TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Establishing an RfC process on TestWiki

As TestWiki grows, there'll evidently be a need to propose new policies which require community consensus first. This is usually handled by the Community portal but recently, the two RfCs on there did clog it up a bit. It may be best to formally set up a venue to make Requests for Comment in.

Proposal 1 (Defining RfC)

 * Requests for Comment (RfCs) are the mechanism by which the TestWiki community can discuss and vote on policy proposals as well as other matters pertaining to the local community.

Support (1)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) As a procedural move. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Blad (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ugochimobi (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  AlPaD (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)  LisafBia (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

 * 1)  TestWiki is a small wiki and this would only increase bureaucracy. EpicPupper (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (RfC page)

 * Requests for Comment will take place in Requests for Comment

Support (2)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) . BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  I would have opposed if only this page isn't a subpage of the Request for Comment page and if that page doesn't exist at all, well, the inverse is the case, so no choice. Ugochimobi (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  AlPaD (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

 * 1) Why did you have to make an RfC about the new process using the new process? Why not post on the community portal instead of effectively bootstrapping your own proposals? Also, Test Wiki is *less* active now than it was 3 years ago, so not sure what purpose this serves. Naleksuh (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Naleksuh and rationale of increasing bureaucracy. EpicPupper (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  I am not exactly planning on voting on the rest of this RfC, but to me this proposal seems pointless, I would have preferred if this was kept on the community portal, and the fact that an RfC was created using the proposed policy about said policy makes this even more pointless and I completely oppose that idea due to the fact it had not yet been determined (hence this proposal) when this RfC was created using this new proposal, practically forcing it with no choice. Universal Omega (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that other RfCs were already moved to the subpages as well makes me this even stronger. It shows that this proposal had no need to even exist if it is being done anyway, and shows a blatant disregard for this RfC proposal in the first place since it hadn't even been closed yet. Universal Omega (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments (2)

 * 1) If this proposal fails for whatever reason, will the current RfC page be deleted? Blad (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I am confused.
 * I found this wiki when db141 happened. So I was exploring and did not know what this wiki was for.  Just wanted to make this point because I was never directed here and I guess that was because I did not have need of it at the time and this may be the source of my confusion.
 * I don't really understand the impact of the custom name (as mentioned in the meta RfC). Also, I don't quite understand what this RfC is saying.  I never got around to actually using the testwiki.  I think I was nervous that I would break it or something.  But if becomes an official project that would generate more helpful documentation and examples, then I think it'll be fantastic.  Normally, a wiki wiki in my head looks like there's someone to ask questions about.  When I first found TestWiki, I thought it was some kind of construct (not an actual wiki).  Now I know it is a wiki but I guess I'm still too new to what bureaucrats and admins can do that I don't even know what I can experiment at TestWiki.  What's really confusing is that these 2 RfCs are not linked as far as I can tell but I am assuming I'm reviewing the correct pair.  Public_Test_Wiki_NewLogo.png --Imamy (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Voting)

 * Only registered users may vote on an RfC but unregistered users may comment.

Support (3)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Blad (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  This is ideal. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  AlPaD (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (3)

 * 1) In the sense that I  this request but  the statement that unregistered users are able to comment. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And why do you oppose that? Naleksuh (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because users should be registered to be able to vote. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t believe that unregistered users should get a voice in Miraheze policies if they’re not even really a part of it. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 19:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you just said that you oppose them being able to comment at all. Not just vote. Naleksuh (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3.1 (Voting for accounts made after RfC)

 * Users who registered after an RfC was started may not vote.

Support (3.1)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Blad (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ideal. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  AlPaD (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (3.1)

 * 1)  no rationale provided and discourages newcomer participation. If you wish to decrease sock/meatpuppets, CheckUser exists. EpicPupper (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with EricPupper, while this makes sense for something like an RfA where they only last for a week so any account after it started would be very new, either likely a sockpuppet or complete fresh meat, RFCs can sometimes run for months and would actually be a way to lock out real users. For example Collei was created after some current RFCs on Meta, but is allowed to vote on them. Naleksuh (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Timeframe)

 * Requests for Comment must stay open for at least five days. They can be closed before that if they are out of scope, malformed or if it is clear that there is no chance of consensus.

Support (4)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd better support 7 days, but this is fine. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm more in favor of 7 days, per above. Blad (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  AlPaD (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (4)

 * 1) I would support 7 days. MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  EpicPupper (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Consensus)

 * No minimum threshold or support ratio exists for Requests for Comments. The closer will use their discretion to decide whether consensus has been reached on a proposal.

Support (5)

 * 1)  as proposer.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This is fine. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Blad (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ugochimobi (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  no bureaucracy needed. EpicPupper (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  AlPaD (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)  Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)