TestWiki:Community portal

Community portal Welcome to the TestWiki Community portal! On this page, matters pertaining to the local TestWiki community can be discussed. Post your questions, comments, or concerns below by the big blue button to the immediate right.

New thread

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 TestWiki:Requests for Comment. I have also moved two RfCs from here to there. You are all invited to comment on them, they are TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Proposals (proposed by Naleksuh) and TestWiki: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. Strong support 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)

2. Support It's better as link. AlPaD (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Naleksuh (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support w:sunk cost fallacy isn't a good reason to keep the domain. Collei (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support 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)

6. Support as it can work better technically (it will be recognized as a Miraheze domain by software) and also indicate that this is a Miraheze project.

Oppose (1)

1. Oppose 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)

   w:sunk cost fallacy Collei (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose 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)

   1. Per Reception123 is invalid per w:sunk cost fallacy.
   2. 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.
   3. 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)

3. Strong oppose per Reception and that I prefer the custom domain as it denotes it even more as a public space for testing Zppix (Meta | 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)

4. Oppose 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)

5. Oppose 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)

6. Oppose 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 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. Support 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, @Naleksuh: 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. Strong support 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)

   @Naleksuh: CosmicAlpha is currently developing a new logo for TestWiki. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   @BrandonWM:​ 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)

   @Naleksuh: 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)

2. Support but only if I like the new logo. Collei (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (5)

1.  Abstain 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.  Abstain 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. Oppose 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)

2. Oppose 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. Support LC Developer (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

   Support Atom studying itself (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Support --78Meow (Talk) 11:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

 Comment 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)

Configure the text part like the original logo? Atom studying itself (talk) 10:55, 5 August 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:

• 1108-Kiju ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) Active since then, per reply
• 50829! ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Ahecht ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Artillect ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Aspallar ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Avengium ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) Requested removal
• CECBowlingGreen ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• DarkMatterMan4500 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Davidvia ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Erté ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Farmer Cars ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Kristiannumber1 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Lolkikmoddi ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• QueerEcofeminist ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• QWERASDF ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Rocielshinonome ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Sai10ukazuki ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Silicona ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Thingofme ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• ZI Jony ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active.
• 沈澄心 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• 行雲流水 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

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)

 Done 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 TestWiki:Consuls.--1108-Kiju (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are the translation tags that might be expected. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:23, 16 May 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)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2023-05-17

The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2023-05-24 if they do not return to activity:

• Ahecht ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Alidonis ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Ameisenigel ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Blad ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Buehl106 ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Dimpizzy ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Hoof Hearted ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) now active
• Revival ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• SD hehua ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Tali64³ ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• Ugochimobi ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )
• XtexChooser ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth )

Thanks,

Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!}

For the Consul team,

16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Striking Ameisenigel ( talk · contribs · deleted · logs · rights · CentralAuth ) as now active. Globe (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to keep my permissions, thanks. Blad (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Globe (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would also like to retain my permissions. Is it possible to be made exempt from inactivity rules please? Regards, Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. By your act of replying, you are now active. Given your activity level, as well as your rationale, or lack thereof, I do not see a compelling need for an inactivity exception as you can just make one edit. Dmehus (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Kindly keep my perm. Thanks. Ugochimobi (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Globe (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to keep my administrator permissions for now. Tali64³ (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Globe (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Rights removed from six (6) users. One by Agent Isai awhile ago; five by me today. Dmehus (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are not many participants in this discussion, but also no one in opposition, either, and AlPaD has been a long-term, regular, always active, and trusted contributor to Public Test Wiki. As well, they've confirmed their Wikimedia, Test Wiki, The Test Wiki, and other user accounts, so closing as successful. Congratulations, and welcome to the Consul team. Dmehus (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

---

AlPaD for Consul

Hello Public Test Wiki Community! I am here today to nominate a highly qualified user, AlPaD, for consulship. Not only are they one of the most active users on the wiki, but they are extremely helpful in granting permissions and conversing with newer users on their talk page. Above all, they are always very kind and respectful to other users. There is also a desperate need for another consul. Most of our consuls haven't edited in at least a month, some many months. Zppix is the only one who has, and one user can't run a wiki of this size alone. That's where AlPaD comes in, so I hope you will join my in supporting AlPaD for consul. Globe (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate your acceptance here:I accepted, many thanks @Globe:. AlPaD (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Votes/Discussion:

• Support as nominator. Globe (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

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

Closure of consul vote with no input...

Hey @Dmehus, closure of a Consul election in just under a week with no input from anyone beyond the original nominator seems a bit... unorthodox. I only just happened to see the request today, in fact.

Admittedly I'm not the closest follower of testwiki history, but looking through archives I can't find any other example of comparably brisk/limited input handling for advanced rights aside from speedy closures due to unanimous opposition.

Is there a particular policy/precedent you're using in making this close?

NotAracham (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the closure overturned. I don't believe other consuls were notified, there was no site notice, etc.

I don't think a lack of response can be assumed consensus.

I'm also not convinced had I had the opportunity to vote that I would have supported. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I too would like to see this overturned, this was a unilateral decision that was decided by a single person with no input from other consuls at all. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to thank you all for your input, about closing I'd like to say that whether the proposal is reopened or not and whether I'm consul or not in the end I'll continue to help out on TestWiki and improve my flaws. Even if the closure of the proposal is not reverted, I would like to hear your opinion, even informally, on whether I should become a consul and what I should correct. AlPaD (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @AlPaD that a more of informal approach should occur next. I’m not sure why all 3 of you are waiting till a few hours after closing to bring this up, when you should’ve voted originally. I’ve messaged @Dmehus on Discord informing him of this discussion. Globe (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, I literally just found out this existed yesterday when I came back into cell reception. It's a holiday weekend for many in the US, so several folks in the conversation may have been outside internet service for the last few days like myself.

Regardless of reasons/AlPaD's qualifications, I don't personally find that expedited closure with one vote and no consultation with other consuls reflects the 'community consensus' defined in the appointment criteria, but it's not my place to make that call - I simply wanted to raise it as a concern.

--NotAracham (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NotAracham, thank you for your question. The discussion was open for a week. If I had concerns about the nominee, I would not have closed and would have expressed a view. I did take care into ensuring it was compliant with the current policies and, in particular, in terms of precedents, I followed this Consul request, which Void closed as successful. As with this request, it, too, had only a single participant other than the nominee. Even in my close, I even borrowed and varied Void's wording. Dmehus (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Doug. I would note that in the case you reference, the request was held open for the better part of 2.5 months before closure, though is otherwise essentially on-par.

Testwiki's understandably an odd one since folks aren't (for the most part) daily users, hopefully we can come up with some better ways to get community engagement on consequential RfConsulships that reflect the intent of 'community consensus' going forward.

--NotAracham (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1 week is not enough time. Please reopen the discussion and allow further commentary. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While I am definitely involved here, I’d oppose a re-opening of the discussion. In my opinion, 1 week is enough time to comment. If you miss that, it’s on you. Globe (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

TestWiki is not a wiki where it's core community are always active. As far as I know, this wasn't advertised prominently. We can't always be checking every discussion page. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Still doesn’t excuse the fact you never discussed with other consuls before closing a discussion with so few participants. 1 person does not a consensus make. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think a consul discussion has ever been required to close. If policy says different, please link said policy. In addition, 3 people (not one) supported.

1. The candidate (@AlPaD)
2. The nominator (@Globe)
3. The closer (@Dmehus)

Globe (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The candidates opinion of themselves is irrelevant. I don't think it's a codified policy but we would strongly encourage it. It's quite frankly just good manners to ask the others if they had anything to raise. The existing consuls are not exactly a large group. I will make the point of order that this isn't the first request to have one of Doug's closes on this wiki overturned and he also was forced to resign Steward or be removed due to concerns around supervoting. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Various observations and requests on this wiki

hi, i've been noticing that not all extensions are enabled and wiki forum is linked on the sidebar but the special page doesn't exist because the extension is disabled. may i request all extensions to be enabled? how much this affects the wiki load? i've also noticed that Special:MathStatus is giving a timeout (503), can anything be done about that? Juest (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)