Test Wiki:Community portal

From Test Wiki

Latest comment: 25 April 2022 by NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh in topic Block Request
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one.

Archives: 123456789101112


Mind if I suggest something?

Instead of having your access to the admin tools after 1 month goes by without activity, why not just have it be 3 months instead? I'd say that 1 month is a bit too short, and I'm not sure how one month would be enough of a reason. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Supports

 Support I like this idea, and can't see any drawbacks to it. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support I think it should be extended. LisafBia (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support Per nom. I am one (as you are three) 23:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support I absolutely agree with that! AlPaD (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

 Oppose We're giving out adminship and 'cratship as if they were candies. Isn't that good enough? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's definitely good but it would save bureaucrats some work by not having to re-add user rights so often and also save everyone else the hassle of having to ask for the rights again after just a short one-month hiatus. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk · contribs) Being honest, revocation of an advanced permission after 1 month just seems too short, and I'd recommend at least 3 months, as it's usually fair, in terms of how we all operate on the Public Test Wiki on Miraheze. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Should the policy be updated now?

Seeing as this has majority support, should one of the bureaucrats update the policy to reflect the new time? Or do we have to get a Steward's approval for policy changes? Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 14:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

CheckUser request

These 2 users are blocked intefinite on Chinese Wikipedia and locked on Wikimedia foundation and this action is suspected. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@想舞花: Could you explain the reason for this action please? AlPaD (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@AlPaD: I mean: give him permissions other than admin.--想舞花 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@想舞花: Thanks for reply! AlPaD (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it's their test account. Also, I don't know why being indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia or globally locked on Wikimedia matters here. My Wikimedia account is globally locked and blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia, but as long as people behave here, I think they should be welcome here. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 20:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Seiyena: I don't think is a test account because he had requested administrator rights, while the test accounts don't need to be requested. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a sockpuppet issue. It's better steward see the issue and let our know if he needs CheckUser. AlPaD (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Special:AbuseFilter/52

The third line should have been & !page_id == 702. Currently it's checking for spam edits on TW:RFP... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Dmehus. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Can't admins edit the filters themselves? I know that on another wiki that was possible. Just saying. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Filters with restricted actions (namely, blocking) can only be edited by Stewards. — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
It would actually be page_id != 702, since this is an equality check. Also, it's generally good practice to surround any negation that isn't a single function with parentheses, like so: !('x' in y) — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In regards to User:Seiyena.

Noting that the aforementioned abuse filter has been deployed. — Arcversin (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lift protection on MediaWiki:Common.css

Filter 89

Looks like we're getting a few false positives here; I fixed a typo on an AbuseFilter warning and apparently I was disallowed. See my abuse log for reference.

@Kazrok4545—Courtesy ping if you have ideas. Thanks. —3PPYB6 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is the result of the filter filtering for the <br> tag, which is a very common indicator of spam. This is actually unnecessary (already in another filter), so I've removed it and extended the exempted groups. @Kazrok4545: I've temporarily disabled the filter pending clarification on its intent, were you intending to do something akin to filter 88, or was this intended to be an addition to filter 52? — Arcversin (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I forgot to switch off this filter. It was created for testing. It is advisable to add these words to filter 52. — Regards, Kazrok4545 Talk 12:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rename Account

Hi,

Could you please rename my account Videojeux4 to HeartsDo, please.

(Proof: here) Videojeux4 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Dmehus: @MacFan4000: AlPaD (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
HeartsDo, though I don't likely doubt this to be you, would you mind confirming your Test Wiki account from your Miraheze account? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Block Request

Hello, I think it would be good if I took a break from here for a bit. Could someone please block me for a few days, like maybe until May 1? Thank you very much. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 09:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Seiyena: I am willing to give out the block, on condition that:
  1. You agree not to evade your block using sockpuppets.
  2. You agree to be hard-blocked (i.e. with autoblock enabled).
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply