TestWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Please give feedback on template:Do not archive until
Please give feedback on template:Do not archive until.Adjusted to take into account that auto-archiving will take place two weeks later.See also Autoarchive.Thank you for your cooperation.--松 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the Meta archive templates. These are the ones that use a bot to archive them when you tag a thread with that template, correct? In any case, I would only make one small change, by replacing the transclusions of the Template:Intricate redirect with Template:Intricate template, the actual template, so we can delete the extraneous and unneeded redirect. Other than that, seems fine to me. :) Dmehus (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, I think I'm getting confused by the two Meta templates; I would actually prefer us to drop the use of the Revibot automatic archiving as I do feel 14 days is too short and, since Revi has "de-facto retired" from the Miraheze wikis, it's unlikely it'll be setup on other wikis. My preference would be to adopt the Wikimedia Meta method of archiving whereby a different bot archives the thread when a human editor has tagged it with an applicable "okay to archive" template. Dmehus (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice.The replacement is complete.I think that the proposal to Revibot itself needs the proposal to meta RfC.--松 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think replacing Revibot on Meta would definitely need either a (a) local RfC or (b) some sort of community discussion on the Meta community portal. What do you think? We could possibly replace, though, Revibot on TestWiki without too much discussion, as long as we talked it over with RhinosF1 and/or Void (the two most active consuls here). By the way, are you the same Pine from Wikimedia's Outreach Wiki? Dmehus (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but unfortunately, the "松・Pine・Matsu" account could not be created because it has already been acquired.I'm thinking about when to reissue the suggestion requesting the introduction of this template in the Community noticeboard of meta.It might be better to collect opinions on testwiki.--松 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Where can I find a page on the testwiki where I can check if the template I created this time works as expected? (i.e.Where is Revibot valid page?)--松 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've checked Rightsbot and I'm worried that if Revibot doesn't exist on this wiki, I can't test how the archive works on testwiki.--松 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were trying to design an archiving system without Revibot? As far as I'm aware, I don't think Revibot is set up on Public Test Wiki; it's just set up on Meta. Maybe I'm a bit unclear on what the end goal of this template is. If it's just about telling Revibot not to archive threads before a certain period of time, why don't we just increase the days to archive value on Meta? Dmehus (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please　see Template:Bump(Template:Bump).--松 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Saw it. What did you want me to look at? That just effectively works like a relisting template by adding a timestamp to prevent a thread from being archived, no? Dmehus (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I discussed and RfC rules.At that time, I came to the conclusion that I had to delay archiving the Community noticeboard during the draft period.The original template I'm creating now is supposed to be used for pages that will be archived in 2-3 days.Therefore, if we copy it to meta as it is, the archive becomes too slow.Since meta is an important wiki, you should be careful when introducing new templates.So, I'm making a beta version of the template on testWiki and requesting opinions.--松 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw the voting in the CN and resumed the template creation. I changed the name to Template:This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days for clarity of purpose.The name of this template is too long, so I think we need a redirect to a short name.We also need to rename Template:Do not archive until and Template:DNAU.I do not use English on a daily basis, so I would like to ask you, who uses English on a daily basis, for the opinion of the template name.thinks.--松 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)fix.--松 (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to rename Do not archive until and template redirect DNAU? Couldn't we just rename to This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days to Temporary prevention of automatic archiving and have TPAA as a template redirect? Dmehus (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice.The reason we changed the name is that this template was created assuming that it will be archived by Revibot two weeks later.(i.e.If the bot settings are different, another template is required.) It seems good to set the name to Temporary prevention of automatic archiving so that we can select the bot to use instead of entering the comment as the second argument so that it can support multiple bots.--松 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and clarification. Doesn't the template code show a parameter for defining a custom archiving time, though, with the, I think,  parameter? I may have misread the code (was looking quickly), but if that's not the case, perhaps we could add a custom time parameter? Dmehus (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.For the time being, the only bot running on meta is Revibot, so it may be good to maintain the current status.Regarding the time parameter, it may be difficult because there was an explanation unless it corresponds in the original template.--松 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am currently importing a template description page and trying to propagate the template changes to the description page.As for the section Examples, what do you think about reflecting the commented out part?--松 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Community proposal on the future of the

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * There is consensus here to adopt either, or both, proposals 1 and 2. Indeed, nothing in the wording of proposals 1 and 2 indicates that either proposal is a zero-sum proposition. There is a fairly clear consensus against proposal 3 and some consensus, somewhere between a rough consensus and a slightly weak consensus against proposal 4. Accordingly, proposals 1 and 2 are adopted, and the informational page will include both this discussion, as now official community policy, and customs and conventions that evolve over time in terms of suggested granting guidelines. Dmehus (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Earlier this morning, following a discussion with fellow Consul, I took this action, which removed the  user group right from the registered, logged in users group, primarily, because this should be a right that can be granted on a discretionary basis, ideally by any bureaucrat or consul, and revoked for misuse or other discretionary reasons. We have a number of options here, so wanted to put them forward for a community vote and discussion, which will run for at least seven (7) calendar days.

Proposal 1: New Tor users user group
Proposal 1 proposes to establish a new Tor users user group that would be granted to trusted users by any bureaucrat or consul where there's a clear need. Need would be discretionary and formed through customs and conventions that evolve over time. It could be revoked by the same on a similar discretionary, common sense basis.

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. By keeping the granting and revocation discretionary, and open to bureaucrats, we allow this user group right to granted to any trusted registered community user with a clear common sense need and, similarly, we can revoke it for similar broad reasons. Dmehus (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This seems like the best option Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  It makes sense to give bureaucrats this right instead of all users. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have misread. This proposal is not to give bureaucrats the right, it is to make a brand new group separate from bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did note the slight discrepancy in the rationale, but I don't think Reception123 misread the proposal. I think what Reception123 meant was that it could be granted by both Consuls and Bureaucrats, both of whom are trusted. Dmehus (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Interesting idea, lets try it. Bonnedav (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Seems like an unnecessary new group. Since it would only be given to trusted users, it could be applied to an existing group like bureaucrat (the only exception would be if the trust level for it is higher than bureaucrat, but I'm guessing this isn't what dmehus has in mind, since he proposed bureaucrats being able to grant it). Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea behind the separate group is for several reasons. For one thing, not every testing administrator wants to request the  bit, yet they're still trustworthy. Second, as I noted in the rationale, there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking bureaucrat, but where an administrator has either misused   or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right. The idea behind giving bureaucrats the ability to grant and revoke this right is so that trusted bureaucrats, who engage in non-test functions and duties, such as yourself, could be able to revoke this right from administrators on a discretionary basis. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking bureaucrat, but where an administrator has either misused or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right This proposal doesn't solve that, since you're proposing bureaucrats being able to grant it. Either only consuls can grant it, or we just tie it to bureaucrat and revoke the bureaucrat of people who misuse it. I'd say the second, since I can't think of any instance where a user who can't be trusted with tor could be trusted with bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If a bureaucrat re-added to their account the Tor user group, for which they'd been advised the reason(s) for revoking, that would be wheel-warring and likely grounds for removal of at least the  bit, so I did actually consider that possibility, and that's one of the reasons for why I proposed adding it as a separate user group. In other words, if we didn't quite have cause to remove bureaucrat then, we certainly would in that event, as the user was operating contrary to the restriction or right revocation that had been imposed on them. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be tied to bureaucrat though. I don't envision a situation in which a users tor has been revoked, but they should still have bureaucrat. The only advantage to this group would be only consuls granting it, and I don't think that's a good idea and just unneeded bureaucracy. I think the best approach is to give torunblocked to bureaucrat. Naleksuh (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I should've mentioned that it's possible for up two of these proposals (proposals 1 and 2) to pass together. That is, proposal 1 could be implemented for the reasons articulated above, and proposal 2 could be implemented as well, for similar reasons, to reduce the need for trusted bureaucrats who wish to use Tor for testing purposes to be able to do so without adding the extra Tor user hat. Dmehus (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, where you say that the "only advantage to this group would be only consuls granting it," actually, as I outlined, bureaucrats would be able to grant and revoke this user group because we have a good number of trusted bureaucrats (including you) that engage in non-testing 'crat duties and functions, so it makes sense to empower them with this ability. Dmehus (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

 * 1) Neutral I think this would the best choice if TOR started being abused, but right now I don't see that happening. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Add to bureaucrat
Similar to Proposal 1, but the downside is, it would only be able to be revoked by a consul and only where removal of the  bit was justified.

Support

 * 1)  As proposer, as a reasonable second choice. My preference would be Proposal 1, so experienced bureaucrats can revoke it where needed and appropriate, on a discretionary basis. Dmehus (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Viable option, but I still prefer proposal one Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that this is the best option, if it's necessary at all. Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I don't mind this option. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I'm actually thinking both this and 1. Since bureaucrats can add it anyway, why not have it be part of the bureaucrat toolset, that way they don't have to all grant it to themselves. Bonnedav (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question. Absolutely, if there's support for both proposals 1 and 2, it's indeed possible for both proposals to pass, to reduce the need for trusted bureaucrats to add a second Tor user hat to their account. Dmehus (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  No reason why editing via tor should be restricted to crats. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Just eliminate
Section heading says it all.

Oppose

 * 1) Strong, completely goes against the global open proxies policy, albeit they can be overridden, they shouldn't be. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the NOPP. The global policy simply says that users may not edit anonymously from open proxies, and that these are blocked upon discovery at a global level. It does not apply to this situation at all, as it doesn't in any way regulate what local wikis decide regarding editing. A local wiki could block all Tor editing as well as any anonymous editing, and it would have nothing to do with the current policy which only applies to anon editing via open proxies and nothing else. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  I do not believe this to be the right course of action Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) There can be valid uses to be connecting from TOR, and I want to support this, but it is also used for abuse so frequently. Weak oppose. Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

 * 1) Neutral I am neither for or against this proposal, as, I guess, a reasonable third outcome. Dmehus (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm not sure what I think about this so I'm not going to take a side, but I feel that if someone really needs to be using Tor to edit, they should probably just get a global exemption. However, I don't mind if we locally give it to users. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Restore to registered, logged in users group
Again, section heading says it all. I personally wouldn't support this, per my above explanation, but this gives the community an option to have its say.

Support

 * 1)  not only does blocking it go against the global open proxies policy, blocking tor was a really unnecessary and targeted choice, as I am the only one using it.  The main problem here with changing the   right was that no one was abusing it, therefore it shouldn't have been changed. TrustedInstaller (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above regarding the incorrect claim that this in some way violates the NOPP. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * , possibly strong, per my reasons articulated above, as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Four tildes Naleksuh (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I personally don't see why all users would need to be allowed to edit from Tor. Yes, this is a testwiki and we are more lenient but Tor can also be used to evade serious local and global locks. If there is a legitimate use for Tor, a global exemption can be requested. And even if Tor hasn't necessarily be abused yet on testwiki, that doesn't mean we need to wait for it to be abused before taking action. Reception123 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

 * 1)  I really don't have an opinion either way regarding this one. Universal Omega (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion on the Proposals before us

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

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-08-24
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-08-31 if they do not return to activity:
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active

Additionally, the following alternate account(s), with zero edits or log actions and which showed up on the inactivity report, has had its/their user groups removed by Consul action this date.

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ RhinosF1 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Consul Request - Naleksuh
Hey all! Similar to Dmehus' consul request, I am requesting consul as I am the second most active user here (after Dmehus) and believe I have proven myself to be trustworthy and active. I request consul so that I may help the community by importing and gaining consensus about local policies (currently we are just clinging to Wikipedia's policies, which while a fine short-term solution, we should have our own). This includes a much more rounded and polished protection policy (currently, we have way too many pages protected at Consul level, which Dmehus has also been working to fix). I also hope to clerk things such as inactivity requests and in general help the Test wiki much more as I prove myself to be constructive. If there are any questions/comments, let me know. Naleksuh (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment While I have not yet formed an opinion yet and am not necessarily opposed, I do think this may be a case of being too soon. For one thing, my own Consul request only closed a little over a week ago. In my request, I did say I was going to work on draft deletion, protection, and blocking policies, as three of the more important policies here on TestWiki. However, I am cognizant that TestWiki relies a lot on unwritten conventions and customs, as it allows us to be flexible, so am hesitant to propose to implement too many policies as one of our hallmarks is that we don't have very many rules. In terms of the pages protected at Consul level, I did remove Consul protection on two little or unused Consul-protected redirects, and had an initial look at what were Consul-protected, but couldn't see any glaring ones that needed lowering of protection levels. To be honest, as I suggested on IRC, I think we should have a community discussion on what Consul protected pages should be lowered. As far as the inactivity clerking, well, we do have who is still fairly active here. I assisted him this month with that, primarily because he's taking a very short break this week and has been so involved with the MirahezeBots project, trying to get the major version 9 release out (which completely overhauls the code, adds new functionality, and resolves known issues and/or bugs). Dmehus (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having way too many policies is a bit of a bad thing, however, if we find ourselves having to link to Wikipedia policies about things here, I would say this "somewhat" justifies a change. Not that the policies here have to be different. Some can be similar, others can be opposites, depending on what the situation is. Naleksuh (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Give feedback on Template:Delete
I imported and fixed the template from Meta, this can be notified administrator delete. I would like to establish a new deletion policy and become a formal policy. This category's list of page can be deleted by administrator, so can use this template for all users to request deletion. Thanks, –S3097 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say you would like to establish "a new deletion policy and become a formal policy," do you mean on TestWiki or Meta? While we may want to have a formal deletion policy, it needn't be too detailed, and would mainly revolve around after what timeframe other administrators can delete long abandoned userspace sandbox content of long departed former administrators. With regard to this deletion template, it's a good-faith idea, to be sure. And if this were any other wiki, I'd say, "yes, implement it"; however, the number of potential users who would utilize this is very low (I can think of only one, maybe two, non-administrator users who might use it). Since essentially anyone can become an administrator, they can just delete the page for which they're requesting deletion. Dmehus (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree with Dmehus on this one. Since essentially anyone can become an admin, the page can simply just be deleted and I don't think it's necessary for such a template to exist, although it certainly isn't harmful. I think a deletion policy is a good idea but in a different respect (policy of how the deletion tool is used). Naleksuh (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Alias
Can TW become an alias for Project/TestWiki? Naleksuh (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, this was on my list of things to do, actually. What do you think should be the aliases for the other namespaces, other than Main namespace (which doesn't need one)? Dmehus (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're necessary for other namespaces. I have no opposition to them being created if a use is found though. Naleksuh (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've ✅ this then, with TW: the alias for Project: namespace and TWT: the alias for Project talk: namespace, as that seemed logical. Other aliases I would primarily add would be U: for User: namespace; UT: for User talk: namespace; T: for Talk: namespace; and CAT: and CT: for Category: and Category talk: namespaces. The others probably don't really need aliases in the medium term, if at all. Any objections to those as the aliases? Dmehus (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are needed but see no problem with them. Naleksuh (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that non-project shortcuts are on wikipedia's list of perennial proposals. Since we generally try to follow Wikipedia, maybe they should be removed for that reason. Naleksuh (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a big confused because my understanding is that English Wikipedia does have non-project namespace shortcut aliases; however, I was also told by another Consul, if I recall correctly, that English Wikipedia does their namespace shortcut aliases differently than Miraheze. At any rate, I haven't added any of the other aliases yet, so can certainly off for now. Dmehus (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith
Hi everyone. Please see the proposed policy Assume good faith and let me know if you have any problems with it. Otherwise, it can be set to policy page. Naleksuh (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-09-22
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-09-29 if they do not return to activity:

Thanks,
 * RhinosF1 (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 14:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ per the Inactivity report. Dmehus (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Forum error
I attempted to close a test forum topic, but got a MediaWiki exception for database query error. Anyone else experiences this? Naleksuh (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When the conditions of the abuse filter are met, a database query error was displayed, but I'm not sure if it is related to this case.--松 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't tried to close a forum topic, but I do get similar errors when editing a forum's description or adding forum description that exceeds 255 characters. That's likely a bug and should be upstreamed (assuming Wikimedia Phabricator handles that). I also plan on creating an upstream task to revamp the extension's error handling to instead reject the user's input where it's not acceptable (i.e., descriptions greater than 255 characters). For that reason, I don't plan on using the WikiForum extension here for anything other than strictly testing purposes, at least until most of the bugs are fixed. Dmehus (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to adapt an archive bot to this page and Rp, what about the time to archive?
Would you want it to be the same as meta?--松 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think an archive bot is necessary here. Especially for pages like cp that should definitely be manual archive. Naleksuh (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I wondered about enabling archiving on the community portal, but given the length some discussions may stay open for (usually can be closed after 5-7 calendar days, but some may need longer, to encourage participation), I tend to agree with Naleksuh here that this page should be manually archived. I must say, though, that I am generally quite happy to have Request permissions being automatically archived again, and on a shorter timeframe (14 days versus the previous 60 s d when Revibot last operated here). Dmehus (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Amended 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC) by Dmehus (talk)
 * 60 s as in 60 seconds? Revibot only wakes up every 24 hours (and do nothing for the rest of the day), so anything less than 1d or 24h practically becomes 24h. &mdash; revi  16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash;revi LOL, no I meant 60d, yeah. Thanks for the head's up on my inadvertent typo. Dmehus (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment.Certainly, this page also seems to double as a meta RfP.By the way, if we manually archive a section that uses a ping template, wouldn't we ping it again?--松 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Echo requires the signature of the editor for their "ping" to function [to be precise, either one of (userpage|user talk|contribs page)], in this case Revibot, and Revibot never signs their post. &mdash; revi  14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for teaching me.--松 (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-10-19
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-10- if they do not return to activity: Thanks,
 * ; now active
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * ; now active; subsequently resigned
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to use the rights within the near future? If you don't, you can always just ask for them back then rather than make 1 edit every few months. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am really very busy with my personal life. If you'd like to remove then go ahead and I'll ask you once will be back to the normal. Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's sound like real life is keeping you busy, so am going to go ahead and mark this as ✅. Thank you for your service. When you're able to volunteer with TestWiki again, please rerequest rights at Request permissions or on the user talk page of any Consul. Dmehus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)