Test Wiki:Community portal

The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one.
Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12

Proposal to upload higher quality user rights icons

I am proposing to update the user right icons to their higher quality versions. Anybody has opinions or concerns? Thanks. – 64andtim ^(talk) 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems fairly uncontroversial, go ahead.   X (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. – 64andtim ^(talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. X (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Faulty wikilink

On Test Wiki:Bureaucrats, it says "Bureaucrat rights are required for any user seeking to gain system administrator, suppressor, or steward".

However, there seems to be a problem with the "system administrator" wikilink on that page - instead it leads me to Test Wiki:Suppressors. What could be the problem here? I don't know if I exclusively have this issue, or if it is the same for all users. EPIC (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. X (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Also, found the issue; both links had <tvar name=SA> at the beginning. EPIC (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This fix seems to have removed the MyLanguage variable entirely, I have instead specified another variable. Thanks for the temp fix, Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to delete example user right

I created a Phabricator request. (T89). Saint (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Zippybonzo's ban

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

---

For context, this user was banned by the community for cross-wiki abuse on a wiki whose owner has apparently engaged in a deception campaign against their own volunteers: "The ban is not required as firstly, I don't think that actions on other wikis require blocks/bans everywhere, and secondly, the owner of said wiki was found to be abusing on their wiki and deceiving their own stewards. Hence why I believe my ban should be lifted." Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support unban: It's no longer even possible to prove he committed the alleged actions, and even if he did, it's not worthy of a community ban or block because no off-wiki harassment has occurred. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Support as well. I agree that one's actions on one wiki shouldn't lead to sanctions everywhere. Plus, the other wiki involved is no longer functional, and I think he should be given another chance. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if Zippybonzo is unblocked, it might help to havr an interaction ban between him and Cocopuff? Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Support per both statements above. Saint (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Strongest oppose Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Struck by X as user has voted twice.
•  Support --PB2008 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Strongest oppose there is soo many reasons for me to go on and on about zippy, however i will try to stay as breif as i can, while you may think his actions should Not carry over i believe it should in the past he has told users to go raid a wiki link here, and has also raided a wiki while being a system admin in the past with inappropriate images Ruining the wiki link here and link 2 with this all being said zippy has recently abused multiple accounts on the wiki farm filmpedia.us and his actions are being ignored while everyone believes im responsible for sockpuppeting, (False) you are claiming zippy is all innocent and im not, i must also mention that user agent isnt always accurate and therefore the proof against me is hereby invalid please see this link for more information i will also mention zippy in the past has also said he was gonna invoice me for the work he has done after no longer being a system admin which was volunteer work he has also, threaten to take me to court in dms. zippybonzo has also manipulated globe AKA X many times recently zippy requested a link to the filmpedia discord server which being banned and has sent multiple accounts into the server spamming it. he has also posted nonsense into the server, and the server link was once again provided by globe by his request WHile of course user agent might not be valid proof i still have a reason to beleve zippy is behind the multiple accounts used to sock the wiki including "Coconutworst owner" and a few others i wont mention at this time, with all this being said zippy is the only user with a negative opinion towards me as a owner of filmpedia.us and therefore is a valid reason for me to believe he is behind the sockpuppeting of filmpedia.us and his other actions. i wouldn't recommend unblocking his account at all. nor would i recommenced or trust him for any user rights --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose Per Cocopuff's comments. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sav. As a former steward and checker on Filmpedia, I can confirm that Cocopuff is behind all of the socking on his own wiki. He has a history of doing so on Miraheze as well. It is true, though, that Zippy did troll the wiki, but that was months ago and only because he wanted to give cocopuff a "taste of his own medicine." I say this not to justify Zippy's actions, but to provide some context to them. X (talk + contribs) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again user agent is always accurate and you can't just believe what someonr says without proof @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fyi I didn't troll my own wiki if you are gonna say zippys proof isnt valid than nor is mine also tast of my own medicine isn't a valid reason for what he did Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it an excuse you just believe whatever someone tells you without valid proof Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. I would disagree that it "isn't a valid reason" because you literally did the same thing to your own wiki. I also have screenshots of you calling Zippy racial slurs. X (talk + contribs) 15:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care again user agent Isnt valid proof you are also banned from filmpedis netwotk for what you did in the server, I'm not commenting anymore on this my vote stays the same youve done what zippy told you what to do multiple times this isn't the first time Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I do understand your points and would like to discuss this further via a private conversation on Discord. Could you please send my account, brelade, a direct message. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sav user agent isn't valid see the link I posted from Google Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not commenting anymore" X (talk + contribs) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You know you are gonna be blacklisted if you share the ips @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nervous your socking will be discovered? Also, I just said above "I could show proof, but that would involve leaking both of your UAs & IP addresses, which I will not do. " X (talk + contribs) 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm never giving you perms again @X Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If u do it Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Support - After communication between X and myself, it is clear that Zippybonzo deserves a second chance. I have striked my initial vote and I agree with revoking the ban on Zippybonzo. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Done -- By concensus, Drummingman (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

---

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

User:Zippybonzo (testing account)

Should this account perhaps also be unblocked now that the owner is unbanned? Asking as the block is a steward action. EPIC (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.  Done, Thanks for the notification. Drummingman (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of EPIC for Stewardship

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

Unsuccessful: Firstly, I would like to thank the participants for voting. Looking at the results, I see 1 weak support and 2 normal support. 2 votes against and 1 neutral. The general consensus is that EPIC can be trusted as a Wikimedia-steward, but that the nomination is actually too early, since the user has only been active here for a relatively short time, and we already have enough stewards. In short, no consensus to promote. Drummingman (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce a candidate for the Steward tools, EPIC. Already a member of our suppression team and a Wikimedia Steward, I believe he could use the extra tools to combat long-term and cross-wiki abuse, especially where that same abuse is occurring on Wikimedia projects. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust and for the nomination! I have acknowledged it, and will add that I am currently thinking about it, and will come back in a short while for my final decision. EPIC (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to introduce you for consideration. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OK, I have been thinking about this for quite a while. I am a little hesitant, considering we do have two active stewards for the moment. But OK, I am here regularly and I do already have CheckUser access on Wikimedia Login Wiki as part of my steward role, and access to other steward tools which are also included in the toolkit here on Test Wiki. So, with some hesitation, but also with pleasure, I accept. EPIC (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:

•  Weak support EPIC is quite trusted. But given the active stewards, I don't think a steward is needed for now, but still support. LisafBia (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Support as nom. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I support him becoming a steward. I think he'll do a great job. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 14:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) copied from talk page by Justarandomamerican (talk)
•  Oppose. The same comments I left in the NSS request still apply. The user still has a relatively short tenure. Our four current stewards have been active members of the wiki for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 8 years. EPIC has been a user of TestWiki for around two months. I do not feel that this is near enough time to gain access to our most advanced toolkit, especially checkuser tools. If the user wasn't a Wikimedia steward, I doubt this request would have any chance of succeeding because of all of these reasons. I also have concerns about how active the candidate will be now that they have large responsibilities at Wikimedia. I find it unwise to apply two high level permissions at almost the same time without knowing how much time you will have to fulfill both duties. Lastly, I don't find the reasoning (combat crosswise abuse) to be persuasive because we only have one LTA here, Piccidally, who is currently not fully blocked. For all of these reasons, I am opposed. Best of luck. X (talk + contribs) 14:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree with these concerns, and would probably not have applied for this myself (it's also why I was a tiny bit hesitant). In this case one of the stewards had endorsed the request, and I have used some of the steward tools, which is why I accepted. Regarding the activity concern I'm here every now and then and I mostly see this as a side wiki (just like Drummingman is a sysop at nlwiki while being a steward here). EPIC (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose. As it's been said many times before "we do not need another Steward". You are new to this wiki and only just been granted NSS. We have active Stewards that have made a name for themself over the span of multiple years. EPIC has been active for roughly 2 months. Good luck! Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, given the supporting/opposing votes happening. You are trusted, but since you're around a couple of months, I decided to remain neutral for these reasons. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Quite honestly, there's a perfect balance of argument strength between support and oppose; both sides have a point. This is likely to be closed as no consensus to promote. I think the lack of history on this specific wiki can be forgiven due to them being a Wikimedia Steward, but others may not think the same.Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion on a potential username policy

What does everyone think of this? Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, but we could add a list of what is and what is not allowed, and could use some better formatting. Also, we have a filter that warns users creating accounts with misleading usernames. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 05:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

List is  done. Any suggestions for formatting? Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting up a bit based on intuition. Any other suggestions? Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

LGTM X (talk + contribs) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made a change that does not allow "Usernames that contain any non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about another person or contain any other information that would be deemed appropriate for suppression." Harvici (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Adoption discussion

As a policy, this would practically just codify community norms around usernames. I propose (and support) adopting this as policy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Support. X (talk + contribs) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think it is necessary at the moment, but it can still be given a chance. LisafBia (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

᛫  Support Harvici (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename request from 64andtim to Codename Norte

I am requesting a rename from 64andtim to Codename Norte, and 64andsomeone to Códigonombre Alguien to match the same usernames on Wikimedia; these usernames also look better. Thank you. – 64andtim 🤔 (problem?) 18:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Need for new system administrator

As we presently only have 1 system administrator, I encourage anyone who would meet the technical requirements to be a system administrator to apply here on the community portal. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm nowhere near active enough, and I don't know any PHP, but, out of curiosity, what exactly is the role of a system administrator here? Sneezless (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear, @MacFan4000 can you tell about your work here? Drummingman (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sysadmins are responsible for keeping mediawiki up to date, installing extensions and skins, and maintaining the linux server that Test Wiki runs on. MacFan4000 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering this is a small Wiki, wouldn't one SysAdmin be fine? Harvici (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One is actually not enough because you are dependent on one person, which is very undesirable, vulnerable and also potentially dangerous if that person leaves or is inactive for a while, you have no one else. So, a second one is very desirable. Drummingman (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Harvici, it is as Drummingman eloquently communicates above. Having a second system administrator would serve many useful functions, such as redundancy and utility. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Template Merge

Good morning, everyone!

I'd like to propose turning User:Sav/Wikibreak into a fully-fledged template. I've invested about a day refining it to better suit The Test Wiki and its needs. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will do it. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It was for a vote, to see what everyones opinions would be. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I will implement this if there are no objections, to clarify. Codename Norte 🤔 talk 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to fine tune the documentation for this wiki also. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 01:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done (Wikibreak) Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Reduce non-system administrator steward inactivity period

With the ability of any Steward to use CheckUser, a year is much too long for one to be inactive. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. Non system administrator stewards' maximum inactivity period is reduced to 6 months. 2. The 1 hour reclamation of rights period is increased to 3 days (72 hours). Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC) partially withdrawn 03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support - This makes a lot more sense. Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose. While I agree with reducing the steward inactivity period to 6 months, I don't agree with changing the hour to three days. If you are completely inactive for half a year, you shouldn't be able to get your permissions back without another community weight in. X (talk + contribs) 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have removed proposal 2. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As such, I now  Support. X (talk + contribs) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: What is the difference between Non System administrator's steward and just a steward Harvici (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The former is a steward who is not a system administrator. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much experience here, but why should the inactivity period for only non-Sys admins change and not for Sys admins? Since both of them have checkuser Harvici (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That has to do with the fact that we have, only, 1 System Administrator. Drummingman (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on a potential Signature policy

As there is a discussion on a potential username policy, I thought this would be the perfect time to get through a potential signature policy. Please feel free to add your own suggestions. Harvici (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)