Test Wiki:Community portal/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:09, 31 July 2023

Name change request

Good afternoon, @MacFan4000: & @Dmehus:.

I am requesting my Test Wiki username to be changed to Sav to closely reflect my personal name as Trayfel has no correlation to me.

Regards, Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 13:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

@MacFan4000: & @Dmehus: - Can this be done, please? Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Done MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of my admin rights

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

Closed as per Mac's comment Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, a few days ago I had uploaded a screenshot I had taken of a porn site as a test of the upload function. I do admit that image was questionable and I probably should have used better judgement before deciding to upload it. However, I will not upload any images like that ever again and will continue to be clean in all my other tests here. May I please have my admin privileges back (they were revoked due to this situation)? Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On hold - Considering this situation occurred this day, I do not feel you are ready. Can 2 other 'crats and/or a Steward please voice their opinion on this. Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 00:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/23468/23478. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have also modified AF#88 so as to prevent future uploads, if any. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't trust her. And it's not matter of time. How many times do we have to be betrayed trust we put on her? I won't trust her unless she proves she changed, and again, it's not matter of time.
Since she's "Steward-managed" case and we can't make "community block"(even if we could, she would evade blocking anyway, as she did here), I'm not inclined to be involved in her anymore. If steward think she should be granted permission, then they can do it as their responsibility. If she causes any trouble, then steward should take care of it as their responsibility. After all, she's "Steward-managed" user, isn't she?
I think further RFP request shouldn't be handled. But since "I'm not inclined to be involved in her", I don't insist. If steward/community decides otherwise, then it's fine.--Q8j (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

So if I ask for admin or bureaucrat, only a steward should handle those requests? Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to continued misuse of tools and ignoring of people, I have decided to apply an indefinite block. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 15:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mac, much appreciated. Trayfel • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Template:Discussionbottom

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

Proposed amendment to Test Wiki:Bots

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

No consensus and insufficient participation to form consensus. While there are sound reasons for this to be added, this seems to be a bit of putting the proverbial cart before the horse. In other words, until we have clear bot approval criteria, how do we enforce this, which is what I suspect Chrs means by this (at least in part). Dmehus (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that this template be added to every Bot account that is created.
This would be in line with Wikipedia's bot shutoff template. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 20:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Rationale:

Provides Administrators & 'crats with a simple way to block a malfunctioning bot account.

Support

Neutral/Abstain

Oppose

Oppose While such templates can be helpful, I don't see a compelling need to enforce this as policy. — Chrs (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

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

Stewardship request (LisafBia)

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

A good-faith request by LisafBia for Stewardship; however, as several participants have noted, they are not sufficiently satisified as to LisafBia's reason for requesting Stewardship and, by extension of the same token, to there not being a sufficient need. Given that the only other participant, Matttest, who asked questions but has not yet expressed a view either way, is now CheckUser blocked for abusing multiple accounts in a duplicitous manner, this is unlikely to be successful. Dmehus (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there are few stewards on the wiki, I want to help the wiki, please vote! LisafBia (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Oppose You have not given a plausible reason for you wanting Stewardship. I believe, in my honest opinion, we do not need another Steward. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sav: There are few stewards on the wiki and I want to be able to help this wiki, I know the policies. LisafBia (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@LisafBia: You have still not given reasoning for your request for stewardship. Saying things like "I want to be able to help this wiki, I know the policies" does not convince me you are suitable for Stewardship. I will not be changing my vote, you are not suitable for the rights in my opinion. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 06:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose No use case was presented to my question/comment, and this wiki is not in urgent need of more stewards, who have extremely advanced permissions. The ability to help out with the wiki is already granted to sysops and bureaucrats, while being test permissions, have broad authority to take non-test action. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Comment: and Question: Stewards have highly advanced permissions such as access to a user's IP and previously suppressed edits, along with the ability to suppress edits. Do you specifically need those highly advanced permissions for a particular use case? Or do you simply wish to help out? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Justarandomamerican: I would prefer to use those powers only when needed. LisafBia (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
In what situation will you use the CheckUser tools? What's the purpose of CheckUser? --Matttest (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
With the bureaucrat rights, you can already execute lpts of non-test actions. Which exact areas are you going to help out as a steward? --Matttest (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Technical question

Hello! On August 25th, I had undo the vandalism from a vandalism-only account. I deleted the user created pages with Special:Nuke. But I noticed in a CheckUser I did on myself for testing this week that at that moment the IP address changed automatically. Why did this happen? AlPaD (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

AlPaD, with apologies for the delay in responding, can you clarify what you mean by this? If you're referring to your IP address being associated to other users and system users, this is a known issue, as far as I'm aware, and occurs with some extension (can't remember the details off the top of my head at the moment). I'll try and dig up the Wikimedia Phabricator task about it. Dmehus (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Hello and welcome back! The hostname of one IP is "testwiki.wiki" and the ISP of some others is "Huawei International Pte. Ltd" and my device is Huawei. My normal IP was online from 9:48-10:06, just in between it also showed those system IPs every time I did a mass delete. AlPaD (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

AlPaD, thanks for the welcome! it's hard to know, specifically. I'm not sure if your ISP is Huawei International or not, and I suspect the CheckUser data retention on Test Wiki is only three months, so wouldn't have any way of confirming that now. I know there's an issue with importing pages whereby you import or transwiki pages from another another wiki and choose to assign edits locally where the same username exists on Test Wiki. Those imported usernames will show up associated to your IP address. Could that be the issue? Dmehus (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I believe the error is because the pages I deleted were translations (created by the vandal) and had to be deleted manually and not automatically. I don't think it's too serious but I support fixing the bug if there is one. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

False positives

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

Done per the reasonable request and per the consensus formed in the discussion below. Dmehus (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@MacFan4000 and Dmehus: 52 filter constantly block users incorrectly. Please disable this filter. LisafBia (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

LisafBia, I'd be fine with disabling this filter, if it's generating too many false positives, and I plan to be more active here, so can focus on running CheckUser on the obvious spambots and soft rangeblocking open proxies. Would anyone have any objections to this? AlPaD, Q8j, Sav, DarkMatterMan4500, and anyone else active here? Dmehus (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I have no objection, I totally agree. AlPaD (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dmehus: No objection from me, I agree. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Can't log in to Phorge even with exactly the same password that I use there?

...see topic name. I tried it like 3 times, but it failed. I wanted to request merging of autopatrol and autoreview user groups. — Cruster 19:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@MacFan4000: — Cruster 19:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You have to use the button that says sign in with mediawiki. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Stewardship request (Tm8150switch88)

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

No consensus along with the requester being blocked from the Wiki. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

I want to access advanced tools on The Test Wiki and to protect pages that allow only stewards, please vote. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Discussion

Votes

Support

Oppose

Oppose I don't see an actual need for the tools. — Cruster 09:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose As Cruster, Drummingman (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose As Cruster and Drummingman. You could be a steward in a month or two. Example (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose You are nowhere near active enough nor trusted enough to be granted such permissions. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Result

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

User rights amendment

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

No consensus and insufficient participation, along with the OC being blocked from the Wiki. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

@MacFan4000: See if you could add extended confirmed to the wiki. They are automatically given to users at least 30 days and 500 edits. They could revoke or be given, even if it's less than 30 days and/or less than 500 edits. Revoking the extended confirmed status by the abuse filter action is given to abuse filters as well. Extended confirmed users could be able to edit pages with extended confirmed (or 30/500) protection. Administrators can also edit those pages, even those that are not have reached 30 days and 500 edits. They could be given by any administrator. If you have questions, leave it to my talk page. Thank you! Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See if you also could add template editor user right to the wiki. They are given to users per requests, but also be revoked. They are able to make pages that are template-protected. They could be given by any administrator. If you have questions, leave it to my talk page. Thank you! Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 13:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See if you also could add edit filter managers and edit filter helpers to the wiki. They could be given or revoked even to someone that are not admins. Edit filter helpers could help edit filter managers (but not to edit filter managers, a) (they could look at the spamlist log, b) (they could look at private filters, c) while edit filter managers could edit filters (and all edit filter managers are given edit filter helpers rights, d). They could be given by any administrator. If you have questions, leave it to my talk page. Thank you! Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 13:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See if you also could add the founder to the wiki. Those could edit all user rights, lock and unblock the database, and OAuth CAPTCHA pass. They are only given to system administrator and should not be added to anyone except the legitimate account MacFan4000. If you have questions, leave it to my talk page. Thank you! Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 13:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See if you also could add test accounts to the wiki so they are used for testing purposes. They could be given by any administrator. If you have questions, leave it to my talk page. Thank you! Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 13:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know why would this will ever be used on the test wiki, most "articles" on here are for tests only Lolkikmoddi (talk)

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

question

what is "push subscription manager" group, thats all i have Lolkikmoddi (talk)

I checked your user groups and nothing of the sort appears there. Can you elaborate? Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 16:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi: Information about that group is here. Example (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever was using the Example account to reply to this question, please refrain from doing so. The Example account is only for testing, not replying to users / editing pages. Know this for next time. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Seiyena is making appeal

At User_talk:Seiyena#Block_Appeal. For your information.--Q8j (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Mac has stated that they are not going to be unblocked anytime soon. Stewards & 'crats, please disregard any future appeal requests until @MacFan4000: says they are allowed to. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 13:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User: Melty Molten

They appealed their block in January 2023. Seeing as it has not been responded to, I am informing people here of it. Administrator (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Having read the above post, I have declined the appeal and removed talk page access. Administrator (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Rename request for Administrator

Stewards, Please rename me to X.

Thanks,

Administrator (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Apologies for the delay, been busy with other stuff. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! X (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:User administrator

Hello! In this template the image is not displayed, I tried to fix it via Module:TNT but I don't understood what I need to change. Could you see it please? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Extension request

Please install ReplaceText. Username (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Drummingman for stewardship

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

With no one notionally opposed to Drummingman's election, and the only concern having been raised been related to activity levels, there is clear consensus to promote Drummingman to Steward. On the activity note, while MacFan4000's and my own activity levels is, admittedly, low, we've empowered trusted bureaucrats to functionally assist Stewards in non-test administrative actions and enforcement of our few policies, so there is a lower level need for high activity. As well, Drummingman's current activity levels, together with my commitment to remain active at least biweekly if not weekly [rfc:2119 should] help to maintain sufficient Steward coverage. On behalf of the Steward team, as well as the Test Wiki community, congratulations! Dmehus (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I notice that the stewards of this wiki are busy in real life. Steward requests like 'usernames renames' have to wait a long time. I think that is why there is a need for a third steward. Meanwhile, I became an admin on nlwiki a big Wikipedia site six months ago and gained quite a bit of experience there. I have experience with revdel requests and already know well when suppression is appropriate. As for checkuser, I have little experience with it - testing with it is also not really possible because of privacy. I would use it only when it is really necessary; think of situations like this. I would like to help the stewards manage the site and help where needed. Furthermore, I hope for your trust? Greetings Drummingman (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

He meets all the requirements to be a Steward. It is also active and reliable. LisafBia (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

completely supported for this request. Antonius6317nlwiki (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trusted and experienced user, Drummingman can help as steward. AlPaD (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Why not? Trusted and helpful. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Procedurally, just to make sure it's valid. But it feels uncomfortable to vote for yourself. Drummingman (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, but it appears people have done it in the past, looking through archives. X (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral. I agree that there is a high need and that you are definitely a qualified candidate, but I don't think you're active enough. For example, you haven't granted a permissions request in ~3 months and you have only 45 edits in the past 3 months. X (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear, X as for granted permissions, you are right that I haven't done that often in the past 3 months, mostly you were ahead of me:) consider that a compliment. Drummingman (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand, but I would still like a steward to be a bit more active. I am definitely not opposing your request, I actually hope it succeeds, I just prefer to be neutral for now. X (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion and volunteering. 45 edits in 3 months on this small test wiki is still quite a lot, most users, especially bureaucrats and stewards don't make it. :-) For the rest, you are always free to make your own considerations. Greeting, Drummingman (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. I would consider myself semi-active on this wiki and I have over 300 edits in the past 3 months. I wish you luck in your request for stewardship. X (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions

1. How will you treat people when you are elected as Steward?

R: Thank you for your questions. I will treat people as kindly and politely as I have so far. And offer any explanation and help if they ask. Until proven otherwise, I will assume [good faith] as much as possible. Because Test Wiki is, after all, a test wiki, for administrators tools. Drummingman (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

2. What information do you think you should hide when you use supressor powers? LisafBia (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

R: I will only use it in situations such as, removing personal information, copyright infringement, serious personal attacks or other grossly offensive material, as also indicated here. Furthermore, I will use my common sense and handle it carefully. Drummingman (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

3. Do you hold any non-test rights on any other wikis? X (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

R: Dear X, I am an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia. In addition, I have several other (global) rights on Wikimedia. Drummingman (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

4. Do you think Seyiena should be unblocked? (See below thread) and why?

R: Seiyena is a difficult case, she has caused quite a bit of disruption cross-wiki, besides, she has already had many opportunities on this Test Wiki. I am taking a neutral stance on it. Should it be decided that she may be unblocked, ~~this does seem to me to be the very last chance.~~ Anyway, I think one of the current stewards should make the decision, since Dmehus already gave her a chance. To which it can be said that he only opened the talk page for her. Then later I closed it for abuse. Drummingman (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Result

Promoted to Steward. Dmehus (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Newest Block Appeal

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

There is clear consensus from the community here, and, indeed, unanimity in many respects, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu), by their act of not socking, together with their behavioural improvements on other test wiki(s), has demonstrated enough improvement to at least extend another chance here by way of a conditional block. That being said, the community's patience is not endless, and so, per the terms of the conditional unblock described below, to ensure trusted bureaucrats, who are also administrators are able to warn, guard against, or discipline for serious recidivism from their usual infractions and general nonsense, Seiyena is subject, indefinitely, to a community-advised, Steward-imposed user restriction prohibiting them from engaging in racist or racially-insensitive nonsense commentary anywhere and to patent nonsense/gibberish edits outside of their own userspace, as well as limiting them to one (1) user account of their choosing on Test Wiki. What this means is Stewards can tweak or modify the terms and conditions of the restriction, but [rfc:2119 should] seek the community's input, ideally via Test Wiki:Community portal before a blanket removal of the restriction is undertaken. Should recidivism occur, those trusted bureaucrat-administrators, may employ progressive discipline, on behalf of Stewards, taking the form of a formal warning, temporary rights revocation (i.e., sysop), and short blocks ranging from three days to two weeks. Still, bureaucrat-administrators are encouraged to measure the severity of the infraction with the type of discipline and [rfc:2119 should] recommend changes to the specially-designed abuse filter designed to assist Seiyena in understanding the type of behaviour the community does not tolerate, rather proceeding immediately to a rights revocation or short block. Where more than three forms of progressive discipline have occurred, they may be reblocked, indefinitely, ideally by a Steward. That being said, I recognize Stewards are not always active, so if a Steward does not show up, a bureaucrat-administrator may reblock, temporarily, for as long as necessary until a Steward shows up to reblock. Regarding the progressive discipline, as described below, should one bureaucrat-administrator disagree with another bureaucrat-administrator's form of formal discipline, they may involve either a Steward or another uninvolved bureaucrat-administrator to assess whether the issuance of progressive discipline was fair and reasonable. Q8j, should you have additional comments or suggestions to add, please feel free to add them below this close, within this section. Dmehus (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to appeal my block here again, as more time has passed since my last appeal and in that time I have not evaded my Miraheze ban and I haven't been on IRC at all (not that I remember ever being inappropiate there but I just wanted to note that lately I haven't even been online there). In addition, I have been active on another test wiki called For-Test Wiki where I have been very careful to obey all the rules here. I would like to be unblocked here so I can show that I have changed, and I hope that by continued good behavior on various wikis, it will eventually help me in re-entering Miraheze. Thank you for your consideration. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 22:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

~~@X: @Seiyena: - Seiyena cannot appeal until Mac and/or Dmehus decides she can. Any future appeal, as previously stated, shall be denied. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)~~

In a comment above, Sav, you mentioned that when the stewards or bureaucrats felt I was ready, I can appeal. I can't find anything that says only a steward can decide when I can appeal. Since a bureaucrat, X, thought I was ready, I think this appeal is valid, though I do understand that a steward does need to give permission before I can be unblocked. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 11:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that nowhere was it said that permission for an appeal to simply be posted was required by a Steward, TPA was recently regranted due to the minimal chance of disruption with it, and a genuine interest in improving and appealing. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There’s no “clear” stewards decision that “Appealing requires stewards authorization”. MacFan4000’s TPA revocation was lifted by Dmehus, and latest TPA revocation was set by Drummingman, who is bureaucrat. Though I think X should have had discussion to whether to lift TPA block in Drummingman‘s talk or community portal, X’s decision wasn’t clear violation on rules here.
Considering her behavior before blocking, her words means almost nothing to me. She did lie, break promises/policies, not just once. Regarding “For-test wiki”, if she has behaved good enough to believe she can do that here then I can consider, but as I don’t know what that is and I couldn’t find it, I can’t take it in consideration. Should anyone provide link, I’ll take a look.
As such, I neither support nor oppose this appeal for now. But I strongly believe Dmehus shouldn’t decide this without community consensus(cf.w:WP:INVOLVED). If Dmehus do that and Seiyena causes trouble again, I may hold his accountable.—-Q8j (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. For your convenience, here is a link to For-Test Wiki. http://fortestwiki.myht.org/index.php/Main_Page Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 07:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not a steward, but as a bureaucrat and the one who allowed your TPA, I am declining this request. I am an active user on Miraheze where I have just seen Apex/Seiyena evade their ban twice. This shows they haven’t changed and are unable to be trusted here again. I am not revoking TPA quite yet in case the user has some response to the accusations that needs to be heard. If this talk page is abuse, I will revoke access to it immediately. Seyiena, I honestly thought you had changed, but your block evasion and abuse on Miraheze shows me you haven’t. X (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I have not evaded my block on Miraheze for several months (last time in January). I really am trying to change my behavior on wikis. I don't know what you saw that makes you think I'm evading my Miraheze lock again but I promise that I'm not the one doing those things. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

How do you explain this, this, and this? The edits are also similar to your past behavior. X (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

My only guess is that somone else made those accounts with my name for whatever reason. I'm not in the habit of using sexual terms in my names, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I wouldn't put my known name so boldly if I were trying to evade, as I would want to try to avoid detection. As for why those accounts are behaving similarly to me, again I honestly don't know. But I swear none of those are me. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly not sure if I believe you or not. When For-Test Wiki is back online, would you consent to a check to see if you did or didn’t operate the Benium, Denium, and similar accounts to prove trust? X (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I consent to a checkuser on myself at For-Test Wiki. I hope it's back soon. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Evidence has show that the user hasn’t evaded their block, as such, I have struck my comment. X (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Procedural comment: I have been in communication with Seiyena since March on IRC and encouraged them to articulate an appeal, via their user talk page, and be sure to specify conditions under which they may be reblocked and by whom should they violate their own conditions and, crucially, their time for minimum appeal. I apologize to Seiyena for my delay in following up here, but I will aim to review this community discussion together with their appeal on their user talk page this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

From Seiyena on their talk page: -First Instance: Removal of Permissions for 2 weeks (which may be enforced with a block from the Request Permissions page)

-Second Instance: Block by any admin, bureaucrat or steward (either timed or indefinite, will leave to discretion, but preferably with talk page access on)

I am also willing to accept any conditions that may be placed on my being unblocked. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 11:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Transferred by X (talk).

I have brought this to the community portal so that the community can discuss an unblock as our stewards are inactive. Please comment below your opinions on unblocking Seiyena. X (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Support unblock. User has shown they can be trusted on for-test wiki. We could start out that any permissions above administrator require community approval. X (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. Seiyena has been given countless chances, even after Dmehus has given them a last chance. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 07:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I can definitely understand your point of view. X (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@X: May I ask if you have looked into the previous history of Seiyena? If you have, I would like to know why you are supporting their unblock request given their bad faith behaviour. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I have definitely looked at their history. I wouldn't have started this without looking at their history. I am saying that the user has changed. There is no doubt that this user has misbehaved in the past, I am definitely not denying that. I am saying that the users behavior has changed. As a steward on For-Test Wiki, I can say that the user's behavior has significantly improved. They have edited constructively and never vandalized since we unblocked them. People can change, and I am inclined to assume good faith that this user has too. X (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Accept appeal: People change, and based on their current behavior elsewhere, I am inclined to assume that a block/ban is not necessary to prevent further disruption. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Seiyena is a difficult case, she has caused quite a bit of disruption cross-wiki, besides, she has already had many opportunities on this Test Wiki. I am taking a neutral stance on it. Should it be decided that she may be unblocked, ~~this does seem to me to be the very last chance~~. Anyway, I think one of the current stewards should make the decision, since Dmehus already gave her a chance. To which it can be said that he only opened the talk page for her. Then later I closed it for abuse. Drummingman (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, another note, specifically to @Dmehus: It's definitely fine to at least me to impose a CONDUNBLOCK, or to lift it independently of community discussion if Seiyena agrees to certain conditions. Process this block appeal as you want, being sure to still make time for other things. TL;DR: Support any way of handling this, if they are given a (perhaps last) chance at reintegration into the community, as the block does not appear to be preventing much, if any disruption based on behavior elsewhere. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed terms of conditional unblock. It looks like most of the participants here are in favour of some form of a conditional unblock, so I think we can move forward with proposed terms. For starters, and to be abundantly clear, I've seen some user(s) mention a "final unblock," I am never in favour of a "final chance" unblock. Rather, what I am in favour of is strict terms under which the user may be unblocked and reblocked as necessary. Any reblock [rfc:2119 should not] be a final block, either, but rather, to ensure Stewards' and, where applicable, the community's time are not wasted, I believe it's important to specify the minimum timeframe before subsequent appeals are considered.

Functionally, I propose the following, as a community-advised Steward conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction. Functionally, what does this mean versus a community block? In practice, there is not much difference, except that it's a Steward conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction, so they are free to manage terms, rather than have the community micro-manage minor aspects. They [rfc:2119 should] still seek the community's input before removal of the blanked user restriction and/or complete removal of the terms of the unblock conditions. It does provide for some flexibility in terms of removing said conditions, though.

In any case, while there is consensus here to a conditional unblock, I would like to gain Sav's support here and also ensure that Q8j is supportive rather than officially neutral. Similarly, I would also like to have Drummingman agree with my points on why I am never in favour of so-called "last chances." I propose, noting what I've described above, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu) is conditionally unblocked by Stewards, to which Stewards will seek the community's input before a blanket removal of such conditions, provided that they:

Refrain from using racist or racially-insensitive commentary in the wikitext of pages, templates, etc., broadly construed;
Refrain from using gibberish or patent nonsense, also fairly broadly construed, outside of community sandboxes, fairly narrowly construed, or their own userspace (including subpages of their own userspace);
Be limited to the sysop user group for at least two (2) to four (4) weeks following closing of this discussion, after which they may be given bureaucrat when two (2) or more Test Wiki bureaucrats in good standing agree to grant the group. Steward may also agree to grant the group, but for this purpose, as I will be closing this discussion, should that be me, I will gain concurrence from at lease one other bureaucrat; and,
Be limited to one (1) user account, indefinitely, on Test Wiki, being Seiyena.

Noting their positive improvements thus far, but also being cognizant of their self-admitted neurodiversity and that recidivism may occur, I propose that:

The specific abuse filter(s) that Chrs created be maintained, and Test Wiki bureaucrat-sysops are encouraged to request enhancements, as required, where such nonsense/gibberish filters through.
Where such nonsense/gibberish does seep through, bureaucrat-sysops are encouraged to guide them, by giving them a friendly reminder on their user talk page, including noting the next-level consequence.
Next-level consequences would include rights removal for a short period of between three (3) days and two weeks (14) days. Where sysop rights are removed, they may still be granted appropriate rights below sysop, if useful (i.e., ability to view deleted revisions to analyze their mistakes)
Short blocks, ideally consented to by two bureaucrat-sysops, a Steward, or a Steward and bureaucrat-sysop (if me) of the same duration as the rights removal are considered appropriate next-level consequences
Once three next-level consequences, including the rights removal, are received, two bureaucrat-sysops may reblock for one-month until a Steward can indefinitely block them. If they are reblocked indefinitely by a Steward, that is not their "last chance," but rather, appeals will not be considered for at least three months.
Important note: Where sockpuppetry is suspected, the suspected socks may be blocked indefinitely (but do use obvious evidence!) and a warning immediately issued to their user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Opportunity for others to comment and, hopefully, Sav, Q8j, and Drummingman will weigh in.
I think consent by at least two bureaucrat-sysops is unnecessary for a temporary block to prevent disruption, rather, in the interest of this wiki not becoming a bureaucracy, I request you change consent for a temporary block to independent action. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Justarandomamerican, that's fair and might be a bit much. For context, the thinking here was that Test Wiki is a "training ground" for new administrators and bureaucrats. As such, and at the same time, some may have different standards or views with respect to what constitutes a short block. Perhaps we could modify that to say two-bureaucrat-sysops are needed for the final thirty (30) block prior to be being re-blocked indefinitely by a Steward and, where one bureaucrat-sysop disagrees with a temporary block, they may vacate the temporary block? If further disputes occur, it should fall to a Steward to review and determine whether the temporary block was appropriate? Basically, we need some way to handle disputes over whether to impose a short block. Dmehus (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I would agree to that form of dispute resolution: for the final temporary block, the consent of 2 is required, given that your logic is reasonable. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I also don’t think an indefinite block should be limited to stewards. If our stewards resume their inactivity, it may take 3 months for an indefinite block to be placed. X (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
That's potentially a fair point, yes. In that case, I would think it would be reasonable a bureaucrat to extend the block for three months at a time until a Steward makes it official, as it were. Certainly that would be common sense and would not consider that something deserving of admonishment. That being said, it does seem likely we may have at least one more steward in the near future, which should help with that. Dmehus (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Seiyena's agreement (signature and timestamp); a bureaucrat-sysop can please copy over from their user talk page, linking to the diff there in the wikitext of this page and an edit summary:
I have read the conditions of the proposed unblock and agree to them. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC), copied per this diff by X (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear, Dmehus I agree with you, and am now also against a last chance and have therefore crossed out my comment above. I find the proposals reasonable and agree with them. Drummingman (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I am for the above proposals and agree with them, therefore I have crossed out my prior voteSav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Sav and Drummingman, thank you for your comments. That was my aim, to have unanimity if possible. I am not in favour of giving Seiyena too much rope, and think rolling three-strikes and indefinite user restriction strike that balance to extend good-faith the user has changed, or continues to change, with not wasting the community's time. For what it is worth, I have confirmed that there has been no abuse, technically speaking, by Seiyena, for the data retention period of Test Wiki. So, that does show baby steps of improvement, I think. Thank you, Seiyena, for your patience, for not abusing multiple accounts, and for your confirmation here. I will just wait for Q8j's comments before closing this. Dmehus (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for Q8j’s comments may be unwise. Commenting on this proposal was the first edit they had in 2 months. I think there is enough community agreement to unblock without Q8j’s comments. I am also willing to personally help Seiyena re-integrate here, as I am on FTW and, hopefully, soon Miraheze. X (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Support unblock. My apologies for late reply. I wanted to make some detailed comments but I can’t make enough time for that.—-Q8j (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Q8j, thank you for your comments. Given your historical activity here, it was important for me to have you at least conditionally in support. There is no urgency in closing this discussion, so we can wait a bit longer to effect this, if you'd like to add any some additional comments that will help to inform the conditions. Dmehus (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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

X's request for stewardship

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

Withdrawn. Drumming man was made a steward, so I don’t think there is a sufficient need for me to become one. Thanks y’all for your participation. X (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello All, I am X, 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. I have access to both of these tools on another testwiki, For-Test Wiki (same username). I believe there is a need and, because I am qualified, I thought it correct to apply. Feel free to ask me questions below. X (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions:

Discussion:

Votes:

Oppose There is no need for you to have Steward. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 12:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Sav, this is a valid !vote, but could you clarify a bit why you feel this way? Similar to my question to Drummingman, is it based on fundamental need (or lack thereof) for additional stewards, or do you have concerns with regard to the candidate's experience, qualifications, activity level, or commitment level? I've known you for awhile now and I might assume what you are inferring, but I'm also not a mindreader and that's generally not a good practice. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dmehus:, I am opposing due to the past request for Stewardships mainly only wanting to hold such perm to "Rename users", "checkusers" and so forth, which this one seems to be for the same reason. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with you opposing, but can you please explain why you don't think there is no need for me to have steward. X (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Support: Sav does not make a convincing argument: By what standard does X not need the Steward tools? There are 2 current stewards, both of which are not reasonably active enough to handle community problems. There is no reason not to trust X: They are competent, helpful, and all around trustworthy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Lolkikmoddi also does not make a convincing argument, as X is clearly trustworthy, and the time they've been here does not reduce that, especially because they've been here for 3 months. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Neutral -- X is a steward at another wiki and therefore trustworthy. But prefer to vote neutral. Drummingman (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Drummingman, you have identified that you feel the user is trustworthy, presumably, at least in part, based on the user holding a presumably comparable position on any wiki, but could you articulate why you are neutral? Is it based on fundamental necessity for additional stewards, or not, do you have some reservations (neutral or otherwise)? Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The reason is that I also see edits on this wiki that I don't expect from a steward. "Copied from talk page". Re-instated but changed to 15 day grace period to line up with June 3rd. X (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Reducing an admin period from indefinite to 2 weeks when the 3 months are not yet up, is neither friendly nor polite in my opinion. I had changed my vote from support to neutral when I saw that. But I don't think it's enough to oppose it because there are too few stewards, I kindly ask X to be more careful in the future. Maybe at a later time I will possibly be willing to support it. But for now, neutral. Drummingman (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
What is wrong with setting grace periods? Their rights will be removed on June 3rd and now I have notified them that their rights have changed. When someone changes your rights, for me at least, I get an email. So by setting a grace period, I am effectively notifying them before their rights will be removed. This has brought multiple users back to activity on multiple Test-wikis. I don’t see a problem with it. X (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
A well-meaning tip from me is that you can give the user a warning that their admin/crat right will soon be revoked due to inactivity. And you do that too, which I find commendable. But reducing rights in advance is unnecessary in my opinion. And I don't read that in the policy. Anyway, In any case, I really believe you are of good will and am inclined to support, but find it hard to make a decision on that now. Drummingman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose you just passed 3 months, please wait a little more then just one day then asking for stewardship which is very hard to get, maybe a few more weeks then i'll consider supporting Lolkikmoddi (talk)
If I am aware, there isn't a time limit since account creation to become a steward. X (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Procedural Support as requestor. X (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential Rename for Me

Hi, I would like to change my name here to Piccadilly, as I hope to change my Miraheze name to that in the future. Dmehus is willing to do it if two or three people are in support of the change. If you have any arguments to either support or oppose my potential name change, feel free to post them at https://testwiki.wiki/wiki/User_talk:Seiyena#Rename_Request. Thanks! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 00:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I

Oppose a rename here. We have specific restrictions on your ability to edit and request rights, so renaming would cause a lot of confusion. X (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Grace Period"

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

Greetings,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to draw your attention to an ongoing discussion on the User talk:Euphoria page regarding the Inactivity Policy. The conversation involves myself, @X:, @Justarandomamerican:, and @AlPaD:.

It appears that both "X" and "Justarandomamerican" hold the view that a "grace period" exists within the Test Wiki's process for removing permissions. However, it is important to note that no such provision is mentioned in the policy itself.

I have noticed numerous instances where "X" has repeatedly removed rights without following the established procedure, prompting my intervention to revert those actions.

I kindly request the community to provide their opinions on this matter, as I firmly believe that our actions should align with the guidelines outlined in the policy, rather than making assumptions based on its omissions.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Best regards, Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I

Support the ability for bureaucrats to use grace periods to remove rights for a number of reasons.

It notifies the user of their inactivity through email and allows them to regain their rights sooner, almost like a reminder if they forgot about the wiki.
It allows inactive users to quickly regain their rights if they come back. Bureaucrat can just assign them back permanently and admins can just request it be made indefinite.
If they don’t return to activity, it is a convenient way to remove rights, and the outcome is the same. The rights are removed on the same day.

X (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I

Support grace periods as a common sense measure, I do not understand what causes the absolute letter of policy, rather than the spirit, to be followed. The inactivity policy provides for removal of rights from inactive users. That is it. It does not explicitly disallow grace periods. Disallowing administration in the absence of policy by wheel warring is, more or less, making this wiki appear to be a bureaucracy when it is not. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You both need to follow the policy, same as anyone else. Nobody has has decided that a "grace period" is necessary, so why should you? Even so, before making decisions like that, a vote should be made here, on the community portal. I'll be expecting a response from @Dmehus: to confirm my reports. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain to me how we are violating policy. You have said that we are, so explain it. What policy am I violating by setting grace periods? The policy states that a users rights will be removed after 3 months of no edits/logged actions, and that is what I am doing. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican:, Expanding on your assertion regarding the absence of an explicit prohibition of grace periods, it is worth noting that there is also no explicit endorsement. Consequently, one must question the justification for unilaterally modifying the policy at will. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Does policy state that I can login? Does policy state that I can edit? Does policy state that I can breathe? No, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do it. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this wiki is not a bureaucracy where rules providing for something must be made, and rules providing for something disallow all other handling of a situation, so administration in the absence of policy is allowed. We are not modifying rules, merely maintaining this wiki in the absence of them. The spirit of the Inactivity Policy does not disallow grace periods, in consequence. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are modifying the rules by doing whatever you see fit. Clearly, we are at a crossroads and so, I'll leave this to Dmehus and/or @Drummingman: to decide. 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) – Preceding unsigned comment added by Sav (talk • contribs)

What rules are being modified? Policy states to remove rights after 3 months of not actions or edits. We have not altered this in anyway. X (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not in favor of an "already lengthwise truncated user rights" where admin/crat rights are already truncated. I find that impolite and not inviting to test here. But giving a warning on the users' own talk page about 2 weeks in advance, "beware you are approaching the activity criteria", is sufficient as far as I am concerned. But what I find worse is wheel warfare with each other. I urge the users involved not to overrule each other and look for consensus. If you still can't come to a consensus, ask the stewards to get involved, and then do nothing until the steward has made a decision. Keep your head cool and let's keep it nice with each other. Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Drummingman:. To put simply, that means no grace period, correct? We are okay to issue a friendly warning stating "You are approaching the activity criteria" yes? Regards. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 19:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is a community discussion, and a Steward's decision is not final, as this wiki's decision making mechanism is not autocracy. We should continue to discuss this matter. I disagree as to it being unfriendly: How is it unfriendly when they are immediately notified by email and have a chance to request the rights be made permanent? Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Stewards don’t hold seniority in discussions. This is a community discussion. I also agree with Justa that it isn’t unfriendly. X (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless if you don't like the decision, Drummingman has given the answer and until Mac or Dmehus gives their input, we should follow what Drummingman stated. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 19:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Elected Stewards have no say in community discussion besides what all other members of the community have, and their decisions are merely temporary dispute resolution. We shall continue to discuss this. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to add here is that this is my own opinion, not a direct "steward decision" but a user who is also a steward. I have not talked to the other stewards about this yet. Moreover, I also think it is important to hear your opinions on this. So, this is not a final decision yet. Drummingman (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my assumption that you were acting under the color of your authority to resolve disputes. That was a wrong assumption. Thank you again, Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. @X:. I really hope you stay active. Your work has been good so far. Don't let this discourage you. Drummingman (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I won’t. I just really hate conflict. I think that grace periods should just be optional. You can do them if you want, but you don’t have to use them either. This is a good compromise. X (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@X: That sounds good. I don't like conflict, either :-). What is most important to me is to respect each other's authority and not start a wheel war over this. I look forward to your opinions, feel free to add anything? Drummingman (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This isn’t really that important, and to wheel war about it was admittedly futile. I don’t think I have much more to add besides grace periods are an optional part of bureaucrat revoking rights. You can close this, if you wish. X (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I believe that inactive users should be notified 1-2 weeks before their rights are removed but their rights should not be temporary, they should be removed completely after 3 months. AlPaD (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I support Drummingman‘s opinion. Anyone can(≠must) give inactive user warning like ‘Your rights will be removed in 2 weeks unless’…, and it’s more kind.
Regarding ‘Grace period’, I’m not inclined to support this. because
- If you set an inactive user's rights to expire and then they or requested crats revert them, they'll end up with two user rights logs. I don't like unnecessarily increasing logs and complicating records, except in cases where it can't be helped, such as adding a test group or adding a Bot flag instead of a Flood flag. As per Drummingman's opinion, if you give advance notice and the user edits in the meantime, there is no need to remove the rights, so there is no need for logs.
- If it is chosen to set the expiration date of the rights instead of the permission removal notice on the talk page, the user must extend the rights himself or ask bureaucrats to do so. Whether or not it is a big deal depends on the person, but the only thing that is required in order not to be removed by Inactive Policy is 'edits or logged actions'. If you use the method of setting a expiry on the rights, for example, a user who only edits one week after the expiry is set will have the rights removed one week later. Is this in line with the spirit of the 'Inactive Policy'? (It is a different story if the user who set the expiry is responsible for confirming that it will not happen.)--Q8j (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am honestly fine with having a grace period - it seems perfectly reasonable. That being said I do see that there is "edit warring" (with user rights) related to this. This needs to stop. Things should have been discussed further here instead of continuing to edit war. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you: Further wheel warring should be sanctioned. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to compromise and agree that an inactive user warning could be issued, but not a "grace period" as Justarandomamerican suggested; it just complicates the matter as Q8j stated. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Expanding upon my previous statement, I would support the inclusion of a grace period. However, I suggest implementing a courtesy warning prior to initiating the grace period. This would allow users to be notified in advance. If no edits are made within 48 hours following the warning, the grace period may be implemented. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I would be fine with that, but I think 24hrs would be more appropriate. X (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
24hrs is fine with me. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with you. AlPaD (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I also now agree to allow a non-mandatory grace period. And also to wait at least 24 hours before it takes effect. Drummingman (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that bureaucrats wait a 24-hour grace period before removing permissions, with exceptional cases. This discussion is to be closed as soon as possible. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Extension of stewardship flag

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

With the new proposal below, I withdraw my proposal. Drummingman (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear, community, talking to the other 2 stewards, I wondered if the steward group could get permission to permanently bundle the user flags suppression and checkuser into the stewards flag? Then we could also see and check each other's actions faster, which is also a core policy on Wikimedia for those flags, 2. In short, this means that checkusser and suppression would thus be linked by default to the steward group. Which is partly already so, but now we have to temporarily assign the right to ourselves each time. Which I actually don't find very convenient, which is why I'm asking the community if you are comfortable with that? I would like to hear your opinions? Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Conditional

Support. Although, this does lose the community some knowledge of when checks are performed. If this change is made, stewards must frequently review the checkuser logs for accountability. If the stewards promise to do so, I support. X (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course: that is also one of the reasons why I request this extension of the flag. Drummingman (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. CU and OS are a group of very sensitive rights, which means that high transparency is required. It is perfectly fine to briefly assign either of the rights with a small specific reason for assigning, so that the community can see what the tools are used for. This change erases this transparency, which is not good. — Summer ^talk 12:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Support otherwise stewards can't see what the other stewards are doing when they self assign suppression/checkuser to themselves, which is a bit dodgy. Also, someone could make up a reason and nobody would really notice. Zippybonzo (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Partially Support I think it would be better to add the permissions to the "stewards" group but I think the CU and OS groups should not be removed, because I believe it will be possible to promote users in CU and OS after vote like fortestwiki.myht.org. AlPaD (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning Oppose as written While I can appreciate it might be a bit cumbersome to add a checkuser or oversight hat, I also appreciate the value in the public transparency this provides. As well, X makes a supportive case for adding checkuser-log to the Steward group, which I could likely support, but I do think there is value in retaining the CU and OS groups as AlPaD describes above. For now, I would recommend no action at this point, on this proposal, but we could consider a subsequent proposal in the near- to medium-term future (i.e., 30-90 days after closing) to add the checkuser-log user right to the steward group. Dmehus (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. I think add checkuser log to the steward group and keep the current groups existing separate. That’s how it’s done on most wikis, I think. X (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Account rename

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

@MacFan4000:, could you rename my account to "Summer"? Thanks! Summer ^talk 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Done MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Closed as the discussion has not been active for more than 3 weeks. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 23:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Shorten Steward/system admin inactivity

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

Withdrawn, no consensus. Drummingman (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose shortening the steward and system administrator inactivity time to encourage them to be more actively involved in the wiki. Arguably, they should be held to a stricter activity standards than admins/crats. I’m not sure what length is appropriate, so I’d like to hear the community thoughts. X (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now - This encounters practical problems. We are a small community with only 3 stewards and 1 system administrator. Especially in the case of the SA, there is no one else who has the rights. Stewards cannot grant and retake the rights, for example. And what do you do when you only have 1 steward left. In other words, this can become negotiable if you have more stewards and system administrators; otherwise it is not feasible, and you run the risk of having no stewards and system administrators anymore. Drummingman (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a risk I hadn’t considered. But then a steward that makes 1 edit every year maintains their rights, but is no longer helping the wiki. I have changed this proposal to only include stewards until we have >1 system admin. X (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your idea that stewards should be active members of the community. I think much of my objection could be eliminated if the stewards, like system administrators, could change all user permissions. (On Wikimedia, stewards can do that too.) That also reduces the risk if the sole SA for some reason steps down or stops doing edits and there is no one to replace them. Drummingman (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what the best answer is. I really doubt that @MacFan4000 would stop editing on the wiki and not appoint a replacement system admin. And if they do, we could always contact them cross-wiki about needing another system admin. X (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you could be right, but something unexpected can always happen, Unless a second system administrator is added, as far as I know, having 1 system administrator is a potential security risk for the site. You cannot replace him; therefore, which is why I think it's better to have more people (stewards and system admins) who can manage all permissions. Of course, you have to watch out for rogue individuals. But that is manageable if you only appoint strongly trusted people for the flags. Drummingman (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this interesting. Could we chat further on Discord about this, in a real-time format? Whats your Discord username? X (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My discord is Drummingman, also on IRC. Drummingman (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Drummingman. Zippybonzo (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have already said this, but this thread is withdrawn. Drummingman and I already talked on Discord about possible actions we need to take before implementing this. I would oppose this now too. :) X (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Requests for stewardship X

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

Closed as per the withdrawal in the "Result" section by the candidate. Whilst I have voted, this is unambiguous, see the withdrawal. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Dear, community, I would hereby like to nominate user X as Steward.

It has now been a little over a month since X applied for Steward. Meanwhile, I see that X has developed positively and is very active. I think X could help the steward team with Test Wiki maintenance, so that an active steward is available more often to help this wiki. For example, to close community discussions that are still open. I hope you will join me in supporting X. Drummingman (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User X, please indicate here whether you accept the nomination?

Yes, I accept the nomination and sincerely thank Drummingman for his kind words. If a steward thinks I can assist the steward team, then I am up for it. :) X (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

Support as candidate. I'm very active here and want to help out the current steward team. Ive performed most of the permissions requests since I joined the wiki, and Drummingman thinks I can help as a steward. X (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Struck as you cannot !vote for yourself. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unstruck. A steward will decide that when closing. There is no policy saying you cannot. X (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but it's obvious, your support is automatically counted, it's common sense that you shouldn't vote for yourself, I'm going to strike it again as it's good practise to not vote for yourself. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As it is not forbidden by policy, you should go to the talk page for consensus instead of redoing your edit. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And in addition, it appears that in the past users have voted for themselves, most recently @Drummingman in his successful RFS. X (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleting pages randomly isn't forbidden, but frowned upon, you started the edit war by reinstating a reversed edit. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We both know that unstriking votes and randomly deleting pages are 2 very different things. X (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, my point is it doesn't say explicitly it's forbidden, but you get disciplined for it. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Why not? I also think X can be trusted with the rights and responsibilities of a Steward. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Move to oppose due to concerns I have. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Support - As the nominator. Drummingman (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Neutral, Drummingman (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Support Has done a good job on For-Test and is trustworthy Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Support Trusted user, thank you for your help! AlPaD (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Heavy Support. Trusted user, incredibly helpful and can be trusted with the rights. Good luck!Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

* Support why not? Zippybonzo (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Zippybonzo, I'm confused as to whether you are supporting or opposing here, given you've moved back and forth between support and oppose, and your argument on record still suggests an oppose. Can you please clarify this? Dmehus (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Per the diff I’ve linked on your talk, Zippy has supported and struck their oppose vote. Please revert your unstrike. X (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that, but I'll decline to unstrike it for the time being, given that I've asked Zippybonzo to clarify already whether they are supporting or opposing currently and why, given their current argument on record suggests the latter. They may also wish to consider subsequent comments from users, given how they have gone back and forth. Finally, with so many users striking and unstriking comments here, I think it's best to leave it to them. Dmehus (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
You can’t just unstrike comments because that drastically affects the vote. And just because they might want to concierge other arguments isn’t a correct reason either; they will do that on their own accord. X (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved to oppose. Zippybonzo (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. X is very active, very constructive, very helpful, and have satisfactory edits, and is an admin and a bureaucrat. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I don't think we need a new steward. LisafBia (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello @LisafBia! Thanks for commenting on my stewardship request. I completely agree with the point you make. We don’t really NEED a new steward currently, but in my opinion, it would be very helpful. And considering that one of the stewards, @Drummingman, agrees with the need for another steward, it’s probably best to elect one. I’m not attempting to sway your opinion, just provide you with another point of view you might not have considered. Thanks for reading my long comment, sometimes I don’t know how to be less verbose. :) X (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per LisafBia, and on other wikis, they have inadvertently leaked IP addresses when blocking users and the underlying IPs. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. I didn’t “inadvertently leak” IPs. I blocked the IPs of blocked users after a steward discussion. @Justarandomamerican: can tell you that he agreed with the actions, I was just the one who performed them. And with our updated privacy policy to exempt socks, the actions are policy supported too. In addition, our community just reviewed the actions and thought they were appropriate. You were the only one who disagreed. I can definitely see how it would come off that way, but this was a carefully discussed action that the stewards thought needed to be taken. X (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but IPs were still released, whether it was permitted or not is a different question, and I'm leaving my vote as is, and we don't need a new steward in any case. Zippybonzo (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The argument that IPs that were released on another wiki after discussion to block them in order to prevent disruption doesn't seem to be taking the circumstances here into consideration. This is a wiki that permits Stewards to go beyond just releasing IPs to block them. It's fine if you oppose based on need, that's okay. But using the argument explained above as a secondary argument still doesn't make it a good argument. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose possibly strong for multiple reasons. For one thing, as LisafBia has indicated above, with Drummingman's recent election to Steward, they are quite active here. Combined with my own resumption of being semi-active here, as well as MacFan4000, I feel there isn't a sufficient need for an additional Steward. Secondly, I am not comfortable granting restricted permissions to someone I don't know, at least not without some on-wiki confirmation that they've held restricted tools on a Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom, or other major wiki or wiki farm. For Test Wiki is a recent launch, initiated as a protest wiki by one user who took issue with the way Public Test Wiki and/or Test Wiki are run. I do not consider holding restricted permissions on For Test Wiki to be sufficient demonstration that the user can be trusted. As well, I also see user conduct issues. While I do see some edit warring on Zippybonzo's part, I also see edit warring on X's part, including striking other users' votes. That should be left to other users to do; it's just not a good look, especially in one's own permission request. Even if it was justified, it's a potential conflict of interest. More problematic, though, it makes it difficult for other Stewards and community members to fully and easily assess the edits in editorial disputes. Additionally, in X's last Stewardship request, there was strong opposition to the request, to submit to or agree to another nomination so soon, disregards the community consensus formed in that discussion—a closure which was pre-empted by X's closing the request as withdrawn, which, too, is problematic from that perspective. Finally, I also have issues with the user's recent handling of Seiyena, proceeding directly to a longer term block and interfering with Justarandomamerican's handling of the situation, which included firm warnings. This makes me question their potential judgment as a Steward. Finally, their reaching out to me privately to request closure, for the sake of closing the discussion, which was barely opened four days ago also troubles me. I don't know whether X used Special:EmailUser to reach out to MacFan4000 as well, but I do know they reached out to Drummingman to close, and Drummingman closing as nominator would indeed by a highly involved, problematic closure, so I'm glad he declined that. Dmehus (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I cannot see striking of other users' votes, can you please provide a diff? Thank you. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
He may be referring to when I added an end strike when ZippyBonzo forgot to, although that was definitely a correct action. X (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Justarandomamerican, yes, I believe I linked to it in an edit summary, no? I believe it may be the one X refers to. Whether it was a correct strike if Zippybonzo had withdrawn their !vote, they are also capable of fixing it themselves or, should they not be sufficiently active, letting an unconflicted user fix it. That's still problematic. Dmehus (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Helping out another user is problematic? I was just trying to help. X (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
In your own permissions request. That's conflicted. You [rfc:2119 should] have left it to another user to fix. Dmehus (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay. But I would also like to point out that undo-ing a strike that supports what you think is also very conflicted and problematic. X (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how adding an end-strike to a !vote amendment which resulted in the !voting user striking an entire part of discussion out is inherently problematic. It is a mere technical fix which should be uncontroversial. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I directly recall asking X to do it on my behalf off-wiki. Zippybonzo (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m still trying to comprehend your entire reasoning, but I wanted to point out that @Drummingman was the one who asked me to email you requesting closure. He can confirm this. X (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about that; all I do know is you e-mailed me. I'm sure Drummingman would have e-mailed me, as he has e-mailed me in the past with respect to other matters, if he felt closure was needed. Perhaps there could be a more justifiable case in the case of a permission request being outstanding for two or three weeks, but 3-4 days? That's quite quick, in my view. Dmehus (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I believe that this candidate having Steward rights may cause even further problems when they intervene in disputes. I have concerns about their independent judgment on second thought, due to working with them elsewhere. It appears they may not be able to make proper decisions independently. This !vote will likely be amended as I do further research. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm going to add a fresh oppose as I'm fed up of striking and unstriking, but whilst I believe X is competent, I would like to see them holding advanced permissions somewhere like Wikimedia. I also find their conduct in this discussion to be confusing/concerning. The rest of my oppose !vote is summed up by Justarandomamerican and Dmehus. Zippybonzo (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. X is very active, very constructive, very helpful, and have satisfactory edits, and is an admin and a bureaucrat, despite some features he need to work on. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Could you specify how you think I can improve? Thanks! X (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
CheckUser and Suppressor. Once you complete those 2 things, you can be steward. I'm contacting the stewards and one of the three stewards will give you both CU and Suppressor. Pinging the stewards. @Drummingman: @MacFan4000: @Dmehus: Stewards, could you promote X to CheckUser and Suppressor? Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Per established policy, these rights won't be granted to non-stewards. So basically, If you want me to hold these rights, I must first be a steward. X (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, moved my vote to support. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Neutral- As the nominator, I want to be Neutral. Drummingman (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Questions

Result

Withdrawn by X (talk) at 12:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC).

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

User:Example

Greetings, @Drummingman: @Dmehus:.

I have a query regarding tracking and identifying individuals who have accessed a particular user account and conducted unauthorized activities, specifically acts of vandalism. Considering the recent blocks on the user in question, I believe it is important to determine the individuals responsible for such actions. Is there a feasible method to achieve this? Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think any action is needed at this time, considering the account hasn’t edited since March. If the account were to start vandalizing again, a CheckUser may want to take a look, but now I’m not sure it’s needed. However, it’s ultimately up to the stewards. X (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with X. CU also no longer makes sense because the logs are only kept for 90 days. However, I did block the account indefinitely as a Steward action because it is indeed a site risk. Drummingman (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Block proxy 159.89.228.253

Status: Done

159.89.228.253 - A SOCKS4 open proxy. Port for this proxy is 38172. I am not an admin. Requested 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC).

Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block)

Block numberous proxies

Status: Done

I am not an admin.

Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also block: 13.81.217.201. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done X (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also block: 51.38.191.151. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done X (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also block: 162.144.233.16. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done X performed a range block including this, and a individual block for this proxy. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also block: 72.195.34.59. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done performed by X. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 22:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

~~Also block: 98.188.47.132. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)~~

Proxy bot

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

Status: Not done and withdrawn

Nomination

Hi, This is a nomination from Tailsultimatefan3891. Can any administrator have a proxy bot? It's the same, but with slight differences. Instead of blocking proxies manually, it's now automatically. It prevents proxies from further disruption and protects the wiki from disruption from proxies. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Uses Special:Block to block proxies. The bot will check proxies at this link: [1]. Then will copy the selected IP and paste the selected IP at the "User/IP" section. Then it will block the proxy. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please link the code. X (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean? Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A bot needs code to run… X (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Signature that belongs to the user that will own the proxy bot

Username for the proxy bot

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Comment: Please provide code bot will use to run. X (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  No you didn’t. Code is usually stored on GitHub. Providing a link to a list or proxies isn’t code. Until this is provided I’m marking as Not done. X (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Result

Status as withdrawn. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Rename Request

Hello! Would it be possible for a steward to rename me to Piccadilly? Thank you! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support as it will create consistency with other projects. X (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @MacFan4000: @Dmehus: @Drummingman: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

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

@Drummingman: @Dmehus: @MacFan4000: Is Seiyena (Now Piccadilly) and Cocopuff2018 socks?

If CheckUser evidence said they're sockpuppetry: Revoke their rights and block them indefinitely with email and TPA access not revoked. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cocopuff is definitely not a sock of mine. They're a seperate person. Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

REDIRECT Special:MyLanguage/Template:Not done - It is abundantly clear that those 2 are not sock puppets. Drummingman (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just about to say the same thing. X (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018 is most definitely not a sockpuppet of Seiyena. Behaviourally, they are not even remotely similar, and Cocopuff2018 has also confirmed their Miraheze account. Dmehus (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I’m not quite sure what gave @Tailsultimatefan3891 that idea. X (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an easy question to answer. Well, this discussion is to be closed. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Block proxies, users, and IPs at the link below

Block proxies, users, and IPs: User:Tailsultimatefan3891/Block users and IPs requests

Note: I am not an admin. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Change group membership for user Example

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

Status: Not done

Change from: Example user

Change to: Example user, blocked from chat

Reason: Permanently blocked by Drummingman (autoblock disabled, account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) as a steward action.

Thank you. From, Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done as blocked users are automatically blocked from chat. X (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

CU Request

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

Hello, may a steward, perhaps Drummingman, check and see if my recent range block on 38.153.169.128/25 would affect legitimate users? Thank you! Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What I can see is that the IP-range is an open proxy/VPN. That falls under no open proxy policy, so can just be blocked. Drummingman (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Preferably, it open proxies [rfc:2119 should] be soft-blocked, so no existing users are affected. :) Dmehus (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I would soft-block if this were a open proxy with no history of abuse, but given that the range is used for spam, I hard-blocked it. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Following that the discussion has not been active for more than 3 weeks, this discussion is to be closed as soon as possible. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 23:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Add IPBE privilege

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

Moot, as said by some participants, the ipblock-exempt user right is already contained with the sysop user group, which has no prerequisites other than a confirmation edit. That being said, there could be a benefit to moving this user right from the sysop group to the bureaucrat group and/or be a separate user group grantable by bureaucrats and stewards to trusted users. It would also aid in user restriction-restricted user management, but that can be a potential discussion for much later. Dmehus (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

This is Tailsultimatefan3891. I'd like the wiki to have the IPBE (IP block exemption) privilege to Test Wiki. Unfortunately however, I can't do it immediately, as only system administrators can do it. The IPBE privilege can have the following right:

Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt)

Update of 18:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC): Only in the case of an IP block, auto-block, and/or range blocks that anyone has logging to their user but not an admin.

From, Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

Support Author request. It helps non-admins in the case of an IP block, auto-block, and/or range blocks. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Support as some people won't be able to request rights if they have a blocked IP. Zippybonzo (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose as sysops already have it, so no need for a separate group. X (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- But only in the case of an IP block, auto-block, and/or range blocks that anyone has logging to their user but not an admin. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 18:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  - I can see that, but any user can become an admin, so isn't it redundant? X (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
    - Even users request to get their permission can be blocked only in the case of an IP block, auto-block, and/or range blocks before the permission is granted. It has since existed on Wikipedia and The Test Wiki (the wiki made in 2010). It hasn't been made on this wiki yet. For this, it's partially redundant. IPBE is for non-sysops only. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk)
Oppose As per X's comment. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 21:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Just what I tell you above. Tailsultimatefan3891 (T | C | UR | B) 12:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Comment: I don't know if IPBE is very useful or not. While IPBE for admins is being redundant, it's not redundant for non-admins. But IPBE isn't totally useful because with ~~just 1 person voting Support (that was me)~~ 2 persons voting Support (that was Zippybonzo and me) and also 2 persons voting Oppose (that was Sav and X). By the way, it's unknown if it's very helpful, while leaning on not extremely useful. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Moving from reCAPTCHA to hCaptcha

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

Moot. A reasonable request for system administrators to consider at some point in the future. Dmehus (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Hello, this is Tailsultimatefan3891. Miraheze and Cloudflare had put on hCaptcha already. I have my Google Sites wiki Captiolgipedia have human/robot verification being hCaptcha. reCAPTCHA is used by millions of users, can be passed by some bots, and is a good security protection. But hCaptcha is a better security protection, as it can be passed by more users and be passed by fewer bots. hCaptcha will be unknown if it is too powerful for bots (or even, users). However, only system administrators can change reCAPTCHA to hCaptcha. Tailsultimatefan3891 (T | C | UR | B) 19:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, MacFan4000 can choose a dark or light theme of hCaptcha box, and normal or compact size of hCaptcha box. Tailsultimatefan3891 (T | C | UR | B) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

This [rfc:2119 should not] need a full community discussion, as it's (a) a technical change and (b) quite a non-controversial one. We haven't had many issues with reCAPTCHA here, like Miraheze has/had, so it's not that urgent. I think we can let MacFan4000 decide when/if to switch to hCAPTCHA. I personally would have no objections to that change. Dmehus (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Result

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

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 ----
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it</b>. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''</div>
-==Alternate proposal: Merging CheckUser and oversight to steward==
-Hello community! I’d like to propose an alternative to the proposal above about merging the rights. Here’s what I’d propose:
-*Stewards are granted the suppression-log, view suppressed, and CheckUser-log rights for accountability;
-*The CheckUser and Suppressor groups remain existent and aren’t removed;
-This would allow for accountability amongst stewards and still allow non/stewards to be granted those rights if absolutely necessary. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 15:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
-:{{support}} - That seems like a good and better proposal, which is why I withdrew my proposal. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 15:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
-:{{Support}} [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]] ([[User talk:AlPaD|talk]]) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
-:{{support}} as proposer. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 20:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
-:{{oppose}} viewsuppressed as it poses a confidentiality risk, {{support}} the rest. [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-::Could you elaborate what you mean by “confidentiality risk”? @[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] requested I add “view suppressed” to list via Discord, so you may want to discuss with him. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-:::The reason I want to include view suppressed is that the logs already show a (partially) suppressed version, but to check each other properly you need view suppressed, and otherwise you have to add suppression yourself. The rest has to do with trusting the stewards to keep suppressed versions secret, which hopefully is already the case. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-::::What's wrong with adding the rights in that case? I don't view that as a significant imposition, and it aids public and community transparency. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
-:::::I don't think you should be able to just view suppressed revisions without the community knowing. [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 10:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-:{{support}}: per proposer. Whether non-stewards should be granted CU or SU is a question I will pose in another proposal if this one succeeds. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-:{{Oppose}} per [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]]. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
-::So would you support it without view suppressed? [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
-:::Yes. There does seem to be unanimous [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] here to at least <code>checkuser-log</code> being added. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-:{{Neutral}} - CU and SU practice for bureaucrats are optional, but I don't mind with CU and SU remain existent and not removed and steward having the CU and SU rights. [[User:Tailsultimatefan3891|Tailsultimatefan3891]] ([[User talk:Tailsultimatefan3891|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tailsultimatefan3891|contribs]]) ([[Special:UserRights/Tailsultimatefan3891|rights]]) ([[Special:Block/Tailsultimatefan3891|block]]) 23:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
-===Possible close?===
-[[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]], [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]], [[User:X|X]], [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]], [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], and [[User:Tailsultimatefan3891|Tailsultimatefan3891]], I'm involved, and though I am fairly certain there would be no objections to me closing in this way, I thought I'd {{tl|ping}} you all here to receive your assent to this being closed as follows, as '''successful''' with '''<code>checkuser-log</code> added to the <code>[[Test Wiki:Stewards|steward]]</code>''' group and all other user groups remaining the same? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 21:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-<!--- Sign below this line if supportive --->
-:I agree. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 22:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-:I agree [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 05:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
-:I agree. [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]] ([[User talk:AlPaD|talk]]) 15:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
-:Filed pull request. So {{partially done}} [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 13:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
-====Support proposed close and involved closure====
-*
-<!--- Sign below this line if not supportive --->
-====Object to proposed close====
-*I don’t see why suppression log cannot be added too, given that there was no opposition to that. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*I'm confused. Why exactly would that be the only right added, given the fact that the only possible opposition to <code> suppression-log </code> is confusing as a (full?) opposition based on a partial opposition? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:[[User:X|X]] and [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], I've refreshed my memory on what Test Wiki's [[Special:Log/suppress]] displays, which is what would be viewable if that user right were added to the <code>[[Test Wiki:Stewards|steward]]</code> user group. For all or most pages in <code>(Main)</code> namespace or most other namespaces, there is little PII leakage. Similarly, there is also little to no PII leakage when secretly changing specific revisions to a page. However, the issue I suspected existed, which is what I think [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] was alluding to in his !vote argument is for pages within <code>User:</code> and <code>User talk:</code> namespaces. Specifically, on pages where a user inadvertently edited while logged lout or where they created an IP user/user talk page instead of their own user/user talk page. If this user right were added, it would be very easy to associate the likely page creator/editor to the likely IP address. I realize Stewards are trusted by the community, but on the same hand, I also feel like it's a lot of information that could be gleaned without having to add one's [[Test Wiki:CheckUser|CheckUser]] hat. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::You really shouldn’t be considering your own opinions/interpretations when closing. ZippyBonzo only said they opposed adding the “view-suppressed”. There is full support for adding the other 2. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:::That's why I am proposing this for discussion on a possible close, given the stated opposition and neutral comment from Tailsultimatefan3891. It's also possible others may re-consider their views. I would not close this until there is unanimity in the proposed close. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::::Definitely. Let's wait and see for a couple days then, shall we? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:::::Agreed. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::I still object on the grounds that that's not what consensus was, as X said. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:::On a strict nose count, yes, I agree there is majority support for the original proposal, but not necessarily consensus given the ~60% net support ratio. It would be better to have a clearer consensus. This was proposed as an alternative, but happy to consider other alternatives? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::::Yeah, there’s a 60% overall support, but full support for adding the CheckUser and suppression log rights. Not sure why you would go against full community consensus like this… [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::::A support ratio alone isn't enough to determine consensus here, as the lone neutral !voter was more like an abstention: They said nothing to imply that they even had an opinion. I agree with waiting, however. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 ==Requests for stewardship X==