TestWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Requests for Comment
Hi everyone. Due to the recent influx of Requests for Comment here on TestWiki, I have created a separate page for them at Requests for Comment. I have also moved two RfCs from here to there. You are all invited to comment on them, they are Requests for Comment/Proposals (proposed by Naleksuh) and Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy (proposed by BrandonWM). Thank you! Agent Isai Talk to me! 07:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, two is not an "influx". Second, you shouldn't have just started moving other people's comments without a discussion or at least a delay. Maybe I'll move your comment to Talk:Rollback test next? Naleksuh (talk)
 * If it were on topic for the page and are more appropriate for there, yes, are they though? No. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Improvements to Test Wiki

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This RfC is closed as follows:
 * Proposal 1 - Unsuccessful.
 * Proposal 2 - Unsuccessful by virtue of Meta RfC being unenforceable.
 * Proposal 3 - Already done so moot.
 * Proposal 4 - No real discussion occured so unsuccessful.
 * Proposal 5 - This does not really define what any such logo to replace the current logo would look like so unsuccessful. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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 (1)

 * 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)
 * 1)  per Reception123, but also because (a) this is a solution in search of a problem and because (b) the decision on the primary web address for the wiki is in scope of Consuls. Dmehus (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Reception123 is invalid per sunk cost fallacy.
 * It is not a solution to a problem. It is an enhancement to expand Miraheze's official projects. That's not the same as a solution.
 * Then let's summon the Consuls to vote as well. Also, do you have a source for that?
 * Collei (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the expended cost on the domain was something with which I specifically agreed. The issue is that the proponent has proposed that the custom domain is a problem when it is. As Reception123 articulated, I see no reason why we should not allow officially community-sanctioned wikis to have custom domains. There's also the issue with the Betaheze wikis used for system administrator testing. Those used to be called Test 2 Wiki, Test 3 Wiki, and so forth. Their subdomains currently redirect to Betaheze, which is a problem. Dmehus (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's different because that's a technical limitation. You're trying to say that this should be a seperate domain by design. A Miraheze project should be on a Miraheze domain. Could you seriously imagine something like:
 * Here's our list of projects:
 * dev.miraheze.org
 * commons.miraheze.org
 * meta.miraheze.org
 * publictestwiki.com
 * That's absurd. I also don't like that domain in general, and have thought it should be removed even before the official-izing, this just gives it even more of a reason. And yes, all of Reception123's points have been addressed by supporters, so opposing per those doesn't make much sense unless you have something new to say, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) per Reception and that I prefer the custom domain as it denotes it even more as a public space for testing Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by per Reception? Reception's argument is a sunk cost fallacy, you haven't explained why it's correct. Collei (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are multiple issues with it, not just that. But yes, everything Reception123 has said has already been addressed by multiple people. Discussions are not votes, so "oppose per Reception123" without adding new information is not helpful. Naleksuh (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, many of the supports to making test wiki an official project were only done on the condition that the custom domain was removed, so to make it an official project without removing the custom domain would wrong these users. In addition, the custom domain is not controlled by Miraheze. Since it looks like there is pretty much all there is to say, consensus continues to form here and on Meta, and opposers are just going in circles I would like this request to be closed soon and the domain updated Naleksuh (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 20:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So, "per above" is a sunk cost fallacy. Have you considered responding to that concern yet? Collei (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  After having giving this a lot of thought, and weighing both oppositions and supports, I have decided to oppose this proposal. I know I previously stated on the metawiki RfC that I would be against it keeping a custom domain, if it became official, however after having carefully weighed all sides to thus argument, my opinion on the matter as slightly swayed to the point of supporting keeping the custom domain. A custom domain for the test wiki, such as the current, publictestwiki.com, helps to distinguish it from other similar wikis, such as potential SRE test wikis (even though I know we don't have any on the miraheze.org domain, others wont be so aware, and reverting to test.miraheze.org brings this possible confusion to light). This distinction gives the test wiki a unique identity and makes it stand out as a separate entity. Additionally, having a custom domain allows the test wiki to be easily recognisable and memorable, which can be especially useful for users who need to frequently access it. As for the point of where it becomes inconsistent when listing the official wikis, this is not necessarily true. It can still be advertised as an official wiki like test.miraheze.org (and test still uses test.miraheze.org) I do not see why we would list it as an official wiki as publictestwiki.com, for all official wiki advertising of the domain, it would still be done as test.miraheze.org. This was a difficult decision to oppose, but for the reasons I have articulated, I am. Universal Omega (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue though is that test.miraheze.org usually redirects to publictestwiki.com when a MediaWiki redirect is taking place, though if it's a valid page both links will work. Therefore, the issue would be an official wiki on the publictestwiki.com domain (which also isn't a Miraheze-controlled domain). Naleksuh (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then change the URL to something like publictesting.miraheze.org or whatever. Collei (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Originally, I wasn't going to vote on this proposal, but after looking at it and carefully considering the supporting and opposing arguments, I've decided to oppose, mainly for two reasons: 1) since the RfC on Meta to make TestWiki an official project failed on the basis of there being no "official" Miraheze projects, there is no reason to change the domain to "test.miraheze.org", which was the whole point of the proposal to remove the custom domain; 2) since the custom domain has been around for so long, it's been linked to a lot, and is even linked in one of the reasons for declining wiki requests. Removing it would leave two options: redirect it to "test.miraheze.org" and continue renewing the domain, which would not save any money, or redirect it to "test.miraheze.org" and let the custom domain expire, which would break a lot of old links and potentially risk having the custom domain being acquired and used for malicious purposes. Additionally, some users agree that the timing of this proposal was poor, since this proposal was started around the time the custom domain was renewed again, but there are arguments against that claim. Tali64³ (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments (1)

 * 1) Forgive me if this was already covered but wouldn't it be possible for the domain to be placed under Board/Miraheze control, thus making it an official domain and minimizing the issue? The fact that testwiki primarily functions for the Miraheze platform is a good reason otherwise to me for making it test.miraheze.org (consistency with other satellite projects) but if we have a cool domain that people like then this would seem to be a decent compromise. --Raidarr (talk) 22:19, 23 February 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)

MEMO FOR CLOSING STEWARD/CONSUL: This section of the RfC serves as an endorsement of an RfC currently underway on Meta. Unless both this proposal and the proposal on Meta ✅, the proposal would not be implemented. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 07:19, 3 February 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)
 * 8) per Agent and Reception. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:09, 3 February 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)
 * It'd be extremely tedious to do that. I'd rather we let SFS handle the bulk of it. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One point about the StopForumSpam extension. Unless something's changed, my understanding is the IP ranges need to be regularly updated. One of the things on my to-do list, when I was a Steward, was to create a Phabricator task to request that we set up a script on a cron to regularly update the list of blacklisted IPs. But yes, I agree that StopForumSpam is the ideal way to handle this. Dmehus (talk) 02:06, 30 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)
 * 1) but only if I like the new logo. Collei (talk) 19:49, 29 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)
 * 2)  I don't like carte blanche. I will look at the logo that will be changed and make a decision. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (5)

 * 1)  for a couple reasons. Firstly, if one proposes to update the logo, the new logo, or a series of logos, should be presented for discussion. Second, while this logo is basic, it's sort of grown on TestWiki over the past seven 7 years or so, and I think everyone's gotten to know it. Dmehus (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The new logo would be presented for discussion, as far as I'm aware.
 * You "think" so? Is there any evidence that a significant number of people would be unhappy with the change? Collei (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a proposal to change the logo without a new logo is kind of silly, and also impossible (what happens if it passes, but there's no logo to change to?). And I am kind of a status quo person. But, I don't think it's that big a deal and isn't super awesome. If MediaWiki can change their logo after 17 years of having the same one, why not Test Wiki in only 7? Naleksuh (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but as you say, without one or more logos, or graphical logo ideas for inspiration, around which to have a discussion, this is a case of putting the proverbial cart before the horse, I'm afraid. :) Dmehus (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposal is that we design a new logo. The proposal is not to change the logo to X. Collei (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Actually, I thought about it and I'm not sure that's so silly after all. It's avoiding the repeat of the reCAPTCHA problem. People couldn't settle on a replacement for reCAPTCHA, and one SRE member took that as evidence that everyone was fine with reCAPTCHA, even though many people had spoken out with problems about it and made it clear that some sort of change should happen. People also opposed hCaptcha for having the same problem as reCAPTCHA, which that user was trying to claim didn't exist. So, it's not a bad idea to have a discussion of this, just to see if people would like a change. If there was a new logo, people might oppose just because "I would like a change but not to that". So, this tells us if people want a change, or not. Naleksuh (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict update: This is an amendment to my own previous comment, not a reply to Dmehus. The cart thing makes no sense. Naleksuh (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  to a vote of change for change's sake. If a specific improvement comes along, by all means. If people are interested in brainstorming, they're free to do so for its own sake irrespective of this. --Raidarr (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments (5)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Proposed new TestWiki logo (from above RfC discussion)
The RfC for a new logo was recently closed with the rational: This does not really define what any such logo to replace the current logo would look like so unsuccessful. I personally liked the previous logo, but just thought it needed a little updating. Please voice your opinion on this logo that I have made. LC Developer (talk)



Voting:

 * 1) LC Developer (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments:
If anyone has any suggestions for how the logo can be improved,(minor changes, not fundamental design changes) please place them below. LC Developer (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2023-03-20
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2023-03-27 if they do not return to activity, pursuant to the Inactivity policy:


 * Active since then, per reply
 * Requested removal
 * now active.
 * Requested removal
 * now active.
 * Requested removal
 * 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.

For the Consuls, Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Request retention of rights. --1108-Kiju (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I begin removing the rights of inactive users? Or can you? LC Developer (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only consuls are permitted to as far as I am aware. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All users except 50829! and Thingofme, and those who are now active, have been removed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please enable translation
Please enable translation of Consuls.--1108-Kiju (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it ok to upload a file in this wiki (for testing) and then deleting it or request deletion of it after testing?
Hi. :) Is it ok to upload a file in this wiki (for testing) and then deleting it or request deletion of it after testing? Mat333o (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, there have been tests of file uploads before. Naleksuh (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but what if the file is copyrighted? The file that I want to upload for testing is the cover of a single. Mat333o (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for Consul

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ Per all opposes, this is too soon and doesn't have a chance of passing. User is invited to contribute more to Miraheze, and one day may re-request these rights. Today is not that day, but that is not to say that day will never come. Just not today. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 04:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself for Consul AirmanKitten203 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * . You have 35 contributions, most in your userspace. You have granted few to no permissions and you aren't very active. You have also removed rights from a user that was inactive, even though only consuls should do so. I think there is a need for consuls, but we aren't this desperate. I would become more active, grant more permissions, and get more edits for a few months before requesting. I have also noticed you are a hat-collecter crosswiki and I think this shows that. You have also not given a reason for wanting consul rights or why you are qualified. Globe (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also cannot support a user that forgot to sign or punctuate their nomination statement. Globe (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would note that forgetting signatures is a common thing, I forget to do so all the time, so that's not really a big deal. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 03:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I forget too, but if you want to nominate yourself for a position as trustworthy as consul, please sign your statement. @BrandonWM: The signing is minor compared to the other issues I have described above. Globe (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You must demonstrate activity for at least 6 months. Oppose. LisafBia (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above. Will be closing as such per WP:SNOW. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 04:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section