[02:00:58] @Agent: An RFC vote was struck earlier per https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment_Policy#Voting but people keep reverting the strike (was originally done by Reception) [02:00:59] [url] Requests for Comment Policy - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [02:26:47] @Agent @Orduin sysop intervention needed please [02:27:53] [discord] Looking [02:30:28] [discord] Reverted, I will leave a warning on the user's talk page [02:30:47] I think MacFan4000 was talking about me. I didn't reinstate the !vote count, I simply reformatted how it was discounted [02:31:01] But it looks like Agent has restored my version, so all is good from my end [02:31:04] no was talking about all cases [02:31:06] [discord] No, not you, I reverted Usarname's edit [02:31:56] Actually, what about this part? https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Z52jmccM/image.png [02:32:15] I'm pretty sure this would count as editing another user's comment, which the latest RFC prohibits. Revert? [02:32:38] [discord] Beyond how insecure that is [02:32:54] [discord] Not really, I wouldn't revert as that'll cause confusion as that user technically can't vote unless you want to move it to a new section [02:33:12] [discord] Why cant they vote? [02:33:21] Their account was created after the RFC [02:33:26] [discord] ^ [02:33:36] But even if it is stricken (which I don't agree with), it is definitely not okay to insert text into their comment [02:34:20] [discord] I guess I can revert the {{comment}} template addition but I'd maintain the striked tags [02:34:20] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:comment [02:34:21] [discord] [02:34:21] [url] Template:Comment - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [02:34:31] [discord] Thank you MirahezeBot, very cool! [02:34:39] I don't think there's precedent for adding strike tags [02:34:47] And unless there's some exception, that would still fall under editing another user's comment [02:36:22] [discord] Then the vote would look like it's a full support vote and not invalidated unless we move to strike the entire text section instead of just striking the support template [02:36:28] No [02:36:31] Because there's no number [02:36:37] It's indented, not stricken [02:37:44] [discord] That can still easily be confused. There's been times where RfC votes are weirdly formatted (e.g. mixing in *'s, :'s, #'s, etc) so I'd keep it like that unless, of course, you want to move it to the comments section [02:38:23] No, it's not ok to move people's comments around to other sections [02:38:36] Especially when this can completely change the meaning like replies to one comment to another comment [02:38:49] I didn't remove the tags, I just don't want to deal with it :/ [02:47:58] To be fair the the RFC policy at the top says it’s a draft and then right below that it says it’s a valid policy so a bit confusing [03:01:45] It says they won't be taken into account [03:02:03] It doesn't say anything about striking them, moving their comments to other sections, or inserting your arbitrary text into their comment [03:26:30] Oh Usarname is back [05:58:12] [discord] mw1.38 was released [06:23:44] [discord] Indeed [06:24:44] [discord] We plan a design update to coincide with that [08:08:58] [discord] :ThinkerMH: [09:14:13] "design update"? [11:37:06] [discord] if we have an unprecedented rule to strike certain votes based on more common conditions than ever, then an unprecedented striking of the vote to make that clear is going to take place yes [11:37:26] There is no rule about striking them [11:37:30] Just not counting them [11:37:31] [discord] any text inserted to comment on the validity should probably be done as a reply [11:37:45] And even if there was a rule about striking them, that doesn't mean inserting text [11:38:00] [discord] I'd consider it better form to make it clear to all parties including the user that it is indeed struck and to make it visually obvious [11:38:12] [discord] I do not agree with simply striking all the text no, those people should at least be able to have an opinion [11:38:28] [discord] but the support template? oh well [11:44:31] The support template is silly [11:44:40] Wikipedia deleted theirs for a reason [11:44:48] And it should be treated same as any other [11:45:25] [discord] well it already isn't by being discounted [11:45:46] [discord] I'd be interested in seeing the colorful templates drop, there's some places which have no clue how to use them moderately [11:45:50] You can't discount text [11:46:12] Whether or not you write '''Support''' makes no difference [11:46:21] [discord] well it's too late, the act of support is already procedurally discounted, all that's left is if that text has mild influence on the outcome by merit [11:46:35] [discord] too small of an argument for me to really bother on as well [11:46:49] [discord] by all means raise it on-wiki for further refinement, going at it here won't change it [11:46:49] Then don't bother on [11:48:19] Naleksuh: the thing is, it's not to be taken as a support vote [11:48:35] i.e. when a Steward decides whether there is consensus it at the very least is to be given less weight / no weight [11:48:56] but it should be left as a comment as people should still be allowed to express themselves and participate in a discussion [11:49:00] but that's the rule that was voted on [11:50:19] the move is in order to alert Stewards that the user was created after, the fact that the word "support" is crossed out doesn't mean anything [20:35:44] [discord] Is there a way to set up reoccurring donations? [20:36:21] Github sponsors [20:36:27] Or standing order