TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
TestWiki:Community portal/Archive 2 (view source)
Revision as of 23:40, 3 November 2020
, 3 years agono edit summary
m (Human: Archiving 8 thread(s) from TestWiki:Community portal) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 748:
:'''Support''' as idea creator. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' This idea has effectively been superceded by Proposal 4 as part of this [[TestWiki:Community portal#Community proposal on the future of the torunblocked|community proposal]], which I've now brought forward. You are encouraged to share your views, along with ''all'' members of the community. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
== 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 [[meta:Autoarchive]].Thank you for your cooperation.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|松}} 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. :) [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}} Thank you for the advice.The replacement is complete.I think that the proposal to Revibot itself needs the proposal to meta RfC.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|松}} 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Dmehus}}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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
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?)--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
{{ping|Dmehus}}I've checked [[TestWiki:Rightsbot]] and I'm worried that if Revibot doesn't exist on this wiki, I can't test how the archive works on testwiki.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|松}} 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}}Please see [[Template:Bump]]([[w:Template:Bump|Template:Bump]]).--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|松}}, 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Dmehus}}I discussed {{u|Spike}} and [[meta:Requests_for_Comment/Require_that_RfCs_undergo_a_public_comment_period|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Dmehus}} 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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)fix.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 04:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|松}} Why do we need to rename {{tl|Do not archive until}} and template redirect {{tl|DNAU}}? Couldn't we just rename to {{tl|This thread is protected from Revibot's automatic archive for n days}} to {{tl|Temporary prevention of automatic archiving}} and have {{tl|TPAA}} as a template redirect? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dmehus}}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 {{tl|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.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|松}} 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, <code>2=</code> 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Dmehus}} 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 [[w:template:Bump/doc|explanation]] unless it corresponds in the original template.--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Dmehus}} 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?--[[User:松|松]] ([[User talk:松|talk]]) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
== Community proposal on the future of the <code>torunblocked</code> ==
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
::There is [[w:WP:CON|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 [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] ''against'' proposal 3 and some consensus, somewhere between a [[w:WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
----
Hi everyone,
Earlier this morning, following a discussion with fellow [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] {{ping|Reception123}}, I took [[Special:Redirect/logid/9817|this action]], which removed the <code>torunblocked</code> user group right from the [[TestWiki:Users|registered, logged in users]] group, primarily, because this should be a right that can be granted on a discretionary basis, ideally by any [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[TestWiki:Consuls|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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor users]] user group ===
Proposal 1 proposes to establish a new [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor users]] user group that would be granted to ''trusted'' users by any [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[TestWiki:Consuls|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, [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] basis.
==== Support ====
# {{Support|strong}} As proposer. By keeping the granting and revocation discretionary, and open to [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} This seems like the best option [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} It makes sense to give bureaucrats this right instead of all users. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
#:{{ping|Reception123}} You may have misread. This proposal is not to give bureaucrats the right, it is to make a brand new group separate from bureaucrat. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 00:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::{{ping|Naleksuh}} 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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} Interesting idea, lets try it. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# 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). [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
#:{{ping|Naleksuh}} The idea behind the separate group is for several reasons. For one thing, not every testing administrator wants to request the <code>bureaucrat</code> 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 [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> 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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#:: {{tq|there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} 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 [[w:WP:WHEEL|wheel-warring]] and likely grounds for removal of at least the <code>bureaucrat</code> 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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#::::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} 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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor user]] hat. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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, [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
#'''Neutral''' I think this would the best choice if TOR started being abused, but right now I don't see that happening. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Proposal 2: Add <code>torunblocked</code> to [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] ===
Similar to Proposal 1, but the downside is, it would only be able to be revoked by a [[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]] and only where removal of the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit was justified.
==== Support ====
# {{Support}} As proposer, as a reasonable second choice. My preference would be Proposal 1, so experienced [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]] can revoke it where needed and appropriate, on a discretionary basis. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support|weak}} Viable option, but I still prefer proposal one [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# I think that this is the best option, if it's necessary at all. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} I don't mind this option. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Support}} 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. [[User:Bonnedav|Bonnedav]] ([[User talk:Bonnedav|talk]]) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
#: {{ping|Bonnedav}} 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 [[TestWiki:Tor users|Tor user]] hat to their account. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# {{oppose}} No reason why editing via tor should be restricted to crats. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk:TrustedInstaller|talk]]) 15:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
=== Proposal 3: Just eliminate <code>torunblocked</code> ===
Section heading says it all.
==== Support ====
==== Oppose ====
# '''Strong''' {{oppose}}, completely goes against the [https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/No_open_proxies_policy global open proxies] policy, albeit they ''can'' be overridden, they shouldn't be. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{oppose|strong}} I do not believe this to be the right course of action [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk:Universal Omega|talk]]) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
# '''Neutral''' I am neither ''for'' or ''against'' this proposal, as, I guess, a reasonable third outcome. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Abstain}} 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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Proposal 4: Restore <code>torunblocked</code> to [[TestWiki:Users|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 ====
# {{support}} not only does blocking it go against the [https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/No_open_proxies_policy 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 <code>torunblocked</code> right was that no one was abusing it, therefore it shouldn't have been changed. [[User:TrustedInstaller|TrustedInstaller]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Oppose ====
# {{Oppose}}, possibly ''strong'', per my reasons articulated above, as proposer. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 15:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
# Four tildes [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} 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. [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
==== Neutral/Abstain ====
# {{Abstain}} I really don't have an opinion either way regarding this one. [[User:Universal Omega|Universal Omega]] ([[User talk: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 </div>
==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:
*{{RFP/User|Geryescalier}}
*{{RFP/User|Hanatole}}
*{{RFP/User|Q-bit}}
*<s>{{RFP/User|QueerEcofeminist}}</s> now active
*{{RFP/User|Tiven2240}}
*{{RFP/User|3oem9}}
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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] action this date.
*{{RFP/User|Syno sock}}
Thanks,
:[[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]])
:For the Consul Team
:23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{done|5 users removed}} [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
== Consul Request - Naleksuh ==
{{Discussion top|1=Unsuccessful. Due to the absence of ''any'' comments indicating either support or opposition to this candidature there is a complete absence of consensus for promoting Naleksuh to Consul. Thank you for helping us out on TestWiki, and I'm sure even without this position you can continue helping us as a bureaucrat here! [[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 15:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)}}
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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
=== Support ===
=== Oppose ===
=== Neutral ===
=== 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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|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 [[meta:IRC|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 {{ping|RhinosF1}} 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). [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
== 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. [[:Category:Candidates for deletion|This category]]'s list of page can be deleted by administrator, so can use this template for all users to request deletion. Thanks, –[[User:S3097|S3097]] ([[User talk:S3097|talk]]) 07:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|S3097}} 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 [[w:WP:AGF|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
== Alias ==
Can TW become an alias for Project/TestWiki? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Naleksuh}} 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)? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} Okay, I've {{Done|done}} 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? [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: I don't think they are needed but see no problem with them. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 04:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Dmehus}} 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. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} I'm a bit confused because my understanding is that English Wikipedia ''does'' have non-project namespace shortcut aliases; however, I was also told by another [[TestWiki:Consuls|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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
[[Category:Non-test pages]]
| |||