TestWiki:Community portal

Welcome to For-Test Wiki's community portal. This is the page where the community discusses issues, questions, and other topics pertaining to For-Test Wiki. The main functions of this portal are as follows:

• to request advanced rights like steward and suppressor;
• to start a discussion on making and amending the policies;
• to request sysop/bureaucrats rights to be removed from users in accordance with the inactivity policy.

If you want to request steward actions, use the Stewards' noticeboard. If you are here to request a new extension/skin, report bugs, or any other changes that require the assistance of a system administrator, use the system administrators' noticeboard instead.

Archives: 1, 2

Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.39

Hi, I am happy to announce that the upgrade of the recently released LTS version of MediaWiki, MediaWiki 1.39.0 have been launched by the sysadmin team. Should you encountered any bugs or issues, please report it here in the community portal. Happy testing for all! -Matttestzh (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting steward rights - Elijah Wilder

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

This has been open for a while and no real discussion occurred. Voters found the answers to asked questions inadequate and incorrect. The experience of the nominee is also questioned. In short, there is  no consensus to make Elijah Wilder a steward at this time. X (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Elijah Wilder (talk • contribs • deleted • logs • rights)

I have been here for a while now. I have granted permission requests, reverted vandalism, and I have made some good blocks. I think I am ready for steward now.

Questions for candidate

1. Reviewing your contributions, I did not actually see any non-test blocks placed, or vandalism reverted. Would you please provide the community some edit diffs/log actions related to those if I missed something? -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
2. To those who pointed out you have a very short track record here, what would you tell them?
3. What do you expect to do if elected as a steward? -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Do you plan to be active in the future? We do not need a steward who abandon once being elected. -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Steward is a very trusted permission as it can perform CheckUser to find a user’s IP address. Can you state, in your own words, in what situation(s) would you perform a IP check, and in what situations will you reveal a user’s IP address? -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
6. Say a user has ask you to delete his account. What will you respond to them? -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
7. Normally, we ask for confirmation of a user for steward election. Do you have any other experiences on counter-vandalism on other wiki projects? Would you please make a confirmation message there? -Matttestzh (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Replies to questions

I own my own wiki so I know how to do many things. I have been looking around and trying to revert vandalism. I would tell the people who say I have a short track record that I know how the wiki works and what I need to do. I would reveal it if I needed to perform an IP block. I would never abandon you guys. I really like it here. If I were to be elected, I will make sure no vandalism occurs, I will do permission requests. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah Wilder (talk • contribs).

Discussion (Elijah Wilder- Steward)

I'd like an answer to the question of under what circumstances would you perform an IP check before I can form an opinion on your election. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I now see several problems with this request. First of all, an IP of a user account does not need to be revealed when performing a block, because you can use a generic edit summary such as "Steward action: Checkuser block". Second, which wiki are you the founder of? How are we supposed to know if it's of a similar or larger size and if you're managing it well? Lastly, because of the second problem, you have a short track record that isn't justified. Resolve these objections, and I will consider supporting this request. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Inactive user

Any steward, you may wish to remove permissions from User:🫥 under the Inactivity Policy. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting suppressor rights - Justarandomamerican

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

While there are not many users participated in the discussion, there is nonetheless a strong consensus to promote. If a user insert inappropriate information that neeDs to be suppresses to any page, the 1st thing to do is to delete that information with reason “redacting information”. After that, suppress all the related edit diffs. As a suppressor, you are given the permission to place serious and emergency blocks to those who insert any information that needs to be suppressed. Congratulations and welcome aboard! -Matttestzh (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

---

I'd like to request the suppressor user right, whilst not being made CheckUser or Steward, as I do not intend to have access to the IPs of a user account. For the convenience of anyone commenting, here are my contributions and my logs. I wish to provide a fast response to any personal information that is posted on this wiki, particularly without the consent of the person identified or accidental posting. Here is a confirmation edit as well. Thank you to anyone commenting on this, Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

1. Thank you for applying this role. Do you plan to remain active here in the future? (as you have your rights removed for inactivity once). The policy has just been modified such that all non-test rights are removed under 6 weeks of inactivity. If your rights are removed due to inactivity, it will be much more difficult to request for the suppressor again. -Matttestzh (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Matttestzh: Yes, I will perform logged actions every six weeks. I will also make an effort to check recent changes here every single day, as the last time I had my rights removed, it was because I completely forgot this wiki existed in the moment. (I have ADHD-C, and ADHD-C makes you forget things a lot quicker, and forming a habit should prevent me from forgetting.) Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Justa - Suppressor)

1. Support. As For-Test Wiki is getting much more users, I think there will be a need for an additional suppressor here. Given your prior experience at other wiki projects and edits here, I am comfortable to give a support. -Matttestzh (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Matttestzh: How long will the community have to comment on this? Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Support AlPaD (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Inactivity Report 03/30/23

Hello All,

The following user's rights should be removed in accordance with the inactivity policy.

1. User:Airtransat236
2. User:Arkadiy
3. User:Buel
4. User:Kristiannumber1
5. User:Lolkikmoddi
6. User:Testing999999999

Thank you for all of your previous contributions to For Test Wiki! You can request your rights be kept below, or re-request them at here. X (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've set grace periods for the accounts that only have sysop. @Matttestzh: Can you do the crats? Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

All the accounts will have their rights being automatically removed at 7 April if they don’t have logged actions for the next 2 days. Thank you @X: and @Justarandoamerican: for assistance on this process. -Matttestzh (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a formal blocking policy

I think we should have a formal blocking policy, such as this, which goes into detail about different types of blocks. Keep in mind that the proposed policy linked is a draft, and may be edited as necessary. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. This is needed and should be made an official policy. X (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, sadly. I would personally against on creating a too specific policy like Wikipedia (e.g. protection policy, testing policy, abuse filter policy, etc) as we are just a test wiki project. I have proposed a new testing policy, so that it only limits testing actions. For formal protection, blocks, and conduct behavior, we can actually put them in another policy page. Would that be better? -Matttestzh (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that would work better. Just so we have something in place. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's good with me, I just think we should have something more comprehensive, covering serious actions. Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have created a potential non-test actions policy here. What do you all think? Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the policy is a good supplement to our current policies, and I support making it official. If more crats agree with this, I think it can be made official. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 20:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made some minor modifications to the policy and added a section of behavioral guidelines. I think it can be made official if other crats support this. -Matttestzh (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting suppressor rights - X

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

There is no opposition to this request, and the participants in this discussion expressed a supportive view to the candidate. Welcome aboard and become the third suppressor here. --Matttestzh (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I would like to have access to suppressor rights to help remove personal identifiable information that users accidentally post here and extreme personal attacks and legal threats. Just recently, I edited when I thought I was logged in, but I wasn´t. @Justarandomamerican: took quick action by suppressing it, which I am grateful for. I then read more about the right and feel that I can help other users that have had similar problems as me get their information private. We currently only have 2 suppressors, and although the Wiki is somewhat small, it is growing and we need more users available at more times to suppress information. I intend to remain active on this Wiki for a long time, and I know I can help. I also have an email that users can use to request their information be removed. Feel free to ask me any questions to test my knowledge or about me/what I will do below.

Thanks for your consideration,

✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate:

• I'm planning to support your request as being relatively competent to use the tools effectively, but I'd like to know in which situations a personal attack is so grossly insulting that it should be suppressed. Thanks for answering, Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: In my opinion, most bad-faith personal attacks should just be revision deleted, but if they contain threats they should be suppressed. This includes murder/harm threats (or similar) to the user or their friends and family. In most cases, I will just use common sense. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 20:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• If another suppressor asked you to email them a suppressed diff to them because they can’t access their main account and are using a secondary account, what would you do?

I would not email them the diff because I have no way to know if they are actually the suppressor, or if they are just a random user. There is also no reason given for wanting access to the information, and I see no reason why they would need access to it. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (X- Suppressor):

• Support: Can be trusted with the ability to hide information from administrators, is competent and helps around a lot. Would be useful to have 2 permanent suppressors, we can check and balance ourselves that way, along with the ability to suppress material at a variety of times! Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support: while having 3 people who can suppress is a little overkill, it’s better than having none, and they are competent. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippybonzo (talk • contribs).
• Moral Support They haven’t been at the wiki for significantly long, holding Bureaucrat for just 14 days as of writing, while they have been a help around the wiki, there just isn’t a need for too many suppressors, it just makes the role useless if everyone has it, but I would support if there was a need, but a handful rather than a bucketful is better, or suppression just becomes a fancy word for revdel. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your final statement that "suppression just becomes a fancy word for revdel." However, I think that there is a need. If I would be accepted, there would only be three suppressors, which is enough that there aren't too many, but aren't not enough. I also live in a different timezone than most people, so that is an advantage for quickness. Yes, I have only been here for about 16 days as of writing, but I have been active on many testwikis before this and know about how they all work. I have also supported your suppressor request, and I think it would be great if we could both be suppressors and help the wiki. What do you think of this? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the fact that you are someone who is clearly trusted on this wiki, and given you have said you live in a different timezone, I’ve reconsidered to a moral support as I can’t see how there isn’t a clear need so by my criteria, this results in a support. Zippybonzo (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support X is new user but knows the policies, was helped in the fight against recent vandalism and I believe can also help as suppressor. AlPaD (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Assessment of consensus: No self-claimed opposing arguments. Unanimous. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? Are you closing it as successful? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I am giving a preliminary assessment to a closer (my future self, potentially, or to Matttestzh). Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 00:57, 19 April 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 request

Hi, would it be possible to add the Who's Online extension here so that I can [[Special:WhosOnline|transclude it]] into the recent changes' text? Thanks! Username (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, users should remain anonymous to all other users. Privacy is one of the most important foundation of our wiki. -Matttestzh (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Interface admin rights changes

Would it be possible for interface admins to add interface admin rights and add restricted filter actions, because there aren't enough active stewards who can do the aforementioned actions? Thanks, Zippybonzo (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Interface Admins should be able to grant interface administrator rights to other users, but I believe restricted filter actions should be given to bureaucrats. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if there was some form of permission manager role that could grant suppressor, interface admin, bureaucrat, and admin, and then also remove all of those groups, because it's hard to remove rights from users that aren't constructively editing. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there should be elections for this role, as opposed to at the permissions page. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should wait and see if this group is needed. Given that there's pretty strong consensus that I should become a Steward, let's see what happens in terms of user rights management once that request is closed. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. You will be able to handle a lot of the backlog of unfulfilled requests when you become a steward. I wish Matttest would have approved you when they were online because they are really busy. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too sure why he didn't close it whilst he was online, since there's strong community consensus. Maybe he wanted to review me myself? (Note: the he pronouns are based off the fact that their name is "Matt", aka Matthew, feel free to correct me.) Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting suppressor rights - Zippybonzo

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

 Done. 1/1/2. While only one user supported this request, the user that opposed asked for ZB to be active for 1-2 months. They have now been active for 1.25 months, which fulfills this. The two users that abstain said that there wasn't a huge need, but having an extra helping hand will never hurt. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting Suppressor rights to suppress all data concerning private abuse filters as and when it is shown, because revision deletion isn’t enough as a rogue admin account could figure out how to bypass it, I would also suppress anything that is personally identifying information. I would also suppress edits mentioning anything about personally identifying information, and if there is doxxing involved, block those involved with a 1 year ban with no TP access, in case they dox someone else. I would tend not to suppress swear words, as they aren’t really anything that revdel can’t handle, the same for copyrighted content.

Thanks for reading this, and if you have any questions ask them below. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate:

1. Looking through your editing history, it looks like you were active here in June 2022, and then left and came back ~5 days ago. Can you give the community some reassurance that after being elected, you won't leave the Wiki as you have in the past?

A: I somewhat forgot that this wiki was around, and was busy IRL, but I don’t foresee any reason why I would be too busy to have to leave the wiki.

2. In your own words, please describe suppressor blocks.

A: Suppressor blocks are similar to steward blocks but occur for reasons relating to edits that have been suppressed and therefore the reason isn’t fully disclosed to any non-suppressor, but are usually for personally identifiable information.

3. The following are all included in suppressor per Special:ListGrouprights. In your own words, please describe when you would use the tools listed below.

Hideuser - Block a username, hiding it from the public?

A: If as username is highly offensive, it would hide any revisions from that user and say username removed instead of their username, this would typically be followed by a suppressor block.

viewsuppressed - View revisions hidden from any user?

A: Allows you to view any suppressed revision for reasons such as long term abuse analysis, or sock puppetry behaviour investigation.

suppressrevision - hide and unhide specific revisions of pages from any user?

A: Used to suppress, and hide revisions from all non suppressors, if they are personally identifiable or offensive.

Thanks for answering! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion(Zippybonzo - Suppressor):

Weak support It is never a bad thing to have an extra helping hand, so I will support. I am excited to be suppressors together! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) I would have to agree with User:Justarandomamerican on this. I also abstain here. I have quickly found that there arn't a lot of things that need suppressed and I don't think you would have any work to do if you are made a suppressor. Zippy, I would encourage you to be active here for a few months and then apply for Steward, a position we do need more users in. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 13:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say that a suppressor will eventually leave, or someone will want to bypass a filter, and then there will be a problem that involves some suppression, and there’s still a risk of filter bypassing. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong support Zippybonzo is very reliable and experienced and I don't see any negative impact of becoming a suppressor. AlPaD (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak Oppose without prejudice: I, too, am concerned that there simply isn't enough work to justify a (ultimately) fourth suppressor. Another try is just fine with me, though. I would support a second try if we need another suppressor at the time, and I don't think that another suppressor is necessary at this particular point. Feel free to respond. I'd like to add: Don't feel discouraged! You're very competent, but I simply don't see a need for anyone else to get the tools at the moment, as we have a suppressor rights request that is awaiting a close. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you say. I myself have thought that an extra suppressor will never be a bad thing. What do you think of this? Also, as Zippy said in their request, do you think the information that was revdeled due to revealing info about the filter should be suppressed? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, as administrator accounts already have access to private filters. Simple revision deletion is enough. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For the other question, I personally think that if there isn't sufficient community or individual need for the tools, then it's not necessary for them to be given, and I don't see an argument for current community or individual need. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After thorough review, I abstain from !voting on this request, as I am torn. The user is very competent, but we would have 4 suppressors. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose, sadly. Zippybonzo, I remembered you as one of the earliest users in this wiki but then completely disappeared. It would be great if you can stay here for around 1-2 months helping out. Personally I still think that this is a “not quite yet” case. -Matttestzh (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse filter

I have done some tinkering and our abuse filter for sock puppets is now operational. Feel free to add other username strings to the list. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 12:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucrat unblockself

My testing indicates that the Bureaucrat right alone doesn’t permit you to unblockself. Zippybonzo (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what your testing showed, but you can see Special:ListGroupRights and see that bureaucrats have the ability to unblock themselves, no matter if they are administrators. Unrelated, but I think your suppressor rights request can be closed, as I doubt any more positive feedback will arise. I can close it as "No consensus" meaning that some users supported, some opposed, but no agreement was reached to make you a suppressor. If you do not object, I plan to close it soon. If you disagree with my closure, always feel free to revert and wait for a closure by steward, although given the only steward weakly opposed your request, I doubt it will be any different.

UPDATE:I have created/updated a filter to stop this if you want to test. It is filter #14 if you want to take a peek. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 21:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@X: You aren’t able to unblock yourself as a crat as you can’t access the unblock interface, nor can you change rights, so there isn’t anything a rogue crat account could do. Also, about your closure, the fact that a steward opposed it doesn’t make it instant no consensus, as stewards don’t have seniority in discussions. Thanks, Zippybonzo (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Okay, thanks for testing that. I have also done some testing and I agree with you. I hope you have a better close from a steward. Good luck! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Community ban for User:ApexAgunomu

Note: ApexAgunomu is free to create an unblock appeal and choose whether it should be considered by us here at the community portal, or Matttestzh. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

ApexAgonomu Block Appeal

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

Closed as successful 3/0/0. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

After some time away from test wikis in general, I feel that I can return to testing here and keep in mind that I need to abide by all the rules and policies here. I understand that I have been given numerous chances here, but I would like to show that I can work together with people on a wiki, and hopefully in the future it might help me in getting my Miraheze account unlocked. The community is free to discuss this, ask any questions, and if needed, impose any conditions on my unblock. Thank you. ApexAgunomu (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(And I will not deliberately trigger the guidance filter in any way.) -- Copied by Zippybonzo (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (ApexAgunomu - Block Appeal):

I will take the suggestions of other crats, but I am open to allowing Apex to edit again. I suggest re-enabling the edit filter to guide them. I also suggest making all future permissions requests from Apex have to be discussed on the community portal. If no one objects, I can personally help and guide them to assist Apex in reintegrating into the community. What do yall think? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Note Filter has been re-enabled as TP access was granted. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support with the condition that some privileged user groups, such as Bureaucrat, Interface Administrator, Suppressor, Checkuser, System administrator and Steward are not granted without community discussion on the community portal. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: I am interested to hear your opinion here. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Accept appeal. Prohibit her from requesting bureaucrat or similar rights that require community trust until we have another active steward to prevent the workaround of desysopping to prevent unblocking self, allow sysop requests. Mandate progressive discipline in the form of the following: 1st and second violation of the policies: Discretionary, warning or block 4 days. 3rd violation: Block for 7 days. 4th: Block for 1 month. 5th: Block for 3 months. 6th and up violation: Block of a duration that is left up to the blocking bureaucrat. I believe in as many chances as possible, until a block that no reasonable person would overturn occurs. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that they can be unblocked now. I will do so if you tell me I can. I believe that we should block for 1 week on first offence and indefinitely on a second offense. It's a tight leash for now. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Unblocked. Okay, agree. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Because this discussion was closed early, any registered user may raise an objection to either its closure or raise an argument against Apex being unblocked anytime. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Admin Request

I tried asking this on the Request Permissions page,but the guidance filter stopped me. Can I please have the administrator role? Thanks! ApexAgunomu (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Please ensure you follow our policies, especially the Testing policy. Failure to do so may result in your rights being revoked, or in severe cases, you being blocked. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask at Community portal or on the talk page of any steward. Happy testing! --✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Name Change Request

Hi, can my name be changed to Piccadilly please? Thank you! ApexAgunomu (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

LGTM, @Matttestzh: go ahead and rename. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. While I am not a steward that can actually fufill your request, I don't think you should be renamed. Your current username/account has strict restrictions on requesting permissions and other restrictions. Renaming may cause confusion. Your current username also shows an association with your other blocked accounts on other projects. I don't think it is best to rename you at this time. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning. I was thinking initially: Meh, it'll just redirect. I probably won't approve of renaming restricted users in the future. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think not renaming blocked/restricted users is a good idea. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 13:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

CentralAuth extension

Can we have CentralAuth installed across fortestwiki and fortestwikibeta for testing? Zippybonzo (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? We are a single wiki, not a wiki farm or group of wikis like Wikipedia or Miraheze. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

More for testing of locking and unlocking and global permissions over fortestwiki and fortestwiki beta. It would also mean fortestwikibeta gets used more often. Zippybonzo (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

myht (the wiki provider) can't handle centralauth because it takes up a lot of space and if a webpage takes up too much space it might get deleted, to ensure the proper functioning of all service sites. AlPaD (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for Bureaucrat - ApexAgunomu

• Status:  Done
• User: Piccadilly (talk • contribs • deleted • logs • rights)
• Requested group/permission: Bureaucrat
• Reason for requesting: For further testing and also to help handle any serious issues that may come up. I am aware that the community will need to discuss this before it can be approved.

ApexAgunomu (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no issues with this request, but it will only be approved once @Justarandomamerican: is made a steward. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just curious, why do we need to wait until then? ApexAgunomu (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

To be quite honest, the bureaucrat team doesn’t really trust you. We would prefer that, just in case you revert to your old ways, we have an active steward to remove your rights. I hope you understand. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand the team not trusting me yet. I hope that with time and continued good decisions on my part the trust issue can eventually be put aside. ApexAgunomu (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope so too, but it takes time to regain the trust that you have lost. Keep editing productively and I have no doubt you can become a bureaucrat when Justa is made a steward. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I support your genuine effort to show that you can contribute positively. There's no need to worry about the request being genuinely denied due to lack of measures to prevent potential abuse, mostly because we're practically waiting for community consensus to be enacted, the discussion above looks clear to me. I'll probably ping Matttestzh as a notification for whenever he comes online. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 to that. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican:. This request I think can actually be approved now. My testing shows that blocked bureaucrats without admin permissions cannot edit, unblock themselves, or grant rights. I will hear your opinion first though. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 15:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Sounds good to me. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Please ensure you continue to follow all of our policies because bureaucrat is a more senior and trusted testing permission. The stewards are the ultimate non-test administrators on For-Test Wiki and guide this wiki with the community at TestWiki:Community portal. When granting permissions, please try and link to the diff page of the given user's request when granting rights, and only grant rights upon request. --✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you created a page with “Hi people” and then deleted it as a test. Given that you have before replaced the people with various derogatory terms, I advise you to please not do so. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 02:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I definitely will not be repeating any derogatory words here, I promise. ApexAgunomu (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Good! Your behavior here so far has been good. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Rights removal request

Any available steward may want to set bureaucrat rights to a grace period of 1 week for the following user. They have not edited since mid-February and their only logged action was a failed massmessage about 1 month ago.

• Elijah Wilder

Thanks! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, a failed massmessage is still a logged action, so I would set a grace period in one and a bit months. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we set a grace period for over a month when the user hasn't performed a logged action in 25 days. Our inactivity policy states 1 month, unlike other wikis Zippybonzo. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It was 3 months and you removed the section about that arbitrarily and either way, they have made logged actions other than creating an account and it doesn’t mention anything about edits/logged actions in your revision. I appreciate that you would like to help the wiki, but removing permissions from users contrary to policy is not something I would call constructive. I understand the security concerns/implications, but the removal of rights against policy is not governed by policy. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it has always been 1 month, but there was a weird section that was meaningless about 3 months, that makes no sense because if they haven't performed any actions in 1 month, they won't have performed any actions in 3 months. I still think that a 1 week grace period is appropriate for security here. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not, if a user makes no edits or logged actions in 1 month except for requesting rights, then the rights are removed. If a user makes no edits or logged actions in 3 months, but they have made edits other than requesting permissions before the no edits period, then they get rights removed. It’s very confusing and I’m tempted to just make it 3 months for all, but it’s open to interpretation, I’m willing for a 1 month grace period, but it’s pointless anyway, as they can grant sysop back to themselves. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is too confusing and we should just make it a single time, I think we meet in the middle for 2 months. What do you think? I have also granted Elijah Wilder their rights back indefinitely while we get this figured out. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Abuse filter noticeboard

I have created a new TestWiki:Abuse filter noticeboard, where you can request abuse filters, or changes to current ones, or general administration of abuse filters, there will also be a list of new filters. I have created a new filter to stop your mom vandalism, which having typed that will set off the filter, if you need any filters making, I have a decent understanding of regex, which is enough for me to create some filters if requested. Let me know if you need anything filter based, as I am likely able to help you. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting steward rights - X

Although one user expressed uncertainty as to the need for 3 stewards, I find that as the argument was not claimed to be an opposing argument, that consensus is unanimous, and I can therefore close it even though I am technically involved by supporting. The community entrusts X with the tools of a steward. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello For-Test Wiki community,

I would like to put myself forth as a steward candidate. I have found a number of times where I could better help with steward rights. One main thing I would want to do would be inactivity removals, after 1 month of just requesting permissions or 3 months if you have edited more, because bureaucrats can only remove administrator rights. I would also use the Checkuser tool to investigate abuse. About a month ago, For-Test Wiki had a number of vandalism and sock puppetry attacks. In that instance, the sockpuppetry was obvious, but the tools would be nice to investigate future complicated abuse. I would also like to be able to grant suppressor and IA rights to users if they are qualified. The last reason I could be a helpful addition to the steward team is for accountability reasons. We should always have multiple active users with access to the checkuser tools so we can insure they don’t check users for no reason. A little more about me, I am an administrator, bureaucrat, suppressor, and interface administrator. I help out on a number of Test wikis and am active on Miraheze. I have been active on the wiki for almost 2 months, but I have been on TestWikis in general for quite a while. I submitted my suppressor request over a month ago, and I believe I am ready and that there is a community need. Please ask me any questions if you have them. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions:

1. An account with an offensive username, let's call it "ExampleSlur", is created, and not even 1 minute after creation, is blocked by a user with no prior log actions or edits throughout the day. Do you suspect sockpuppetry, if so, why or why not? If you suspect sockpuppetry, do you perform a check, and why or why not?

First question from me. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If this was the first time they have performed actions at the same time, I would assume good faith and not perform a check, but I would definitely keep my eye out for future similar situations. I would probably ask the user if they are operating the account and inform them about sockpuppetry. Also, if they are the same user and don’t have the IP-block exempt right, they will be auto-blocked. Now, if they this has happened many times before, I would be suspicious and perform a check on the two accounts and block them accordingly. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

2. A user with 20 edits who has been a Bureaucrat for 2 days requests interface adminship with the reason 'To enhance the wiki and to test', what would you do. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I would decline the request with the following reason:  Not done. Thanks for your enthusiasm, but you don't really seem to know what interface adminship is. It is not used for testing, but it is used for creating/expanding gadgets or other reasons that you would need to edit.js/.css pages. You haven't really given a need either. You have also not linked any of your contributions that show you are qualified on other projects. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

3. 6 accounts are created in 2 minutes, and one requests adminship, what would you do. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

First, I would see if there are any behavioral similarities like usernames, testing, etc that would allow me to make a simple sockpuppetry block without needing to perform a check. If there is none, I would perform a check to see if they are operating from the same IP. If they are, I would decline the request for adminship for sockpuppetry and block the 6 accounts. I would then explain to the user our policy on multiple accounts by leaving a block template on their talk page. If they are not related, I would accept the request for adminship. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Weak Oppose Weak Support the answer to question 1 should be IMO something like 'I would perform a basic CU to see if they may be abusing multiple accounts to disrupt the wiki.' I also think that sending a massmessage to tell bureaucrats you have a request for stewardship borders on canvassing. Beyond that, they are a good candidate, but I don’t feel that there’s a need for 3 stewards. I will ask some questions which may change my vote. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If I may, my massmessage was intended to inform users of the discussion, not asking them to support it. I did the same thing when Justarandomamerican applied for stewardship because I believe it is important for all the users to know that it is ongoing. In my massmessage, I even said that "I am not canvassing or asking you for support, merely informing you of the discussion if you want to give a !vote or ask a question." Also, in my answer to Q1 I said that I would perform a check if they perform actions multiple times within a minute, because the first time could have just been a coincidence. Thank you for letting me explain myself and for asking questions. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The explanation is appreciated, and I have changed my vote to Weak Support. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am glad you were satisfied with my explanation. Thank you. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 17:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral Sending a mass message, whether canvassing or not, to bureaucrats regarding a Stewardship request seems unnecessary and unwanted. You are competent otherwise, and I am awaiting your answer to further questions. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If I may, my massmessage was intended to inform users of the discussion, not asking them to support it. I did the same thing when you applied for stewardship because I believe it is important for all the users to know that it is ongoing. In my massmessage, I even said that "I am not canvassing or asking you for support, merely informing you of the discussion if you want to give a !vote or ask a question." ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why you did that, as it seemed unnecessary at first glance. It now seems like an appropriate friendly message. Support as you are competent, and having 3 stewards seems appropriate for both checking and balancing and for enforcement purposes. Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have stated. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per Justarandomamerican and X can help as steward. AlPaD (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Multiple Sysadmin Actions

Can the FlaggedRevs extension, the UserGroups extension (if it works) and the Thanks extension be installed. (Some were taken from other threads) and can the following user group rights changes occur.

1. Add the following rights to the interface admin group, 'abusefilter-modify-restricted','oathauth-enable' and the following parameters relating to the interface-admin group,

'$wgAddGroups ['interface-admin'][] 'interface-admin'; '$wgAddGroups ['interface-admin'][] 'interwiki-admin'; '$wgAddGroups ['interface-admin'][] 'abusefilter'; '$wgRemoveGroups ['interface-admin'][] 'interwiki-admin'; '$wgRemoveGroups ['interface-admin'][] 'abusefilter';

1. Create the following group 'abusefilter' with the rights, 'abusefilter-view-private','abusefilter-modify'.
2. Remove all abuse filter related rights from the admin group except AbuseFilter log viewing and viewing of non private.
3. Remove the ability for bureaucrats to grant or remove interwiki admin and AbuseFilter, and leave those to interface admins with more technical ability.
4. Also, merge the CheckUser and suppressor rights into the steward right to allow for oversight of those logs to prevent abuse.
5. Try to allow sysadmins to manage user groups onwiki when possible through the UserGroups extension.

Zippybonzo (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss below:

Agree to interface administrators being able to add other I-Admins, disagree on the creation of a dedicated AbuseFilter group, as it seems those rights belong with Administrators, as this is a test wiki, so test abuse filters should be able to be created. Disagree on interwiki only being an I-Admin thing, as a general "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" sort of thing, nobody has abused Interwiki, nor is there a high potential for abuse at the moment (most of us are knowledgeable enough as to hover over links). Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with interface admins being able to grant interface admin rights to other users, but I don't think that bureaucrats should be not allowed to grant IW admin rights. I disagree with the abuse filter group because we are a testwiki and users should be able to test with abuse filters. I am fine with giving stewards access to the CU and OV tools automatically, but I don't think the suppressor groups should be removed so non-stewards can be granted those rights. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Once consensus here is established, please make a request on the TestWiki:System administrators' noticeboard. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting steward rights - Zippybonzo

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

On behalf of the steward team, I am closing this request as no consensus. Of all the users that participated in the discussion, none supported or opposed this request. There were concerns about the actual need for a 4th steward, but consensus shows that the user is competent. I am going to re-open your request for suppressor and re-evaluate that discussion as this request is now closed. The stewards thank ZB for their service to this Wiki. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear Community,

I am going to request steward rights to allow me to perform technical actions such as modifying AbuseFilters with restricted actions, and to grant rights. I may also block pesky open proxies. I am a patroller, rollbacker, and pending changes reviewer on the English Wikipedia, under this username, ping me on enwiki for confirmation if you wish. I will also use these rights to help Matttestzh with technical matters I.e extension requests, filters, as I am one of the more able filter creators on this wiki.

Thank you for the consideration, Zippybonzo (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions:

• Q: You seem to be very interested in edit filters. What filters do you think should be set to block? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 01:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A: Non at current, however I would import a few filters for swear words and memes from Wikimedia and set them to tag, and see if there are any false positives, and then I would set them to block anonymous users for a few hours and not to block users. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Q: One IP begins vandalizing the wiki by placing “Get vandalized” on pages and is blocked for a week. An account is later created and does the same thing. Do you perform a check and why? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 01:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A: No, I wouldn’t perform a check, as there is enough behavioural evidence to block the account and IP indefinitely. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I will reword this as it's not the clearest answer I've written. - I wouldn't perform a check, but would instead block the user indef and account for 3 months as there is behavioral evidence that they are socking. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Q: An account begins vandalizing and is blocked within a minute by another user that hasn’t edited in ~1 week. This is the first time this has happened. Do you perform a check and why? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 01:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A: I wouldn’t perform a check, however I would perform history checks on the user’s logs to check for any possible socking, if there was a chance of socking previously, I would perform a check. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please clarify what you mean. You say you won’t perform a check, but then you say you would perform a check. Which is it? ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 10:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean I wouldn't perform a checkuser initially, but I would check if the user has any other signs of socking and if there are signs, then run a check. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Comment: In your request, you stated you would like to help with extension requests. If I am not mistaken, that is only something a System administrator can do. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean deny unfeasable ones. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 19:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Meh: No matter the competency of the candidate in technical matters, I feel having 3 fully active stewards on this relatively small test wiki is unnecessary and may form privacy concerns, however, I would support the creation of an "AbuseFilter manager" group which has the ability to set restricted actions. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Abstain for a few reasons.

1. I wouldn't say the need for stewards is particularly high, although we do need system administrators.
2. As a steward, I would prefer not to !vote so I am able to close as unbiased.
3. Your answer to Q2 worries me as you speak of blocking IPs indefinitely, which I strongly oppose doing.
4. Feel free to import the filters and I can set them to block for you.

I wish you good luck on this request. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 18:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Main Page protection reason

Right now, the protection reason for the main page says "Should not be edited without community consensus". If someone is elected a steward, they should be able to make changes at their discretion, instead of going through the discussion process every time the main page needs an edit, which is why this protection reason is wrong, it's protected to prevent disruptive changes to the most visible page on the wiki, not because every change to it should require community consensus, correct? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the reason to “High traffic page”. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree. Changing. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for Lifting of Restrictions

Hello, I would like to request a lifting of the editing and user rights restrictions that are currently in place for me. I understand that I still need to be careful in my behavior here and to obey all the rules here. I would like to have the restrictions lifted so I can get my name changed to Piccadilly, which I would like to have done. Thank you. ApexAgunomu (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Support removing rights restrictions, oppose removing editing restrictions and rename. Your rights restrictions prevent you from requesting IA without community discussion. I support removing this. Your editing restrictions basically make it that upon any disruption, you can be blocked immediately by any administrator for any reason. I don’t support removing this quite yet. Because of this, I also oppose a rename. @Justarandomamerican:: Your opinion on this would be appreciated. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 02:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed your user rights restrictions, but the editing restrictions I would like @Justarandomamerican:’s opinion on. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove editing restrictions: I think at this point it's enough to go through the normal process of administrative discretion regarding consequences for disruptive behavior, such as a warning to deter, a block to prevent, etc. I think it's enough to trust our friendly bureaucrats and ourselves on what to do if Apex does not follow the policies at this moment. If disruptive behavior resumes and refuses to stop, the restrictions should be put back into place. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done and renamed. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 23:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Check user findings regarding ApexAgunomu

Per check user evidence, Apex has not operated the -eium sockpuppets or any other account or IP since their block, as far as I can tell. This should confirm that they have changed and not reverted back to their past behavior. I have also checked the -eium accounts and they are, no surprise, operated by the same user. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 02:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have also found that the REAL Zippybonzo account is a  Confirmed sockpuppet of the -eium accounts. I will be changing the block reasons soon. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 12:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Call for System Administrator

Dear For Test Wiki Editors,

I am putting out a call for any user who would wish to be a system administrator, as we desperately need one, if anyone wants to nominate me, feel free, but we really need a sysadmin to handle the extension backlog. Please note, you must be an active bureaucrat with familiarity of MariaDB, PHP and MediaWiki to become a sysadmin. Thanks, Zippybonzo (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be willing to become one, but my knowledge of MariaDB is small, although I am definitely willing to learn. I am really familiar with the MediaWiki software and am very active bureaucrat. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 20:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also be willing to come one, however I’m not the best with MariaDB as my testing wiki runs on MySQL, but I’m familiar with PHP and how MediaWiki works. Zippybonzo (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is ApexAgunomu and I can't log in

Hi, I am ApexAgunomu and I had been logged into here until just now. I tried logging into the wiki again but it wouldn't accept my password (which I have not changed recently). I don't have an email attached to my account-what can I do? I'm 99% sure I have the right password. (Information redacted) 00:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have renamed you as requested. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 00:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been rather inactive here today so I didn't realize I had had my name change granted. Thanks once again! Piccadilly (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblocking Username and editing restrictions

Hello, FTW community! I am writing to document my unblock of Username and the user restrictions accompanying it. For context, I blocked Username as a steward action for lack of communication and encouraged him to discuss it with the stewards on his talk page. He has yet to do so, and based on previous behavior, I doubt he ever will. I feel a bit sad about this, but I want to do what's best for the community. What I feel is best, upon reflection, is to unblock Username and grant his sysop rights back. This would be followed by a notice on his user talk page that he must gain community consensus before performing large or controversial actions. Username's bureaucrat rights may be re-granted in 1 week following this post, at the user's request, following improvement in behavior/communication. They will again be reminded to seek discussion before performing large or controversial actions. Now for Interface administrator rights. These will be granted back following a community discussion that may take place no earlier than 10 days from 11:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC). Improvement in communication/discussion must be shown for these to be granted back. If Username violates the conditions above and performs large or controversial actions without discussion, any sysop may block them for 24 hours with TPA enabled. This should give stewards enough time to review the situation and make a decision on what to do. I strongly encourage Username to take the advice given to him and acknowledge that communication is required.

For the steward team,

✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. Piccadilly (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad you think so! ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 12:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css

I'd like to propose an amendment to MediaWiki:Common.css. It's a simple one, the script of StaffHighlights.css would merge into this one and that one would be deleted. Username (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and nothing will change. I promise! I just think it's unnecessary to even have StaffHighlights.css as an existing gadget when I've seen it work FAR better under common.css in other wikis. Username (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware that if this happens, you will no longer be able to alter the script, as you could before. It is currently protected at steward level. Other than that, I am not strictly opposed to the idea. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 20:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that I'll no longer be able to alter the script afterwards. And that I must propose a new amendment in a new section. Username (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this. This is  Done. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! But I think you forgot to remove a tiny instance of this defunct gadget here. Username (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have removed that line from the gadgets page. I hope this is what you meant. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 16:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reforming of noticeboards

Since there are more and more requests flooding into the community portal, the following measures are taken in response:

• all extension/skin requests are to be directed to the System administrators' noticeboard;
• all checkuser requests, renaming requests or any other requests that requires steward action should be directed to the Stewards' noticeboard. Stewards should also make follow-up announcements to the community to it (e.g. CheckUser findings).

Also, I propose the withdrawal of the [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]] and [[TestWiki:Abuse filter noticeboard]]. As the bureaucrat right is mainly for testing, there is no reason whatsoever for this noticeboard to exist. In case of requests of serious blocks/protection, they should be placed on the Stewards' noticeboard instead. The abusefilter also have the function to make notes during a change. If the proposed change of the abuse filter is major, they should be proposed here for the attention of the community. Regards, Matttestzh (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Deleted. I agree with all the points/changes you have made. ✖ - (Talk • Contributions) 11:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)