha version. Have you seen how many bugs are caught each train week? RhinosF1 (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait for Miraheze update. SD hehua (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@LisafBia: I guess you should check out this first. This version is not a stable version - the latest stable version is still 1.37.2 (even 1.38 is in beta version). Furthermore, upgrading mediawiki versions is a global issue, so it should be posted at meta. --Matttest (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggested this idea because this is a test wiki. I knew the version was unstable. LisafBia (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not where we test that MediaWiki works. It's to allow users to work out how to use the software. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

PageImages extension

Can the mw:Extension:PageImages extension be enabled here? It's part of MediaWiki, but needs to be enabled in LocalSettings.php. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done via ManageWiki, we don't use LocalSettings.php for most changes at Miraheze RhinosF1 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@RhinosF1 Thanks. I can't seem to get it to recognize Mediawiki:Pageimages-denylist. If the settings at https://github.com/miraheze/mw-config/blob/master/LocalSettings.php are current, it looks like wgPageImagesDenylist is disabled everywhere but gratispaideiawiki. Can the settings from gratispaideiawiki be copied to testwiki? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This should be  Deployed within 30 minutes. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

New policy about protection for non-test pages

Hello, I am Matttest. Currently there is no policies about which non-test pages should be protected at which protection level, but I think it is important given that there are disputes on protecting non-test pages, so I drafted this policy. Any comments on this policy will be appreciated and feel free to change this proposed policy. Regards, Matttest (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity

User:Zfshuo This user has not edited in over 3 months. @RhinosF1 @Dmehus LisafBia (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I will run the report at the weekend. Please don't remove rights without giving proper warning. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@LisafBia: Please consider this case in the community portal. Users who are inactive for 3 months should be reminded at their talk page, before removing his/her rights (should be done a week later after the warning according to the policy). The action should also be done by a consul, not a bureaucrat. --Matttest (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

LisafBia,  Done. Thank you for the reminder! Dmehus (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2022-05-21

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2022-05-28 if they do not return to activity:

• 50829! ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) active as of 27 May 2022
• Andrei Jiroh Experiments ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Avengium ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) active as of 22 May 2022
• DancingSmurfMH ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Dot ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Dross ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) active as of 26 May 2022
• Giacomo2 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Jonathan5566 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Jrayq ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Justarandomamerican ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• MrApocalisse ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Pastures ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Shuuless ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SoyokoAnis ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Techwizzie ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• TheSystemGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• TylerMagee ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Zfshuo ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Антаркт ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ওহিদ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• খাত্তাব হাসান ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) active as of 22 May 2022
• アンジェロ先輩 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• メイプルポイ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) active as of 22 May 2022

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk)

For the Consul Team

23:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Please, don't remove my rights right now. I'll increase my activity next month. Although, since last March I have been almost inactive on all wikis. খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@খাত্তাব হাসান: Your comment in reply is enough to stop you going inactive. Your rights will now remain for another 3 months. Please try and make an edit at least once every 80 or so days. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Eighteen (18) inactive user permissions removed from this batch. A forthcoming notice of the current inactive users will follow shortly. Dmehus (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Community Ban Request: ApexAgunomu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keeping in mind the comments made by John in his revert of the original close, I am now reclosing this discussion as successful. There are 8 support votes and 0 opposes, therefore making support unanimous for the proposal. In terms of due process, ApexAgunomu is free to appeal this ban to the community at a later time. Reception123 (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Hello all,

I'm left with bringing this to the community as it's been actioned by Consuls only on various occasions and the current status is not doing us much good.

Apex was unlocked and had their ban removed on TestWiki by Dmehus (talk · contribs) and was given a very generous chance by myself to allow them to quickly get to testing.

Since then, Apex has ignored every piece of advice & restriction put in place. Today, they moved to posting comments with swear words to avoid getting caught by the abuse filter supposed to be their to give guidance which has numerous hits showing them breaking policy.

Apex has been blocked & unblocked since the unlock on numerous occasions with the most recent being removed by Doug way before expiry.

I am therefore asking the community to present their opinion on Apex's sanctions and proposing an indefinite community ban as I do not believe simply adding restrictions for every time something inappropriate is done will be sustainable.

As a community ban, it would only be appealable via a community discussion where consensus was reached.

Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply from ApexAgunomu

I am honestly surprised to see this proposal since I honestly was trying to make good edits earlier today, and while I realize it has 100% support for going through, I would be very grateful if I could have one last chance to test here and show that I can obey the rules here. I thought that since my disruptive actions were being stopped by the filter, there was no harm if I "slipped up". But I see that I need to show that I have actually changed my behavior, by not setting off the filter in the first place.

Here are my proposals to remedy this situation.

1. Modify the filter to only allow userspace edits (for however long is necessary)
2. Restriction from requesting admin or bureaucrat for whatever time
3. A clear understanding that attempts to edit around the filter or triggering the filter will result in the ban being placed.

If this proposal is accepted, I will abide by these restrictions and understand very clearly that this is my last chance to test on this wiki. ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 02:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support ban

1. As proposed RhinosF1 (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Apex's actions speak far louder than their words. They claim to want to do better, but every time they are unlocked/unbanned, they go right back to the same behaviors that got them banned in the first place. I believe it is time to treat these actions for what they are: trolling. Apex should be indefinitely blocked just like any other troll would be. Sario528 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Support I've been watching this user for a solitude of 2 ½ months now, and all I have seen was nothing but disruption over and over again. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Just be able to send email and write on her talk page. AlPaD (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Per above, I have nothing to add and per my obversavtion after the unblock, nothing have really changed (just stopped by the filter) HeartsDo (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Support I tried to assume good faith, but the fact is that everytime he is unblocked, the policies are violated and almost all the log actions done are disruptive behaviours. Matttest (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Regrettably, I see no other way forward. The user has been given enough chances to abide by the polices. Universal Omega (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
8. Support per above. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose ban, support other restrictions

1. I understand that the user has made many mistakes (inappropriate commentsand etc), but she has also made good-faith actions. I believe that there should be restrictions, although my indefinite ban seems excessive. AlPaD (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   @AIPaD: Can you please explain why you think other restrictions might work as opposed to a ban? We've already tried putting them in place a few times. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   @RhinosF1: I still hope that at some point she will be able to follow the rules. AlPaD (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   So do I but to suggest implementing restrictions then they need to be defined or it becomes a proposal that's not actionable. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   I'm thinking of Consuls blocking her from the Wiki, but to able to write on her talk page and send emails. AlPaD (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   Then why not support a ban but just put a condition that talk page is left open. The only difference between a ban and block is how it can be appealed. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   OK thanks! AlPaD (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

   I see you voted support after this comment, will you use the <del> tag on the oppose vote to avoid confusion? Matttest (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

   @Matttest: Yes, I add tag. AlPaD (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

General comments

I have two questions.

1. How long will this discussion be open for?
2. Is there any minimum length of time I have to wait before I can appeal this sanction?

ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 07:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

3 days minimum and no, there is no minimum time until you can appeal. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have one more question @RhinosF1:. Why not just block me if there are problems with my editing here? Why is this being turned into a community ban instead? ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 14:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I chose to request a community ban as there has been disagreements among both consuls and involved community members as to what sanctions are appropriate. A community endorsed sanction. This ensures the community can be clear on the best approach. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Closure

While "community bans" on TestWiki may have been done in the past, they are not supported by official policy. Consuls can seek the TestWiki community's input, of course, on a non-binding and advisory basis. Likewise, the same is true for Consuls seeking input on an unblock. The reason for this is because this is two-fold. For one thing, TestWiki, save for its Consuls and a handful of users, is a dynamic community that has high turnover. For another, it provides all users with proper due process, ensuring that Consuls, as the non-test administrators on this wiki, balance the community's frustrations with due process whilst ensuring local control. In other words, a wiki that did not have appropriate due process processes in place may well give rise to the user having standing for a complaint under the a global process Stewards took over from the former Code of Conduct Commission. In terms of this proposal, it is also noteworthy that RhinosF1 has seemingly been left with no other apparent option, despite not making a single attempt to modify and add to the abuse filter Chrs created. It also noteworthy that no other Consul has supported this proposal. Likewise, perhaps the strongest arguments come from AlPaD and Universal Omega, which are more supportive of a Consul blocking the user indefinitely than for any sort of ban, which, as mentioned, does not exist in official policy. Secondarily, RhinosF1 has not proposed any other alternate proposal, and has almost seemingly held a grudge against ApexAgunomu (nee Bugambilia) since day one. This is evidenced by him ignoring ApexAgunomu's alternate proposal. Finally, because of this lack of due of process and alternate proposals, I will initiate a community discussion, on a non-binding and advisory basis that proposes several options and invites discussion on a fourth unforeseen option. Dmehus (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been asked to review this in Steward capacity and having looked at it in some detail, I have made the decision to revert this closure on two grounds;

1. It does not clearly take into account the community's expressed wishes so far,
2. It is a non-sensical closure in favour to promote another vote where the tide of voting seems more leading to a certain resolution in response and contrary to the existing discussion.

I will respond to the closure line by line to explain my neutral stance on it and why I believe Steward intervention here was appropriate.

"While "community bans" on TestWiki may have been done in the past, they are not supported by official policy."

I concur there is no policy in place, however written under the main policy is: "And for the rest, just use common sense!", which to me means a community discussion about actions should be respected - this is backed up globally in that Stewards have a main responsibility to ensure community consensus is respected, except where policy explicitly prohibits certain actions. I can not see any policy locally or globally which prevents community bans - therefore the discussion surrounding one should be allowed unless the local community have explicitly voted that community bans shouldn't be used or discussed.

"Consuls can seek the TestWiki community's input, of course, on a non-binding and advisory basis."

This discussion sounds like it is doing this, as the prose reads, "I am therefore asking the community to present their opinion on Apex's sanctions and proposing an indefinite community ban".

"In other words, a wiki that did not have appropriate due process processes in place may well give rise to the user having standing for a complaint"

This is indeed true - however a community discussion in the absence of due process sounds like something you can dispute with? Afterall, if the community voted to introduce a ban policy, and then banned them - this would still be dependent on community consensus and would likely end in the same way. One could argue ignoring and preventing community discussion being had could be cause for a complaint under global processes - one which has lead to this decision being reviewed externally and neutrally by myself in my Steward capacity.

"It also noteworthy that no other Consul has supported this proposal."

Can you link me to the relevant policy that states a Consul must approve all community discussions taking place?

"Likewise, perhaps the strongest arguments come from AlPaD and Universal Omega, which are more supportive of a Consul blocking the user indefinitely than for any sort of ban"

They both supported the ban in this discussion, and neither strongly provided an argument for a limited block over a ban - in fact Universal Omega made no distinction in his comment for either - AlPaD did make a distinction that sounds more like a block than a ban, but didn't make any strong argument for a block over a ban.

"RhinosF1 has not proposed any other alternate proposal"

I don't feel in a discussion about whether to ban a user, another alternative is required - either the community support a ban or do not support a ban.

"I will initiate a community discussion"

You are free to, however, you can not close an active discussion against the consensus that has formed on it just because you do not like the consensus starting to form on it because it does not fall in line with your idea of a "perfect resolution".

Based on all of this above, I have made the decision based on numerous requests by local testwiki users to intervene and revert this closure to allow the community to discuss the proposal. This can be re-closed based on either consensus or a procedural manner (policy prevents this discussion, the requesting users withdraws it fully, etc.). John (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Also just reviewing the discussion below, one of the main reasons for the closing this discussion was that a community ban is not grounded in policy - yet below in your proposals, you propose a 2 way interaction ban. Could you enlighten me on the policy that gives rise to this? John (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Closure Request

I apologize if I'm not supposed to do this, but I'd rather not have this discussion be dragged out for days on end. And while I really don't want to be banned, it seems unavoidable. So seeing as this discussion has been been open for three days and a clear consensus has been reached, I would ask that both discussions here about me be closed and the agreed-upon remedy be enacted (as much as I don't like it), so we can all move on past this whole thing. Thank you. @RhinosF1: @Dmehus: ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 04:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's rare to see a closure request from the recipient of the request but acceptance is good. Most active consuls have already !voted. I'll ping User:Reception123 and User:Void as uninvolved consuls. If it is still open in 24 hours let me know and I will close as an uninvolved bureaucrat (as far as I know, that is allowed in clear cases like this one). Naleksuh (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Community advisory opinion to Consuls regarding ApexAgunomu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is no consensus for Proposals 1, 2 and 3. There are 4 votes in favour of Proposal 4 however given that the community ban above has already been enacted and this proposal doesn't seem to differ, there is no need to further implement anything. Reception123 (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

---

RhinosF1 initiated a community ban proposal re: ApexAgunomu the other day. Granted, in the past, community "bans" may have taken place, they are, not, however, supported by official policy. Reception123, as one of two TestWiki co-founding Consuls (alongside NDKilla), and I are wanting to retain TestWiki's spirit of assuming good faith, having only a a very few official rules.

The excellent abuse filter Chrs created, at my request and having had the support of Reception123 and Agent Isai, seems to be, for the most part, doing its job. If RhinosF1 is bothered by seeing abuse log hits in the #miraheze-feed-test on IRC, he can easily instruct StreamBotMH to !ignore ApexAgunomu in the channel. Or, alternatively, he can add the flood to ApexAgunomu. Crucially, though, as I and Reception123 have said elsewhere, any bureaucrat can feel free to tweak the abuse filter in question, to catch anything we've not yet identified.

Secondarily, as RhinosF1 has not demonstrated a good-faith and -intentioned effort to propose alternative solutions for discussion, on a non-binding and advisory basis, of course, he has not met the high burden such a block would need. Likewise, he has similarly ignored ApexAgunomu's offering of other alternate solutions.

AlPaD and likely HeartsDo's comments above show frustration, but do show that willingness to accept good-faith and to being amenable to alternative solutions. Thus, taking that all into account, I'm proposing the following proposals, each with support sections. Oppose sections are unnecessary, as each proposal would be mutually exclusive of each other, and Consuls would take both the number of support !votes and the quality and strength of any arguments into consideration in effecting any outcome. Dmehus (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Status quo + extension of abuse filter restrictions

ApexAgunomu is subject to the strict abuse filter restrictions, originally slated to lapse this week, for an additional thirty days. Consuls will consider the severity and number of hits after thirty days in determining whether there has been sufficient improvement to warrant easing or removal of the abuse filter restrictions. Any bureaucrat may add to the abuse filter where ApexAgunomu is getting through the abuse filter.

Proposal 2: Proposal 1 + !ignore ApexAgunomu on IRC

Rationale: To ease RhinosF1's stress of seeing abuse filter hits by ApexAgunomu. For greater clarity, this is a StreamBotMH command.

Support

1. ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 06:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Proposal 1 + 2 + two-way interaction ban between ApexAgunomu and RhinosF1

Rationale: Given the history between ApexAgunomu and RhinosF1, and RhinosF1 leaping to a community ban not supported by official policy and not having made any attempt to modify the abuse filter Chrs so awesomely created. This would not preclude any other Consul from blocking ApexAgunomu, if required.

Proposal 3: Block ApexAgunomu for 30 days

Rationale: The abuse filter may have become untenable and the user's good-faith repeated abuse filter hits are continue to demonstrate that they're not making progress required to restore sysop and bureaucrat. That being said, the user is making very good reports on IRC to the CVT team and to Stewards on Test Wiki, which has to be taken into consideration. As such, if they can go thirty (30) calendar days from imposition of the block, that alone should demonstrate enough capacity to warrant disabling of the abuse filter and full restoration of the sysop and bureaucrat permissions. As such, if this proposal passes, they are blocked for thirty (30) calendar days and, if they go the full thirty (30) days, without sockpuppetry, they are unblocked by a Consul and their rights restored.

Proposal 4: Block ApexAgunomu indefinitely

Rationale: Consensus is consensus, and Dmehus's actions are a w:Project:Supervote. It shouldn't be necessary to create an edi filter to stop wide-scale disruption from one person (and much less, the disruption being such a repetitious pattern that automated software is able to detect it).

Reply by ApexAgunomu

I know I have caused a lot of trouble here, and I apologize sincerely for that. However, I would really appreciate it if I could have one last chance to test here. I am not a troll, and I will show that I can obey the rules here.

Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure what exactly I did to warrant an indefinite block. I made some edits that were disruptive, but they were stoped by the filter. And when I tried to edit in other ways that wouldn't set off the filter, I didn't know what exactly I could test without having the admin powers, but I wanted to show that I can test here without triggering the filter. However, that testing of mine led to an indefinite block being proposed and seemingly supported by everyone, which I just don't feel is warranted yet. I thought that since my disruptive actions were being stopped by the filter, there was no harm if I "slipped up". But I see that I need to show that I have actually changed my behavior, by not setting off the filter in the first place. ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@ApexAgunomu: What happened is that you used numerous swear words and racial/sexual slurs in a fashion that resembled referring to the community as a whole as those words. When you put "hello fuckers" onto a new page, you're calling the whole community "fuckers", and that, alongside the use of actual slurs (not just benign profanity like "fuck" or "shit") is what the community is taking offense to. — Chrs (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely don't blame them for being offended. And I guess this whole discussion is the outcome of my whole history here, not just my most recent actions (which to me were the only things leading up to this discussion). ApexAgunomu (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. I didn't vote on the original proposal because I am interaction-banned with the user who started it, but I am tired of the constant abuse of wiki resources and what don't even really read like mistakes. I got tired of seeing ApexAgunomu abuse page moves, so I edited the filter to prevent them from moving pages other than Move test. Just minutes later, I got a notification that a filter I recently edited was activated, and the log showed that it blocked ApexAgunomu from moving Change content model test to TestWiki:Change content model test (there have been plenty of other moves like moving one page around to templates, categories, talk pages, and moving people's user pages into article space). If eight people supported the ban, with no-one opposed, I think there's a very clear consensus and closing it as unsuccessful on a technicality is overly bureaucratic and a supervote. Naleksuh (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
2. In my opinion, the goings on between the Consuls is irrelevant, because Apex refuses to change their behavior. Apex has been given more warnings and more second chances than anyone I've ever seen on any wiki project, and every time they go right back to trolling. It is far past time to stop giving Apex special treatment and just ban them. Sario528 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Support assuming my request for John to review as an independent steward doesn't make this moot anyway. I note for the record as well that I thank Naleksuh for their compliance with the IBAN but I do not feel it precludes them voting in the discussion in anyway. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Support per above. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

General comments

---

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

Decrat for Example2

Experimented with which direction "back" and "forward" counts as with expiring user groups that can't be changed. Because I had to test this on a group I cannot remove, I used the bureaucrat group. Any consul may now decrat Example2 as test done. Naleksuh (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reception123 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

mh:meta:Requests_for_Comment/Global_ban_for_ApexAgunomu

mh:meta:Requests_for_Comment/Global_ban_for_ApexAgunomu is now in progress - required to notify as one of the wikis that user was involved in Naleksuh (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Template displaytitle

This template currently doesn't exist (it just redlinks). Is there anything we could do about it? According to Special:Undelete it was never deleted. In the edit history I can see that this problem goes quite a while back. Szczot3k (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. Trying to use it via {{DISPLAYTITLE|Something}} is the reason why. It should be used with : instead of | Szczot3k (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Never, never mind. I was just using it wrong the whole time.

Maybe it would be beneficial to at least add a documentation to this template? Szczot3k (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrats - two different sets of requirements

TestWiki has inconsistent requirements for bureaucrats.
Per TW:RfP - one has to be an Administrator for at least 24 hours, have at least 10 edits, and be "trustworthy".
On the other hand TW:B states that the user should be an User for at least 24 hours, have at least 10 edits an be "trusted by the community".
Being an user, and an administrator on TW are two different things. From what I can see the RfP's "Admin for at least 24h" requirement is the one enforced, but that doesn't mean that technically it's different from TW:B. Being trustworthy, and trusted by the community can also be interpreted twofold. The second one could mean there should be a consensus, and not just one TW:C judging that. Szczot3k (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Using MediaWiki 1.39

In general, test wikis run the latest alpha/developer release of MediaWiki, which is currently 1.39. Cigaryno (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is for people mostly learning how to use mediawiki. It is not a developer test wiki.

We have beta which will run 1.39 as soon as it moves to beta.

Running 1.39 would be impossible currently due to the number of breaking changes, very few extensions actually work. We don't have the resources anyway to deploy a production standard 1.39 server. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1.39 should reach beta/RC in September 2022. Cigaryno (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I can host a wiki myself running MediaWiki 1.39 to see if there are known issues. Cigaryno (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)