Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: Yesterday at 04:25 by Peterxy12 in topic Modify gadget
Content deleted Content added
Harpsicorder (talk | contribs) |
→Modify gadget: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
||
{{/header}} |
{{/header}} |
||
{{shortcut|TW:CP|TW:COM}} |
|||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
==Proposal== |
|||
== Oversight role? == |
|||
Should we create a group of trusted bureaucrats, empowered to assist stewards? This group would not have access to PII. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 19:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Seemplez}} I'm just gonna bump in here, but there's no need for it right now. From what I've seen, everything is fine, and the CheckUser right isn't really needed either, the only use for the Steward permission is that it can revoke bureaucrat permissions from a user. [[User:BlackWidowMovie0|BlackWidowMovie0]] ([[User talk:BlackWidowMovie0|talk]]) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I think we already have both kinds of oversight on this wiki, from google I saw https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/oversight which is revision deletion you should already be able to do the admin kind of revision deletion, there is also the suppress kind, which was done to a few entries a long time ago by MacFan4000, but for that you need to be in the [[Test Wiki:Suppress|suppress user group]] and only the stewards can assign that. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:If a steward thinks you should have it, and assigns it to you, or you become a steward, then yes. Otherwise, no. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Fast|Justarandomamerican|BlackWidowMovie0}} Thanks. [[User:Seemplez|Seemplez]] ([[User talk:Seemplez|talk]]) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
== CheckUser testing == |
|||
====Support==== |
|||
*{{support|strongest}} [[User:Quaille|Quaille]] ([[User talk:Quaille|talk]]) 07:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*{{support}}, but I think the functions and requirements of this group need to be explained further. [[User:AsamuraShiki|<span style="color:#39C5BB"><span lang="ja">浅村しき</span></span>]] ([[User_talk:AsamuraShiki|<span style="color:#FFA500">talk</span>]]) 07:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
====Oppose==== |
|||
Currently, as shown in [[Special:ListGroupRights]], it seems that only bureaucrats may use the <code>checkuser-limited</code> permission. This permission allows checking oneself for the purpose of testing out the tool. It may be a good idea to grant this permission to administrators as administrators is the primary for-testing group here and it should not be necessary to request bureaucratship for testing. In addition, when it is only possible to check oneself there is very little capacity for damage (checking others will still be limited to Stewards). |
|||
====Comments/Neutral==== |
|||
Opinions? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I have no opposition in regards to the concept of this group at present time, though I do think it needs to be fleshed out more (permissions, granting criteria, etc.) before a community discussion/vote. I do, however, question the current need of the group as there are frankly a sufficient number of stewards to handle all tasks. If this were to change, I would likely be in support, but as of now, I'm going to land in {{neutral}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#0F69B3;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 22:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree <code>checkuser-limited</code> is not really that sensitive, and certainly has less potential for damage than many of the other rights bundled with administrator. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: |
*:Here's a more fleshed out idea: This group would have no more special user rights than regular bureaucrats, and therefore, would merely be a list of users empowered to assist. Assist, well, that could be a variety of things, but I'll define it as "issue user restrictions, long term blocks, and any other measures deemed necessary to assist stewards." How does that sound? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
:: |
*::In terms of granting criteria: there must be some form of activity on the wiki, and the group would be Steward appointed only, with a vote of confidence from another steward required. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
*I'm honestly not sure where to land my vote on this. However, I lean towards giving weak support or opposition mainly because activity hasn't been elevating around here lately. Thus, there isn't much to combat in terms of vandalism. Yes, there is ongoing spam, but Bosco has been actively fighting against it and does an excellent job of doing so. I agree with X's "fleshed out" idea and the mention of the steward's team. [[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 22:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*What user rights would the proposed user group have? [[User:Codename Noreste|Codename Noreste]] ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|talk]]) 21:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*:None, it would purely be a list of users empowered to assist. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*:Technically, they are your average everyday bureaucrats. The only difference is, these bureaucrats are formally entrusted to assist stewards on their job. [[User:Quaille|Quaille]] ([[User talk:Quaille|talk]]) 07:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
==Peterxy12 for stewardship== |
|||
== [[User:CptViraj]] == |
|||
{{discussion top|Withdrawn. --[[User:Peterxy12|Peterxy12]] ([[User talk:Peterxy12|talk]]) 09:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)<br><small>Fix {{tl|discussion top}} [[User:Bosco|Bosco]] ([[User talk:Bosco|talk]]) 09:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
Hello All, I am Peterxy12, an active administrator and bureaucrat on testwiki.wiki. I have been here for a little over 2 months and I believe I can help perform steward actions when they are requested. I think our community needs multiple active stewards at all times and currently we have 0. If the above request for stewardship is successful, then we would have 1. I believe we need a steward team, which is more than 1. I believe I can assist there because when I requested a rename it took over a month because our current stewards are busy on other projects. I have performed all rights requests since my account was created. I have also performed all inactivity removals. Each of these I have performed appropriately. With steward tools, particularly suppression and checkuser, I understand how they work and can use them well. I will use oversight to hide personal information and extreme threats. With checkuser, I will investigate the IPs of accounts and LTA. Feel free to ask me questions below. [[User:Peterxy12|Peterxy12]] ([[User talk:Peterxy12|talk]]) 07:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Please delete my userpage, Thanks! -- [[User:CptViraj|CptViraj]] ([[User talk:CptViraj|talk]]) 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
*{{Done}} --[[User:Q8j|Q8j]] ([[User talk:Q8j|talk]]) 08:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Spam abuse filters == |
|||
I'd like to propose that we enable automatic blocking on our anti-spam abuse filters, as they have a rare false positive rate (and we can just unblock if there is a false positive). [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Support}} I Do think we could use filter for that. --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Good idea, I had considered proposing this for a while but had never got around to it. Blocking is a restricted action though, so this will need to be closed by a stewards. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: We also need it because there is no way in hell I am doing [https://testwiki.wiki/images/a/a6/Spambots.png this] again. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Geez, I normally mop up the mess the spambots make, and never have I had to give myself the bot flag, nor flood the log like that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Agree''', and prompt autoblocks will also prevent the spambots from creating new accounts on the same IP for 24 hours reducing the hit rate and making it easier to find any false positives. We can always tweak the filters that result in immediate blocks if problems occur. It may be advisable to limit blocks only to registered accounts for now since they are so far responsible for nearly all edits that trip the filter. [[User:Fast|Fast - ZoomZoom]] ([[User talk:Fast|talk]]) 23:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It looks like we had another Hell load of Bot accounts today and don't worry Nalekshu I can always do mass blocking if you need me to or want me to do it just Message me and I'll do it 🙂 --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Done}} [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Help, abuse filter blocked me == |
|||
Hi, this is administrator [[User:PorkchopGMX]] editing under a VPN, a different browser, and a new account. I was editing [[user:PorkchopGMX/researchertest|one of my subpages]], planning to delete it and use my [[User:PorkchopGMX test|test account]] to see what it would look like with the “researcher” user group, when the abuse filter thought I was spamming and blocked me indefinitely with autoblock. The only thing I can do right now (besides having to use a VPN) is to email somebody. I don’t know who I should email, so I’m doing this instead. If anybody is skeptical that this is really me, I do have access to my account and can email somebody if they need proof. [[User:PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once|PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once|talk]]) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hello i already unblocked your main account please Do not use a Vpn i will GO ahead and Unblock your ip aswell so you can edit --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you Cocopuff2018, I’m unblocked now. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal : Remove SocialProfile == |
|||
Does anyone even like it? I would certainly support it being removed [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>I '''honestly don't care''' if it's removed. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:Actually, I '''weakly oppose''' just for the communications options (userboard and such), if somebody wants a wiki user page, they get one, as there's a switch to toggle wiki userpages on. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Justarandomamerican}} No, it still leaves that stupid banner which people might not want and does random crap like auto-creating user pages and other clutter. It is simply a nuisance to this wiki. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 06:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Also, I don't love that non-existent user page titles show up as bluelinks. That probably should be fixed upstream, but until then, I think it should be removed. For what it's worth, it's a [[mhtest:TestWiki:Banned extensions|banned extension]] on [[mhtest:|Public Test Wiki]]. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 07:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I '''strongly support''' removing this extension, at least until such time as [[mw:Extension:SocialProfile|SocialProfile]]'s extension developers migrate the social profiles to a <code>UserProfile</code> namespace and move wiki user pages where they rightly belong, in <code>User</code> namespace. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Support}} I would like a good userpage, instead, a box fill-in, pushing my userpage to<code>UserWiki</code> namespace. [[User:Harpsicorder|Harpsicorder]] ([[User talk:Harpsicorder|talk]]) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== "High chance of spam" filters and false positives == |
|||
The spam filters have recently falsely blocked two users ([[User:PorkchopGMX]] and [[User:Dmehus]]) as spammers that were not. As a temporary solution [[User:MacFan4000]] has set them to just disallow again, but [https://testwiki.wiki/images/a/a6/Spambots.png they clearly need to block] provided we can remove false positives. |
|||
I suggest requiring 0 edits for block. Generally spambots trip this filter on their first edit, so anyone who has made any successful edits is likely not a spambot. Any other ideas? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: The filter should also require the creation of a new page. It already does for one of the filters, but it should for the other too. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm a bit confused, perhaps. Wouldn't requiring 0 edits to block ''increase'' the false positive blocks? Administrators are active here, and can revert spam quickly. I'd suggest just setting it to either warn or disallow permanently, with anyone with <code>autopatrol</code> in their '''user_rights''' exempted from the filter. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think so. Most administrators have more than 1 edit. I support requiring 0 edits. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|Dmehus}} How would narrowing when blocks are placed increase false positives? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Well, in my case, I only had one edit, and maybe I'm not understanding the central idea idea, but wouldn't ''reducing'' the edit requirement mean I would've been blocked when I made my permission request? Note that I never tried to add an external link—it was just an [[Special:Interwiki|interwiki]] link. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, because your permissions request didn’t contain anything that would trip the filter. Also, I just tested that change, and it doesn’t work because most spambots are seeming to first make a change to their SocialProfile, which I guess counts as an edit. Or at least & user_editcount == 0 nothing trips the filter when I test it. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Oh, okay, well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to try it then, since you've tested the filter against recent edits. Plus, yeah, spam only accounts ''do'' tend add spammy links into their social profiles. Having said that, on some wikis on Miraheze what we do is simply add the SocialProfile-related rights to <code>autoconfirmed</code>, and that stops the spam only accounts cold, with minimal impacts on legitimate users. Also, if the above community proposal passes, this may end up being moot. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If the above community proposal fails, I '''support''' moving updateprofile into autoconfirmed. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Justarandomamerican request for stewardship (2) == |
|||
{{Discussion top|Unsuccessful [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] <sup>([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])</sup> 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
Statement by requestor: I'd like to request the globe again. I've been active and taking out the trash, and now my account is not newly registered. CU and Oversight rights would be helpful in performing maintenance and counter-vandalism and spam. (which I regularly do) It's been approximately a month since my last request, and I feel I have addressed the opposing argument. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===Support=== |
===Support=== |
||
'''Procedural support''' as requestor and per my requesting argument. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
*{{Oppose2|strongest}} [[User:Quaille|Quaille]] ([[User talk:Quaille|talk]]) 08:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*{{oppose}} We have already 6 stewards and we can find them on Discord to do any steward actions (such as renaming users and perform CU and OS actions). Also, I am not sure this user can use steward tools accordingly. [[User:Bosco|Bosco]] ([[User talk:Bosco|talk]]) 08:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
#: '''Comment''': It was a friendly message, not intending to influence discussion in a way. I really shouldn't have to clarify that. I was not intending to canvass, influencing discussion, but rather help to fully achieve consensus. (Notice all the neutrals.) Please remember to [[W:WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. [[W:WP:CANVASS]] [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
#Telling someone to assume good faith as a method of deflecting valid criticism is not something someone with steward rights should be doing. I'll also add that it might not be canvassing per se, but it certainly is not something I would do. Clearly it could affect the outcome of this. In addition, this wiki does not appear to need more stewards. --[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|IWI]] ([[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|talk]]) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Netural=== |
||
* I'm not familiar with this wiki's policy requirements on access to personally identifying information. If <code>suppressor</code> can be granted independent of <code>checkuser</code>, this is something I could potentially support. My interactions with you, assuming you're the same Justarandomliberal on Miraheze, have been fine, though I don't know you well enough to support for Steward on this wiki. At the same time, MacFan4000 and Void are active enough on this wiki to perform any CheckUser functions, I think. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''':The requirements for PII here are just pretty much pass a RfS and follow the privacy policy. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** {{ping|Dmehus}} Personally I think Oversight is a ''more'' larger deal than CheckUser. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** {{ping|Naleksuh}} Potentially, yes, that's true, though I'm not sure what information may have been suppressed. If it is IP addresses, largely, of users who edited while logged out, then it's probably the same. If it's grossly insulting and potentially libelous or defamatory information requiring suppression, then the concern for me is whether the user will be trusted not to divulge that information. The same is true of CheckUser, certainly, though. It's probably a wash, really, with you believing Oversight is the greater concern and me believing CheckUser is the greater concern. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Neutral I'm sorry but I agree with Dmehus I feel we don't need more Stewards Sorry --[[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Only one steward is active in a community capacity (MacFan). The other is mostly active as a system administrator, semi-active in a community capacity. (which is completely fine) We need one more active steward in a community capacity, certainly. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Abstain While all my interactions so far with Justarandomamerican have been positive, I don't feel I know them (as well as their contributions here) well enough yet in order to be able to vote yes/no on this matter. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|||
== Proposal: [[Test Wiki:No open proxies policy|No open proxies policy]] == |
|||
{{Discussion top|Involved closure, but consensus is unanimous here. Nobody had an opposing or neutral argument. Cheers, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
===Comments=== |
|||
'''Community proposal:''' To establish as official policy, subject to amendment at [[Test Wiki:Community portal]], [[Test Wiki:No open proxies policy|No open proxies policy]]. Such policy shall prohibit open proxies, somewhat broadly construed, VPNs, and web hosts from being used for anonymous editing or account creation. On discovery, a Steward shall soft block with account creation disabled and talk page access revoked said IP range(s) for a period of not less than three (3) and not more than twenty four (24) months. Logged in editors may use them, as is the case on [[mhmeta:No open proxies policy|Miraheze]], as at least the user will have been likely required to identify their personal IP to [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. Where, upon discovery, an account was created by a VPN/open proxy, Steward discretion applies as to whether to block, or require a confirmation edit from a Wikimedia or Miraheze wiki. Steward discretion in terms of the length of the block/rangeblock applies, within the defined parameters, but the community recomments at least six (6) months for obvious cases. Where open proxies/VPNs are being used on this wiki by anonymous users, the open proxies/VPNs may be blocked by any <code>sysop</code>, subject to the same discretion as outlined above. |
|||
#Do you hold any CU or OS rights on other wikis? [[User:Bosco|Bosco]] ([[User talk:Bosco|talk]]) 08:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
#:Sorry. I'll {{withdrawn}}. [[User:Peterxy12|Peterxy12]] ([[User talk:Peterxy12|talk]]) 09:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
{{discussion bottom}} |
|||
== |
==Rename== |
||
* '''Strong support''' as proposer. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' Open proxies have probably been used for long term abuse since this wiki began. This would help stop that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Support}} While I'm very new here, I've heard this wiki has had some unfortunate instances of trolling and vandalism. In my experience, allowing account creations from open proxies/VPNs as well as anonymous editing for them usually causes trouble. There has been a NOPP in place at Miraheze since the beginning of 2017 and having a clear policy on the matter could be helpful and allow for routine soft blocks of VPNs and open proxies. While of course a policy likely won't stop trolls, it would make it easier to immediately soft block VPNs and open proxies once they are discovered. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Don't find a page for steward's requests, so i ask here my rename to the username "Muffy" if it's possible. Thanks. <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:DodoMan|<span style="color:blue">Dodo</span>]].[[User talk:DodoMan|Let's talk!]]</span> 18:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
=== Oppose === |
|||
:{{Done}} [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 18:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
==Modify gadget== |
|||
=== Neutral/Abstain === |
|||
Use [[User:SaoMikoto/js/Gadget-RequestSolver.js]] to replace [[MediaWiki:Gadget-RequestSolver.js]]. Add a confirmation pop-up to prevent accidental clicks. —— <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;font-style:italic">From [[User:SaoMikoto|<span style="color:#0b007f">SAOUTAX</span>]] the Dual Blades [[TW:BC|<span style="color:#0b007f">Bureaucrat</span>]]</span> 04:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
=== Comments === |
|||
* "soft block with account creation disabled " Soft block inherently means having this ''enabled'', what did you mean here? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:Peterxy12|Peterxy12]] ([[User talk:Peterxy12|talk]]) 04:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
*:[[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] Yeah, I know that, but I just added that "with account creation disabled" for users who may not know that that's inherent with a soft IP block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Soft blocking all open proxies upon discovery is a bit much for only stewards to do. There are only 2 stewards around here, unless the RfS above passes (might have a No Consensus closure with all those neutrals). Maybe change it to stewards or bureaucrats? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Oh, sure, that's no problem, but to be clear, I just mean if they discovered open proxies in the course of a CheckUser from an abuse investigation, but if anonymous IPs are being used publicly on this wiki, any <code>sysop</code> could block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{discussion bottom}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 04:25, 7 February 2026
| The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one. | |||
| Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | |||
Proposal
Should we create a group of trusted bureaucrats, empowered to assist stewards? This group would not have access to PII. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
Support
Strongest support Quaille (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Support, but I think the functions and requirements of this group need to be explained further. 浅村しき (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments/Neutral
- I have no opposition in regards to the concept of this group at present time, though I do think it needs to be fleshed out more (permissions, granting criteria, etc.) before a community discussion/vote. I do, however, question the current need of the group as there are frankly a sufficient number of stewards to handle all tasks. If this were to change, I would likely be in support, but as of now, I'm going to land in
Neutral. X (talk + contribs) 22:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a more fleshed out idea: This group would have no more special user rights than regular bureaucrats, and therefore, would merely be a list of users empowered to assist. Assist, well, that could be a variety of things, but I'll define it as "issue user restrictions, long term blocks, and any other measures deemed necessary to assist stewards." How does that sound? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- In terms of granting criteria: there must be some form of activity on the wiki, and the group would be Steward appointed only, with a vote of confidence from another steward required. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a more fleshed out idea: This group would have no more special user rights than regular bureaucrats, and therefore, would merely be a list of users empowered to assist. Assist, well, that could be a variety of things, but I'll define it as "issue user restrictions, long term blocks, and any other measures deemed necessary to assist stewards." How does that sound? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure where to land my vote on this. However, I lean towards giving weak support or opposition mainly because activity hasn't been elevating around here lately. Thus, there isn't much to combat in terms of vandalism. Yes, there is ongoing spam, but Bosco has been actively fighting against it and does an excellent job of doing so. I agree with X's "fleshed out" idea and the mention of the steward's team. Username (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- What user rights would the proposed user group have? Codename Noreste (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- None, it would purely be a list of users empowered to assist. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Technically, they are your average everyday bureaucrats. The only difference is, these bureaucrats are formally entrusted to assist stewards on their job. Quaille (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Peterxy12 for stewardship
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Withdrawn. --Peterxy12 (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Fix {{discussion top}} Bosco (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. --Peterxy12 (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Hello All, I am Peterxy12, an active administrator and bureaucrat on testwiki.wiki. I have been here for a little over 2 months and I believe I can help perform steward actions when they are requested. I think our community needs multiple active stewards at all times and currently we have 0. If the above request for stewardship is successful, then we would have 1. I believe we need a steward team, which is more than 1. I believe I can assist there because when I requested a rename it took over a month because our current stewards are busy on other projects. I have performed all rights requests since my account was created. I have also performed all inactivity removals. Each of these I have performed appropriately. With steward tools, particularly suppression and checkuser, I understand how they work and can use them well. I will use oversight to hide personal information and extreme threats. With checkuser, I will investigate the IPs of accounts and LTA. Feel free to ask me questions below. Peterxy12 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Strongest oppose Quaille (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose We have already 6 stewards and we can find them on Discord to do any steward actions (such as renaming users and perform CU and OS actions). Also, I am not sure this user can use steward tools accordingly. Bosco (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Netural
Comments
- Do you hold any CU or OS rights on other wikis? Bosco (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry. I'll
Request withdrawn. Peterxy12 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry. I'll
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Rename
Don't find a page for steward's requests, so i ask here my rename to the username "Muffy" if it's possible. Thanks. Dodo.Let's talk! 18:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Modify gadget
Use User:SaoMikoto/js/Gadget-RequestSolver.js to replace MediaWiki:Gadget-RequestSolver.js. Add a confirmation pop-up to prevent accidental clicks. —— From SAOUTAX the Dual Blades Bureaucrat 04:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)