TestWiki

TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Establishing an RfC process on TestWiki

< TestWiki:Requests for Comment
Revision as of 21:09, 8 March 2023 by Raidarr (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments (2))

As TestWiki grows, there'll evidently be a need to propose new policies which require community consensus first. This is usually handled by the Community portal but recently, the two RfCs on there did clog it up a bit. It may be best to formally set up a venue to make Requests for Comment in.

Proposal 1 (Defining RfC)

Requests for Comment (RfCs) are the mechanism by which the TestWiki community can discuss and vote on policy proposals as well as other matters pertaining to the local community.

Support (1)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support As a procedural move. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Support Blad (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support Ugochimobi (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  8.   Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  9.   Support LisafBia (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (1)

Oppose (1)

  1.   Oppose TestWiki is a small wiki and this would only increase bureaucracy. EpicPupper (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Strong oppose Testwiki is explicitly a wiki for testing mediawiki settings and features. While certain individuals may have made extensive use of this wiki, it's intended purpose (and audience) is global and for those stopping by infrequently to test features. An RfC process hosted here inherently has low visibility and allows for unusual decisions to be made without representative community input, for this reason I suggest that Meta, not testwiki, is the appropriate place to discuss policy changes given the greater global traffic. --NotAracham (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (RfC page)

Requests for Comment will take place in TestWiki:Requests for Comment

Support (2)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support I would have opposed if only this page isn't a subpage of the Request for Comment page and if that page doesn't exist at all, well, the inverse is the case, so no choice. Ugochimobi (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (2)

Oppose (2)

  1. Why did you have to make an RfC about the new process using the new process? Why not post on the community portal instead of effectively bootstrapping your own proposals? Also, Test Wiki is *less* active now than it was 3 years ago, so not sure what purpose this serves. Naleksuh (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose per Naleksuh and rationale of increasing bureaucracy. EpicPupper (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose I am not exactly planning on voting on the rest of this RfC, but to me this proposal seems pointless, I would have preferred if this was kept on the community portal, and the fact that an RfC was created using the proposed policy about said policy makes this even more pointless and I completely oppose that idea due to the fact it had not yet been determined (hence this proposal) when this RfC was created using this new proposal, practically forcing it with no choice. Universal Omega (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    The fact that other RfCs were already moved to the subpages as well makes me   Oppose this even stronger. It shows that this proposal had no need to even exist if it is being done anyway, and shows a blatant disregard for this RfC proposal in the first place since it hadn't even been closed yet. Universal Omega (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose TestWiki is a project with a limited purpose: to allow users to test out different MediaWiki tools and functions. Some minimal policy to ensure that the project isn't abused and is used fairly have to exist but I simply can't imagine what other policies would ever be necessary on TestWiki even if it grows since its purpose is so straightforward. I don't think RfCs are at all necessary on a project such as TestWiki and that if by any chance there's a policy proposal every once in a while (which as I explain above I think would be rare) it can be done via Community Portal. I also agree that it adds unnecessary bureaucracy to a small project that isn't in need of such a process, unlike Meta. Reception123 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose I don't feel strongly about this although I think it would be another step to my wider issue with testwiki: overly bureaucratic. I wouldn't suggest people use this wiki already for that reason and this would be another step down the road as there's not much reason to introduce yet another 'mechanism' that isn't functionally necessary. Also, Ugo's oppose sounds a lot like an oppose by proxy to me. Finally the nature of these discussions very much puts the cart before the horse (doing an rfc about having an rfc page on a page that isn't yet validated) and imo is an overstep. --Raidarr (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    In addition to my comments above I feel like I should make clear that I fully share Raidarr's opinion here and my reasoning doesn't only apply to this RfC but in general RfC we need to strive to not allow TestWiki to become a too bureaucratic place where users feel unwelcome to use it because there's too many steps or rules. Reception123 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments (2)

  1. If this proposal fails for whatever reason, will the current RfC page be deleted? Blad (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. I am confused.
    I found this wiki when db141 happened. So I was exploring and did not know what this wiki was for. Just wanted to make this point because I was never directed here and I guess that was because I did not have need of it at the time and this may be the source of my confusion.
    I don't really understand the impact of the custom name (as mentioned in the meta RfC). Also, I don't quite understand what this RfC is saying. I never got around to actually using the testwiki. I think I was nervous that I would break it or something. But if becomes an official project that would generate more helpful documentation and examples, then I think it'll be fantastic. Normally, a wiki wiki in my head looks like there's someone to ask questions about. When I first found TestWiki, I thought it was some kind of construct (not an actual wiki). Now I know it is a wiki but I guess I'm still too new to what bureaucrats and admins can do that I don't even know what I can experiment at TestWiki. What's really confusing is that these 2 RfCs are not linked as far as I can tell but I am assuming I'm reviewing the correct pair.   --Imamy (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. To address a point used to justify this RfC; if isolated cases cause too many edits/clog to the Community Portal, those topics could perhaps become subpages instead. A compromise where larger topics are split but not requiring full new mechanics until strictly necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Voting)

Only registered users may vote on an RfC but unregistered users may comment.

Support (3)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support Blad (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support This is ideal. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  8.   Support 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (3)

  1.   Abstain In the sense that I   Support this request but   Oppose the statement that unregistered users are able to comment. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    And why do you oppose that? Naleksuh (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    ​ Because users should be registered to be able to vote. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t believe that unregistered users should get a voice in Miraheze policies if they’re not even really a part of it. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 19:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    No, you just said that you oppose them being able to comment at all. Not just vote. Naleksuh (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

Proposal 3.1 (Voting for accounts made after RfC)

Users who registered after an RfC was started may not vote.

Support (3.1)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support Yes. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Support Blad (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support Ideal. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  8.   Support to protect our community's best interest against any corruption. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (3.1)

Oppose (3.1)

  1.   Oppose no rationale provided and discourages newcomer participation. If you wish to decrease sock/meatpuppets, CheckUser exists. EpicPupper (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. I agree with EricPupper, while this makes sense for something like an RfA where they only last for a week so any account after it started would be very new, either likely a sockpuppet or complete fresh meat, RFCs can sometimes run for months and would actually be a way to lock out real users. For example Collei was created after some current RFCs on Meta, but is allowed to vote on them. Naleksuh (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Timeframe)

Requests for Comment must stay open for at least five days. They can be closed before that if they are out of scope, malformed or if it is clear that there is no chance of consensus.

Support (4)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support I'd better support 7 days, but this is fine. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Weak support I'm more in favor of 7 days, per above. Blad (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (4)

  1. I would support 7 days. MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain EpicPupper (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (4)

Proposal 5 (Consensus)

No minimum threshold or support ratio exists for Requests for Comments. The closer will use their discretion to decide whether consensus has been reached on a proposal.

Support (5)

  1.   Support as proposer. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2.   Support This is fine. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3.   Support Blad (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  5.   Support MdsShakil (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  6.   Support Ugochimobi (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  7.   Support no bureaucracy needed. EpicPupper (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  8.   Support AlPaD (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  9.   Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  10.   Support 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain (5)

Oppose (5)

Retrieved from "https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/TestWiki:Requests_for_Comment/Establishing_an_RfC_process_on_TestWiki?oldid=48980"