User talk:Naleksuh

Hey Naleksuh,

I see that you partially blocked yourself for testing purposes for a period of two hours, and you have the ability to unblock yourself before that so there's nothing really to do, but what I had a question about—whenever you return—is where it says, "from specified non-editing actions with an expiration time of 2 hours (autoblock disabled)," I can't figure out what those non-editing actions are. Did you just prohibit yourself from editing your own user talk page for the prescribed period? If so, then I think I've understood the log entries correctly.

Also, it's probably not a big deal since the block was a test block you made on yourself, but just a heads up with regard to revision deletion, we try for transparency here. I made the mistake of test blocking a consul for a couple minutes, so hid my block log entry from the consul's block log, but they said not to worry about it and that it's better to keep log actions unhidden. So not sure if you maybe want, perhaps as a rest of undoing the revision deletion, to unhide the "username hidden" and "edit summary hidden" actions? Up to you, though, as I say, it was a test block on yourself and you're not hiding the log action itself.

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Yeah, I didn't know that text was in the interface either. The way this works is by placing a partial block that does nothing - i.e. no actions are set to be blocked, not even editing. As for why I revision deleted, was just somewhat dicking around, but I could see how that would be confusing as it could be confused with a real block. I will undelete that revision now Naleksuh (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: So basically, you show as being partially blocked, but because nothing was selected, all you got out out of it was a block log entry? Interesting. Anyway, revision deletion is a powerful tool. We have Revision deletion test where you can create revisions, hide them, and the like. No need to undo the revision deletions on that page, since it's specially earmarked for that purpose (though if revision deleting a log entry for a revision deletion, I'd still undo that). Let me know if you'd like to play around as a bureaucrat and I'll grant that. Dmehus (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Ten edits are required for bureaucrat, but it would be interesting for sure once I have met them. The idea of a public test wiki instead of each user creating their own is chaotic as hell for sure, but also part of fun and allows users to help (for whatever reason, dicking around here is a lot more fun than on localhost). Hope to learn policies, interact with the community, help others, and possibly become consul one day! Naleksuh (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: You're half way there on Public Test Wiki in terms of edits, but you have been an administrator for at least 24 hours. More importantly, though, you're fairly active on Meta and you have your own wiki, so you are trustworthy. Dmehus (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If you are interested in helping out on Public Test Wiki and aren't sure if it's something that you should change, I'd recommend running it by any consul to see if there's support for the idea. Now that you are a bureaucrat, you can assist at RfP by actioning permissions' requests. Dmehus (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Useful user scripts I'm using on Miraheze

Hi Naleksuh,

Thanks for approving that user's administrator request. I noted you included the permanent link to the revision. Though not required here, I do try to do that also when I remember as it's a good practice. Not sure if you have this script installed, or if you're using a different script, but I've been using DannyS712's permaLinkSection. If you check out my global.js, you can see which user scripts I've tested and confirmed as having worked without issues on Miraheze. Feel free to copy the code into your global.js file if you wish. Easy Link, in particular, is especially useful for creating wikilinks without page-stretching underscores. I'm waiting to hear back from Enterprisey on what fix he recommends to his links-in-logs user script, which will be super handy. For now, what I am doing to get logids is, check the "change visibility of selected revision(s)" box, and then it shows the selected logids in the URL address bar. Do you know of a simpler method, or is that what you do as well?

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Thanks for offer, but am interested in such scripts at time. Is useful information though! :) Naleksuh (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection removal of User:Killarnee

Hi Naleksuh,

I noticed this log action you made in which you, logically and in good-faith, removed the page protection of User:Killarnee; however, the user has only had their bureaucrat user group removed by a consul. I wondered if the protection was required, but it was in their own userspace and we do have former administrators who have base user pages protected at administrator. Ideally, like you, I would love to remove the page protection from those pages, so that's why I've been trying to ensure user pages are protected at a level no higher than administrator.

So, unless Killarnee has made a request for their page protection to be removed, I do think you should reinstate it.

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Ah I see. I was not aware that they still had administrator so I thought that the page was now protected at a a level they couldn't edit. In that case, I probably should not have removed it, but wouldn't reinstate it either, as they can simply re-protect it at administrator level if they desire. I would disagree with blanket removals though. Users may want their page protected at a higher level though, since its so easy to get administrator on this wiki. Naleksuh (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Thanks for your reply and clarification. Protection likely isn't needed here, but I'm going to re-protect it (call it a procedural re-protection) on the basis that they never asked for it to be removed and to clarify the details in their protection page log. As to the other point, well, Bureaucrat is generally given out fairly liberally as well, provided the user has shown they can be trusted (principally, through their edits and tests as an administrator and/or through other methods). I generally think that most userspace page protections are unnecessary, personally, unless there's been a recent habit of other users mucking about with editing other users' base userpage. Dmehus (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to make you misunderstand

I should have written to clear the sandbox.--松 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

Hello, why is "Attack page" unneeded? Thank you. Cactus754 (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cactus754: While I appreciate your good-faith addition of that deletion reason, I don't feel it is needed as we don't generally have that problem on TestWiki. We can use "vandalism" or specify an other reason. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Cactus754 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Flow

@Dmehus: Please disable flow on your talk page...it's broken and I can't comment at all Naleksuh (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: It's not broken, though? It could be a preferences conflict, perhaps. What's the error message you are receiving? Dmehus (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus and Naleksuh: Just for the record, I like flow, it cleans up the talk pages. User:BrandonWM/signature 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Flow does seem to work fine, even on mobile on the talk. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 19:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Zppix and the others are right. Flow works fine for me. Perhaps you might need to log out of your account, shut down your computer, or something like that. Best, Cactus754 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop.

When a consul sets options for a block, you DO NOT change them. You are not a consul, and thus do not have the privilege to change consul-imposed blocks. Zppix (Meta | Sysadmin | talk to me) 03:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion from TestWiki talk:Request permissions/Archive 10

@Revi: @Dmehus: Okay, so this cycle of Revibot archiving stuff and Dmehus editing ce-insert line break has been going on for nearly two months now. If line breaks are necessary, can the bot be changed to add them? If not, can they not be added? Naleksuh (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Thank you for raising this for discussion, though I have procedurally moved it from TestWiki talk:Request permissions/Archive 10 to here, as I'd rather not create discussion pages on archive subpages. I did ask Revi about the line breaks, and he did say that this is part of the Pywikibot core bot code, so would need an upstream task to fix, presumably. He also mentioned that he tries to use one or two versions behind of Pywikibot, mainly so that hopefully any bugs or glitches in the newest version are worked out. In the interim, I can try and minimize my WikiGnoming and not add the extra line breaks after each archive, and instead only remove them in a batch every few months or so. Dmehus (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Revi: Repinging Revi since it won't work when Dmehus adds it Naleksuh (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As I operate the same bot on lots of wikis, I would rather prefer not to create custom fix for some wikis (because nobody else other than Dmehus complained about this), and get it fixed from upstream (Pywikibot side) and then apply the official fix locally. So, I will try updating (which is yet to happen, and unlikely to happen until end of this year) to more recent stable versions, but I am not going to implement some hacks to fix it. — revi 04:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Demote me please

Can you please demote me i just don't have time to be active And thank you guys for allowing me another chance I really appreciate it --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Naleksuh (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Proposed policy

Hello Naleksuh, I tried to mark this template for the translation but I encounter some error. I don't know how marking for translation is done here. Will you please help me? Also pinging Dmehus. Mazzaz (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake

Hello, sorry for removing groups. But test group and confirmed no longer needed because you have autoconfirmed rights. That's why I thought it was a test. Fffv7️⃣7️⃣8️⃣7️⃣ (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocking Syde_BOT

Hi. Regarding your block of User:Syde_BOT, was it necessary to assume bad faith and immediately block the account? The policy you linked to doesn't mention that a bot must be approved before the account is created and it's not improbable that someone would first create an account for their bot and then reuqest that the account is flagged as such. The bot also didn't cause any "trouble" or proceed with any unauthorised actions. In either case, it would've been perfectly possible to first ask the user whether they were aware of a policy instead of immediately blocking. Assuming good faith would've meant that the user either was not aware of the policy (which is entirely possible) or even that they intended to request authorization soon. In terms of the global Username Policy it also says that "If an account that does not respect this policy is created, they should be warned, linked to this policy and invited to change their username.". If that is the case and the bot is not in fact a bot, it should indeed be warned per the UP. In any case, I would recommend that in the future good faith is assumed and if there is no clear bad faith it's always preferable to warn a user before proceeding with an indefinite block. Reception123 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss my actions as they are, but why do you have to that say I "assumed bad faith"? Username policy routine procedural blocks are normal, and blocking an account for their username doesn't mean assuming bad faith at all. The essay w:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith is relevant here. Also note that the block summary clearly explained the issues with it and had autoblock disabled; these are normal username blocks and are not some means of implying malice. I wasn't aware of some idea of leaving them active, but this might be like the "user accounts advisory" that were made up Naleksuh (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My Adminship

Hello @Naleksuh,

On the page TW:Administrators, it says to contact a recently active bureaucrat to grant administrator rights. So here I am... LC Developer (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please be patient. You just requested rights on TW:RfP. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Usually just a request on that page will be enough, there's no need to request it in three different places. It also looks like Agent Isai has added permissions to you before I got to this request, another reason the central noticeboard is better. Naleksuh (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! I apologize for requesting in multiple places, and I wasn't trying to be impatient. Thank you for updating the page too! LC Developer (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Naleksuh! As I see you are online, can you check the request for comment I created and see if I did it right? LC Developer (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any new RFC from you. I see you added a new proposal to an existing RFC, but I wouldn't recommend doing that because most people oppose having that system so it'll likely go away soon. Naleksuh (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so where should I put my proposal for a new logo? LC Developer (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think it looks to similar to the current logo to be worth changing to, and also still has "public test wiki" instead of just "test wiki". But if you really want to I would say discuss it on community portal. Naleksuh (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the public text and made some general improvements. I have posted a request on the community portal. LC Developer (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Challenge?

Why exactly can my closure be challenged? Do you disagree with something there? Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 04:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You closed an RFC that you opened. While it did sit there for some time, the user who opened an RFC will always be the least fit user to close it. It is not personal; I don't close my RFCs. While I do weakly disagree with your assessment of proposal 2, that is a seperate issue and not related to the challenge comment. I do understand that the RFC sat there for a long time and no-one else had closed it, but at the very least there can be someone more uninvolved. Naleksuh (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an involved closure policy then. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 04:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)