2,513
edits
TestWiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
m
Updating transclusions and wikilinks, using a piped link where possible, following requested global rename to preserve the name at the message posting time
(→Suggested move: Reply) |
m (Updating transclusions and wikilinks, using a piped link where possible, following requested global rename to preserve the name at the message posting time) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 120:
<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.
::Admins can unblock themselves. – [[User:
----
{{talkquote|Please ensure you follow our [[TestWiki:Policies|policies]], especially [[TestWiki:Testing policy]] and [[TestWiki:Main policy]], reverting every test administrative action in the reverse order performed. As a best practice, test blocks should be done on [[User:Example]] <s>or yourself.</s>}}. {{U|Anton}} and {{u|Dmehus}}, will anyone of you please remove '''or yourself''' from the above text. I see if users block themselves they are unable to do anything even they can't unblock themselves. I experienced this when I blocked my alternative account ({{u|Olipino (Alt)}}) and when {{u|Theory of Eternity}} blocked themselves. What do you people think? – [[User:
:I've seen admins unblock themselves on Recent Changes, so I think it is possible for blocked admins to unblock themselves. I don't have admin powers myself, otherwise I'd test that for myself. [[User:Theory of Eternity|Theory of Eternity]] ([[User talk:Theory of Eternity|talk]]) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Line 129:
::Sorry, I was wrong. The admin can unblock himself (<code>unblockself</code>). Please see [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. Thanks. --[[User:Anton|Anton]] ([[User talk:Anton|talk]]) 14:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Anton}}, let me test. – [[User:
::::Yes, what are you going to test? --[[User:Anton|Anton]] ([[User talk:Anton|talk]]) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Anton}}, sorry for talking your time, I'm closing this discussion because yes <code>sysops</code> can unblock themselves as listed at [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. I tested block on myself and yes, I could unblock myself. Thank you! – [[User:
----
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section </div>
Line 139:
Hello fellows, the policy clearly states that {{talkquote|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 {{talkquote|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 {{talkquote|You may create test accounts to test blocks or you can place blocks on yourself.}} with {{talkquote|As a best practice, test blocked should be made on [[User:Example]] or yourself.}}
-- [[User:
: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 [[mw:Extension:GlobalUserPage|global]] user page in some way." How does that sound? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{U|Dmehus}}, since the IP block exemptions have been added to the <code>sysop</code> group, I have no objections. -- [[User:
:::[[User:
::::{{Done}} I've added <code>(ipblock-exempt)</code> to [[TW:A]]. -- [[User:
:::::Thanks! [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 20:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Line 150:
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. [[User:Joritochip|Joritochip]] ([[User talk:Joritochip|talk]]) 02:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
:<s>{{u|Joritochip}}, I think bureaucrats can only promote <code>[[TW:SYSOP|admins]]</code> to bureaucrats user right (but I may be wrong). That's why it may be necessary to be an admin for 24 hours. -- [[User:
:[[User:Joritochip|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 [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]], so they've demonstrated that they're ''trusted''. In ''practice'', though, [[TestWiki:Request permissions]]' language may be the way to go. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]], do you have any thoughts? It is a [[TestWiki:Policies|policy]] page, but this a non-controversial administrative change I think we can clarify administratively as a [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] action. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
==Suggested move==
While testing, I came across the template, [[Template:RfPdone|RfPdone]]. I'd suggest to move it to the new more suitable title, <code>''AdminGranted''</code> 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. {{U|Dmehus}}, {{u|Anton}}, what do you think. -- [[User:
:It serves a different purpose than {{tl|AdminAcceptRfP}}; however, I personally don't think it's needed, as everyone can be a TestWiki <code>[[TestWiki:Administrators|sysop]]</code>. I'm checking with [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] to see what he thinks. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|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 <code>admin</code> 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. -- [[User:
:::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 {{tl|AdminAcceptRfP}} and {{tl|BureaucratAcceptRfP}} at [[TestWiki:Request permissions]] when granting permissions, as then the [[Special:Diff|diff]] to the ''completed'' permission's request can be included within the requesting user's [[Special:UserRights|user rights log]], no? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||