TestWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Proposal : Demo bot proxy blocking on test wiki
Hello. There's currently an actively ongoing request to block many more proxies globally across all of Miraheze, it's supposed to be done already but in practice hasn't been taken care of that well. There's a new system upcoming designed to block more proxies by using Wikimedia's list. I would like to demo this on test wiki given that 1) it is a test wiki after all 2) there is a huge spam problem here. Any objections? Also, thoughts from consuls User:Reception123 User:Void Naleksuh (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t believe this is a vote, but I would this request. We can test this out here, and if it works we can expand to the rest of Miraheze in time. If not, no skin off our backs. I have faith this will work as we haven’t been great about blocking proxies in the past. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 23:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would ideally like at least one consul to input before I place 40000+ blocks, that kind of thing is not easy to reverse. (Though they can be short i.e. ~1 week during the trial period, and only longer during longterm use). Any thoughts from uninvolved users so far? Naleksuh (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can not support this, a bot like this should ONLY be ran by a user whom has experience with global permissions on Miraheze, for example current or former CVT, Stewards, sysadmins, ect. A bot of this type has severe consequences if it has to many false positives, one that only those people would have experience handling. At this moment, Void has been working on a bot to handle this sort of thing. I have also been doing separate work on reviving Proxybot. This request is a complete no from me, and this vote will not change. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Void's sources missed proxies, which is why this request was started. There is currently only an import task, which I asked Reception123 to comment on. Also, this isn't a vote, so there's no vote to change. Naleksuh (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I will note that you don’t have the authority to single-handedly overrule this request. Your comment is noted and has been added to the record, but you cannot overrule this request just because you oppose it. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They actually weren't trying to overrule it, they were just "voting" on a thing that wasn't a vote. Though I do note that they specifically defined experience as "current or former CVT" so that they would qualify but not me. Naleksuh (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I specified what I did is because those peoples would have experience with global permissions on Miraheze. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the only one who doesn’t like this idea, consuls do talk to each other you know. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From a technical perspective it is almost 100% impossible to not miss open proxies. Simply taking WMF’s block list is disruptive, as there are no checks in place to make sure said blocks are still valid. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire point of a test wiki is to test. I wouldn’t be opposed to trying it out and seeing if it works. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 19:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Consul request
Hello, I am asking if I could become a consul or not because I have done a lot of things. Cigaryno (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Users can become consul after being elected. Your request however is very early and much more experienced and users who have been here for a long time aren't consuls. There are probably enough consuls right now as well so there's not really a need for any more. I'd advise against hat collecting. Reception123 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will request in 3-6 weeks. Cigaryno (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn’t recommend that. You’d likely need at least 3-6 months of experience, as well as being an extremely trusted member of the community. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, as I say there's really no need for other Consuls right now in my opinion. Consul isn't something you set a 'target date' to become. As I say, please do resist the temptation to hat collect. Reception123 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Users unblocking themself
Hi all,

Recently a user has been evading their topic ban multiple times, without any regard for the seriousness of this and reinforcing why it was made in the first place. I temporarily blocked this user for 3 days, and considered removing their sysop permissions to prevent them from unblocking themself but decided not to because I thought I could trust them not to.

Apparently not, because they ended up unblocking themselves.

While sysops do have the unblockself permission, my understanding of this is that it is supposed to be because of test blocks by sysops. I certainly don't think it is OK for users to be unblocking themselves as the recipient of actions, and I don't think anyone else would either.

It doesn't appear anyone else has commented on this problem, as due to the recent stepping down of the two most active consuls. The only user who had a chance to review this problem only reviewed the technical aspects of it. As a result, I think the community should make a plan on how to handle this situation.

Since there isn't an active community at this time, if there are not any objections from anyone (other than BrandonWM themself) I will reinstate the block as an emergency measure. While I was initially under the impression that this would constitute wheel warring, I realized that the policy generally only applies to other sysops reversing actions, and is not intended to apply to users receiving blocks, and this would almost certainly be considered block evasion by any reasonable person. However, I don't have any plans on how to solve this problem long-term, other than either via removing unblockself from sysops (might cause problems for testing blocks?) or a bot that removes them (depending on who blocked). Naleksuh (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest that only bureaucrats and consuls have this right. AlPaD (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We may create another blocking level rather than current blocks which only available for crat's and consuls. Current blocks may use for testing purposes. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I don't think another blocking level is possible, my suggestion would be to use wgRevokePermissions and to create a new group that can be assigned to users blocked for serious reasons so that they are unable to unblock themselves. Reception123 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, I agree! AlPaD (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At that point, why not simply remove the sysop permissions? Naleksuh (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, does the community believe BrandonWM's block was valid? I had said before if there were no objections I would reblock them. One user claimed the block was a "clear error" but did not have a convincing case as to why. I think the topic ban violation is clearly verifiable, see talk page for that, and does not appear to be in error. I would assume by the comments the community agrees it is valid but most people are talking about the problem in general and not this specific case. Naleksuh (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, that even if admins don't have the right to unblock themselves, if it's a partial block the user isn't considered "blocked" so they can still do it. Probably only removing administrator permission is feasibility. AlPaD (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that it appears that if you have talk page access on you can also delete and protect your talk page. Also also, a blocked user who is a sysop can still block the person who blocked them, this change is because of compromised sysop accounts. Naleksuh (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Void had the hard-line restrictions removed. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 23:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BrandonWM, you are correct, as per what is clearly stated on your talk page both by myself and Void.
 * Everyone else, please check his talk page before jumping to conclusions and give him a break. I regret blocking him.￼ Kiko4564 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Void did not remove the restrictions. They removed Kiko4564's block and suggested reducing the restrictions. You are ignoring the fact that you violated your topic ban and also unblocked yourself, which is a much more important problem. In addition, a consul has already participated in this discussion and proposed a solution to the problem of users unblocking themself, despite Kiko4564 pretending it was completely fine for users to do that as long as they themself believe the block was wrong. And even if they were removed, you still violated them prior to that comment. Trying to excuse the fact that you violated the topic ban and also the fact that the edits were disruptive just reinforces why there was a need for a topic ban to have been made in the first place. Naleksuh (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per our conversation on IRC, I am posting my rationale for using the  permission. I believe the block was wrongly made and poorly justified. I had received messages of support from other crats in the hours before using the permission, and as such I felt comfortable in using it. If I had been alone in believing the block was wrong, I wouldn't have removed it, and instead elected to wait for another member of the community to remove the block. Void had also removed the hard-line restrictions, and as my edits were non-disruptive, there was no need for a block. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 04:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not true at all.
 * I had received messages of support from other crats in the hours before using the permission Actually, no, you received no such messages between being blocked and unblocking yourself. There were no messages of support from other crats when you decided on your own it was wrong and removed it. Even after the fact only one person agreed that it was OK for you to unblock yourself (not "other crats" plural) - with four users including a consul agreeing it was not OK.
 * and as such I felt comfortable in using it You shouldn't have. It will never be OK for a user to unblock themself, especially as seen in this discussion. If it was really that bad someone else will. There's no need for you to remove it yourself.
 * If I had been alone in believing the block was wrong, I wouldn't have removed it You were. And if you weren't, why didn't those people remove it?
 * Void had also removed the hard-line restrictions Again, Void did not remove the restrictions. What Void actually said was: I propose the restriction be reduced down to a general recommendation against making any "official" style changes without prior on-wiki approval, and an understanding that less leniency will be given in the event of future disruption. - the restrictions were not removed and remain in effect. In addition, I would call this the less leniency in the event of future disruption, as will be seen soon.
 * s my edits were non-disruptive Firstly, it doesn't matter whether they were disruptive. You violated your topic ban and that's not okay. Topic bans are enforced by blocking the user if they violate it. If you believed you could have made good edits in those areas, you should have requested removal, not simply violated it. As explained before, A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.. Amen. I don't think I could have said it better myself.
 * And secondly, they were disruptive. For example this unnecessary removal, this innapropriate self-handling, and interacting with other users.
 * Because of this, I do not see any valid justification for your actions. In addition, several users have agreed it is not okay for recipients of non-test blocks to unblock themselves, instead taking any of their concerns to a bureaucrat or consul. In addition, the original block has not been proven to be incorrect, and continues to only show to be more and more justified with the user attempting to justify their topic-ban evasion and justification of self-unblocks, repeating the behavior that led to that in the first place and reminding me of why they were blocked and locked originally in 2020, despite their claims to have changed. Because of this, I propose that the original block is reinstated. Please leave your thoughts and / or concerns below. Naleksuh (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In which case User:Naleksuh, please wait for a Consul to attend to this incident and deal with this directly, instead of wheel warring with a Consul over whether or not User:BrandonWM ought to be blocked or not, even partially. I've blocked User:BrandonWM myself, and all I said was that if User:Void deemed it fit to remove the block I imposed, then so be it, and if you don't think that User:BrandonWM should've been unblocked, then you were in the wrong to engage in a wheel war, and therefore (on this occasion) User:BrandonWM was right to remove the block because: 1) it was wrong, having resulted from clear cut wheel warring and based on restrictions which had already been removed and 2) I agreed that it was right to remove it since I believed that it was a clear cut mistake. If the incident isn't serious enough to warrant desysoping, then my opinion is that it cannot serious enough to warrant a serious block. However I could be wrong. If you disagree, then please discuss the matter civilly instead of wheel warring. I never pretended that it was OK for an admin to unblock themselves just because they disagree with the block. If it were, then almost everyone would unblock themselves. Thanks. Kiko4564 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * discuss the matter civilly instead of wheel warring I did not wheel war. BrandonWM removed the block, and it has not been reinstated since. It may be reinstated when this discussion is closed, as consensus is that it is not okay for users to unblock themself. But I certainly have not wheel warred. In fact, this thread was specifically to avoid doing so.
 * BrandonWM was right to remove the block Consensus is in this thread that it is never okay for serious-blocked users to unblock themself. There will never be a situation in which the user who was blocked was right to remove the block. And even if there was, this situation would not be one of them.
 * restrictions which had already been removed For the third time, Void specifically said they proposed removing the restrictions, which did not gain much support and I personally would oppose. As of now the restrictions remain in effect. Please stop saying they were removed both because Void did not say that and even if they did I'm not sure consuls are allowed to unliterally do that.
 * To any uninvolved consuls now is a good time to close this discussion which has already run its course. Four users including a consul agree that self-unblocks are not OK, and by extension I believe they should be considered block evasion. In the words of Reception123 one of the uninvolved participants and a consul, [They] should've just asked another bureaucrat or consul though, not taken things into [their] own hands Naleksuh (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, we'll agree to disagree then. I'm just saying that had you continued, the result would've been a wheel war. Thanks for not doing that. I'll let Void explain their actions personally. Kiko4564 (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

AutoImport and old requests for permissions
Hello! This bot has archived the topics in Archive 12 instead of archive 13. Could someone please see it? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for Consulship
Hi everyone, I'm Agent Isai and I'm requesting local  here on. While I'm not the most active here on TestWiki due to my other global responsibilities such as being a Steward, I do check in every so often and generally have to look in to this wiki every few days due to other cross-wiki cases such as abuse by socks and so on. The reason for requesting the bit is because the current Consuls seem to be inactive. Dmehus used to be the main handler of things like inactivity demotions but he, nor has anyone else, handled this since May which is concerning. There are also a few other tasks which sometimes seem to drag on due to the inactivity of the current consuls so I'd like to help the upkeep of this community which is vital to Miraheze as it serves as a testbed for many users. Thank you for your consideration. Agent Isai Talk to me! 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Trusted, experienced, active user and steward. AlPaD (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) --Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Question: Regarding RFP, you declined an RFP who used the reason  asking what testing they wanted to do, but accepted an RFP with the reason   with no questions just 27 hours later. Any reason for the inconsistency? Naleksuh (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said on #miraheze-cvt, I asked for clarification about the first user's RfP as they already had an account with bureaucrat and sysop so I was wondering what they needed to test with yet a second account. As for accepting the second user's RfP, our standards for accepting RfPs are rather low. We do seem to grant users sysop (and even bureaucrat it seems) if users request it with a one or two word request. I did also note that I did it in part to see what the second user would do as it was suspected that they were a sockpuppet of a community banned user and it did end up that they were a sock. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Since activity doesn't really apply here, then AI is good to go. Ugochimobi (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Steward, trusted user. They’re an exceptionally good caretaker of the community. Happy to support. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 00:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 00:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Universal Omega (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Blad (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Enable PortableInfoboxCreator
I would like to request that a bureaucrat enable this as I need it for template testing and I lack bureaucratic rights. Blad (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Blad, do you mean you want bureaucrat permissions? If you want it, you can request it at RfP after 3 more edits. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not. I was requesting a bureaucrat to enable an extension as I lack those rights. If I were able to request bureaucrat, I would've gone there instead. Blad (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry. I don't understand exactly what you want. I expect a response by other crat or consul. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aright, that's fine. Blad (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What extension is PortableInfoboxCreator? It doesn't seem to exist. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be this one. I had made an error in the extension name. Blad (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blad, this has now been ✅ per your reasonable request. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2022-11-11
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2022-11-19 if they do not return to activity:


 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * not active
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * not active
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * not active
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * not active
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to retain my permission. Thanks for the notification. Stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please remove my flag, it is no longer needed. Thanks.  Stang  17:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Log) Syunsyunminmin (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What is this?
When I tap the three dots next to “Create Account”, this option appears

606ms (PHP7 via testwiki@mw121 / / cp23

what is this and how can I remove it? 2001:8004:51C0:2705:9832:C0F5:A666:7350 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the JS bit that does this as it was intended as a test initially. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2023-01-08
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2023-01-15 if they do not return to activity:


 * Active since then
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below
 * per below

For the Consuls, Agent Isai Talk to me! 01:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Agent Isai Please retain my rights, thanks. SD hehua (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still here. Just a little busy though!  Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ from users who did not reply. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User Rights
What is the user group "Test Group"? Elijah Wilder (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's so you can test with it. Naleksuh (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

TestWiki RFC
Hello everyone. These are some proposals I have thought about for a while, and some people also discussed off-wiki. Discuss if you agree with them or not.

Proposal 1: Change the domain of test wiki from publictestwiki.com to test.miraheze.org
Reasoning: I find custom domains to not work well and have issues, and the publictestwiki.com domain in particular is a clunky one. It also disconnects the wiki from Miraheze. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (4)

 * 1) Absolutely. No clue why a domain that wasn't .miraheze.org was used. This is a Miraheze project, it should be treated as such. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't officially (see proposal 2 + Agent Isai's Meta RfC). Naleksuh (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It's better as link. AlPaD (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Naleksuh (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) sunk cost fallacy isn't a good reason to keep the domain. Collei (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) I support the inversion as proposed by Naleksuh for the existing domain to prevent breakages with existing links.  If the intent (as I read it from context) is no longer to maintain a stand-alone non-miraheze instance for wiki testing, we should phase out discrete domains where it isn't relevant. --NotAracham (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * good idea Collei (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

 * 1)  The timing of this proposal is quite unfortunate since the domain was just renewed and paid for a few days ago. I don't believe wasting money is a good idea and we've had this domain for 7.5 years now so another year wouldn't hurt. Otherwise this discussion was had at launch and it was thought that it would be more appealing to have a custom domain rather than just have "test.miraheze.org" which could appear as just being a test wiki in the sense of sysadmins testing stuff, kind of like what Beta is. Either way, if this would be done I'd suggest at least waiting till the domain expiry so the money wasn't spent for nothing. As for claims that custom domains "don't work well", I haven't encountered any issues with domains so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Reception123 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But you supported test wiki becoming an official Miraheze project. That can't happen if the domain doesn't move to Miraheze. As for paying for the domain, this is a slightly more valid issue, however, the flipside is that the domain was renewed without consensus to do so, so they essentially took a gamble on spending their own money. So, do you oppose changing the domain, or do you support it becoming a Miraheze project? It can't be both. Naleksuh (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the money wouldn't be "spent for nothing" because the redirect would still work but in reverse. Naleksuh (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding consensus to renew the domain, the fact that it's been renewed each year during 7 years before means that there was implicit consensus to renew it again given the community didn't initiate these proposals before. It wouldn't make sense to have to ask every year if the community agrees to renew the domain again, I'm almost certain that no other wiki with a custom domain does this. As for the official project argument, having a custom domain doesn't mean that it can't be an official project in my opinion. Reception123 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, because then it's not on a Miraheze domain. I think other people pointed this out on IRC before. Imagine our list of projects being dev.miraheze.org, commons.miraheze.org, meta.miraheze.org, publictestwiki.com... what absurdity that would be. Naleksuh (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * sunk cost fallacy Collei (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Make TestWiki an "official" Miraheze project
Not sure if this needs to be discussed on Meta, but a good idea for 1) what is already defacto the case 2) makes it easier to point people requesting test wikis here. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (2)

 * 1) I believe this is already a thing, so this move should just be for procedural purposes. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) per RfC on Meta.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  per RfC on Meta. Reception123 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above. AlPaD (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above. Tali64³ (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  good idea, same as others, also maybe the support !vote count needs to be fixed, seems wrong. Collei (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  reiterating my support here. --NotAracham (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Remove inactivity exemptions
The majority of them are not granted for great reasons (in particular, just being a consul is not a good reason, and arguably inactivity should apply more to consuls than to sysops/bureaucrats). I would be open to keeping one or two of them but that is all. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (3)

 * 1) There's not really a point for all them exemptions, I agree with Naleksuh. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 16:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Test out proxy blocking here
This was discussed before but discussion fizzled out. This is one possible solution to the spam problem on test wiki. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (4)

 * 1) This seems reasonable, it is a test wiki after all. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 16:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments (4)

 * 1) We do want to implement StopForumSpam globally after the 1.39 update, as WMF does want to do eventually, so it may be best to also see how that pans out first. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) As I've said before, any implementation where Stewards/GS can't verify which IPs are blocked (and be able to generate such a list ourselves) it wouldn't be acceptable. Reception123 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As the primary user involved in this proxy-blocking idea is you, what would be your preferred format for how this proxy blocking would work on TestWiki? If it's a larger discussion, perhaps it should be a separate RfC, and if there's some level of disagreement on how the whole thing would shake out, an advisory post could be made on the Meta community noticeboard to see what the Miraheze community thinks about the proposal. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main idea would be that any list of IPs would have to be able to be generated by Stewards with set parameters. As in, we wouldn't accept a large list of IPs presented by a non-Steward user where we have no way of verifying exactly how it was generated and the possibility of false positives. Any mass-blockings should also be coordinated with SRE to avoid issues such as the CVTbot which happened yesterday. I'm only referring to the global level of course, since "test out here" implies that it's eventually meant to apply globally.Reception123 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Stewards have no role in test wiki. It's not their concern what local blocks are placed here. The only hold-up I see is the CVTbot related issue. Naleksuh (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is an edit conflict. I still don't see why exactly the actions of one person become the responsibility of an independent group of individuals (i.e. there is no "collection of stewards"). Naleksuh (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be one Steward but my point is the responsibility to block IPs belongs to Stewards and Global Sysops and at least speaking for myself I can't just accept a list if I can't confirm how it was generated. Reception123 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, then why don't you confirm the list then? Or maybe I will take myself over to RfGR. Naleksuh (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Change test wiki logo
This was not something I personally thought about, but other people discussed. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (5)

 * 1) Would be nice, the old logo is quite outdated. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about it and this proposal can't really go anywhere. What happens if this proposal is successful but there's no logo to change it to? Naleksuh (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CosmicAlpha is currently developing a new logo for TestWiki. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to see it before I !vote. What if I prefer the current one? Naleksuh (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm not sure if CosmicAlpha has gotten around to creating the logo yet, I know he's extremely busy, what with the impending MediaWiki 1.39 update in a few hours and such. After that is complete, I can try and follow up with him, though he's already pinged here so I suppose he'll see it regardless in a bit. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 18:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (5)

 * 1)  If someone thinks they can design a better version I've got nothing against that, but at the same time I do like the current one. Reception123 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Adjusting the TestWiki Consuls Policy
Hi everyone,

I’d like to propose a series of changes to the TestWiki Consuls Policy. Please note that no proposal in this Request for Comment is mutually exclusive to another. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Add a revocation criteria that states that if the user has been inactive for a period of 6 months or more (log actions, edits, any contributions to TestWiki in any manner), their rights will be removed. They of course, can request admin or bureaucrat at RfP at any time, or consul here.

Support (1)
As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2
The appointment requirement for consuls is 75% with at least 5 users leaving their comments. The request also must be left open for at least 7 days.

Support (2)
As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3
The revocation requirement (when it comes to community revocation requests and not inactivity or misuse of rights, etc.) for consuls is 60%, with at least 5 users voting and the request being left open for at least 7 days.

Proposal 4
Consuls have the ability to demote other consuls, as opposed to only a Steward.