User talk:BrandonWM

 Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~ 

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. And again, please do not delete discussions of my talk page, it is my own decision. Thanks!

"RfCs should not be closed by anyone other than functionaries unless there is a technical reason to do so, ie. already being implemented or cannot be implemented"
This is not documented anywhere. There has never been any such consensus and in fact people would likely be opposed to that as unnecessary bureaucracy, as is currently the case for Agent Isai's RFC proposal. In addition, "functionaries" refers to CheckUsers, Oversighters, and Stewards. This wiki has no local CheckUsers and Oversighters and Stewards generally stay out of local affairs unless need be. I really don't think you meant to say that no-one here, not even consuls, can close RFCs, so if you would like to clarify what you meant, now you can do so, though I will note that there is no policy on who can and cannot close RFCs, though I disagree with their closure in general so I haven't reverted your edit. So far, no consul has closed it and if this continues for a while I likely will. Naleksuh (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, this conversation seems to have been partially had on Discord/IRC, but I'll note what happened for record-keeping purposes. Functionaries are users authorized to carry out serious actions on a wiki, including blocking and making administrative decisions, ie. Meta sysops/bureaucrats and TestWiki consuls. As Void, Raidarr, and myself have now stated. I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue pressing a concept which has been debunked by countless users. In addition, you keep on pushing a narrative that is solely your own, without cause. If you want to have this objectively stupid discussion, sure. But your position has continuously been proven wrong by many users, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 03:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have addressed the purpose of this message at all. The issue is that there is no restriction on who can close an RfC, and for you to simply enact one does not make sense. There is no such rule, and I would not call it a "convention" either given that proposals on Community portal have been closed by anyone, and that consensus is against this RFC process. I am worried about using the functionary nomenclature to distract from this. Furthermore, even if it was a convention, that doesn't mean you should revert any closes by non-functionaries. As user Void once said, An unwritten convention does not constitute policy., though unfortunately you seem to be using their name to claim support for yourself. Please don't enact rules in this way, especially in obvious, clear-cut cases where conventions would apply even less. Naleksuh (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's convention? Again, as Raidarr stated in the conversation we just had, it's followed on a great number of wikis. You seem to want to pick and choose which conventions to follow and not follow. As was said before, just because it's not policy not to edit others' userpages, doesn't mean you should. The same applies here. The user in question shouldn't have judged consensus and then closed the RfC unilaterally, and multiple users agree with me, as has been seen in the Discord channel.
 * I'm not enacting rules at all. I'm simply re-iterating what has already been deemed convention, and reverting a close. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 03:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also add,, that RfCs are now an official procedure on TestWiki. Just a note since you seemed to be arguing previously that most of the community wasn't in favor of it. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 03:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "The user in question shouldn't have judged consensus and then closed the RfC unilaterally, and multiple users agree with me, as has been seen in the Discord channel."


 * I apologize for my mistake of closing the RfC. I now understand that it should have been done by a consul, not me. I feel I have caused a disagreement amongst the community and for that I am sorry. In my defence however, there was no policy, that I could find, that states that RfC's can only be closed by Consuls. Where did you find this? If you are solely basing this off of the discord discussion, why is there not a formal policy that states who can close an RfC? You yourself, @BrandonWM have closed multiple RfC's, and you are not an crat, admin, or consul. You even have multiple editing restrictions! I feel that there needs to be more documented policies here, and I may start writing and proposing these in the Community portal soon.
 * Signed,
 * - LC Developer (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, I have in fact closed multiple RfCs, and I'm happy to defend my closure of them. For the record, in the context of this discussion, multiple means (2). Firstly, I closed a section of an RfC due to the fact that it had already been implemented by a Consul. As a result, the RfC was moot. I also closed another section of the same RfC because there was a prerequisite stating that both that section of the RfC and its counterpart on Meta needed to be successful in order to pass. The Meta RfC was not successful, as a result, the section was moot. As for where I found the criteria stating that it must be closed by functionaries, that's convention. That has been convention on Miraheze for a long time. Maybe it should've been added as part of the policy, maybe it shouldn't have. But that's what convention has been for a long time. And yes, I do have multiple editing restrictions. That is the product of issues from a while ago, and hopefully they will be removed soon. But I have also been on the Miraheze platform for 3 years, and have an extremely in-depth knowledge of how it runs. Your account, from what I can see, is 3 weeks old. You don't really seem to know how Miraheze operates. That's alright, you're new, I get it. Just try and listen to others. Hope I've explained myself thoroughly enough. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also note that implementing RfCs (such as creating policy pages) should be done by functionaries unless you've consulted them first, which doesn't appear to be the case with RfC policy. Again, I know that you are new. But you're getting ahead of yourself here, and doing stuff that you shouldn't do. If a functionary hasn't implemented an RfC they just closed, there's probably a reason for it. I recommend you delete the RfC policy page and its redirect so the policy can be properly created. I'm just going to say it so that we can avoid further confusion. You should not be implementing RfCs or making administrative decisions for TestWiki. Full stop. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 15:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for clearing things up. Your closure of the RfC's was fine, and I agree with it. In regards to RfC policy, I have deleted it. I have deleted the page, but I want any consul that feels it should be undeleted to undelete it. While I now know I shouldn't have created it, I feel that it is necessary so new users, like myself, don't get confused.
 * "But you're getting ahead of yourself here, and doing stuff that you shouldn't do."


 * I am just trying to prove myself to the TestWiki community. LC Developer (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an admirable sentiment. However, you do that not by doing everything at once, but gaining knowledge over time so you can assist. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that now. Thank you! LC Developer (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for lifting of restrictions
Hi there,

I'd like to request that all existing restrictions placed on me by TestWiki consuls (two separate ones, Zppix and Dmehus being the implementing consuls) are removed, in particular my topic ban regarding Requests for permissions and my ability to request sysop/bureaucrat access. I am submitting this appeal as I believe my behavior and trust levels have increased significantly since the restrictions were implemented. The mandatory waiting period of three months has passed, and as a result I'm here today submitting this for review. As an example of the trust the community has in me, I was recently appointed a global interwiki administrator on Miraheze, and am a Meta patroller. I collaborate productively with teammates on Phabricator and Github regarding technical tasks, and assist on Meta, Discord, and IRC with community-related queries.

I am of course happy to answer any questions that consuls may have, and I hope that in the end, the restrictions can be removed completely. I promise to avoid all behaviors that led to the original implementation of sanctions, as I hope I have been demonstrating during the past few months across Miraheze. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also going to as currently active consuls. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After having spoken to another consul, we have come to the agreement that lifting restrictions placed on you is fine. The issue which led to the restrictions on you being placed by Zppix was that you overreacted rather severely so of course, you are exhorted to keep a cool head and to not be so blunt when dealing with things. Communication is key in all projects so please keep that in mind. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)