[00:53:17] who is LC Developer on TestWiki.... [00:53:42] Apparently they're brand new but have been making all sorts of changes without approval [00:53:50] and they're not even a crat [00:55:10] lc developer operates a strange wiki from what I recall [00:55:19] oh, he runs some wiki about a school he goes to [00:55:23] they're also banned on wikipedia [00:55:31] it's on my flag list [00:55:38] they've made so many changes to testwiki [00:55:45] random protections, they even closed an RfC [00:55:50] again, not even a crat [00:55:52] ok, in that case he needs rebuke [00:55:58] yeah..... [00:56:08] he doesn't get the scale of testwiki if he's going into actual on-wiki discussions [00:56:19] yup [00:56:28] and his user account is 3 weeks old [00:56:37] he's editing the User restrictions page..... [00:56:39] what the [00:57:43] @raidarr he deleted the main page as a test [00:58:03] That's possible? [00:58:13] apparently with twinkle [00:58:16] let me find the log revision [00:58:47] well he did get sysop [00:58:50] @Orduin 26279 [00:59:02] so unless the protection levels are more nuanced I'm not shocked he did [00:59:16] it should be consul protect [00:59:25] consul delete my bad [00:59:30] that should not be possible [00:59:43] TestWiki:Main Page is not the same as the Main Page [01:00:09] oh thats why [01:00:12] oops [01:00:40] still.......there are some concerns here? he's editing other users' userpages [01:00:48] importing templates from WP i guess [01:01:06] I will say, I prefer his suggested testwiki logo over the current [01:01:38] but... but the text isn't aligned with the sides of the triangle [01:01:43] with refinement [01:01:53] doesn't need perfect alignment imo [01:01:55] yeah [01:02:03] perfect alignment is preferred [01:02:07] for me at least [01:02:09] yeah, design is good [01:02:10] I don't find the current logo to be terribly well aligned either [01:02:15] true [01:02:41] hard no on his request for bc but other than that I'm not seeing much that is a problem [01:03:05] the rfc close for me [01:03:25] and then random editing of a lot of pages, combined with the protection/deletion of pages [01:03:34] @raidarr have you seen the RC feed [01:03:52] rfc close is the only thing I'd give him a firm nope about [01:04:25] could you reset the protections to default [01:04:27] he needs to be educated how mediawiki space protection works, he has that problem on his own wiki [01:04:28] it's just odd [01:04:32] not a testwiki functionary [01:04:42] again he's banned on wikipedia [01:04:47] i'm not exactly sure why [01:04:52] but it seems there's an issue there [01:04:59] and it was an ARBCOM block [01:05:09] without a clear reason why I'm not inclined to prejudge [01:05:22] john is banned out on that side too [01:05:32] checkuser block actually [01:05:36] abuse of multiple accounts [01:05:41] skill issue [01:05:48] i dont care about wikipedia [01:05:51] is this the closure you were talking about [01:06:01] stupid bureaucracy [01:06:02] see the RC feed [01:06:10] it is not [01:06:32] if you want me to look at something you need to give me something to work with because I'm not going to go fishing unless I see a credible problem [01:07:10] https://publictestwiki.com/w/index.php?title=TestWiki:Requests_for_Comment/Proposals&curid=8200&diff=49079&oldid=49062&diffmode=source [01:07:11] [url] TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Proposals: Difference between revisions - TestWiki | publictestwiki.com [01:07:42] okay yes, that is something for a local functionary to talk to him about [01:07:55] currently it looks like a case of him misunderstanding how things work there with a slice of cir [01:09:00] at least [01:09:18] it's just weird to me [01:09:24] they seem to know a lot about MW [01:09:35] but have no clue about how the community operates [01:10:10] @raidarr you're not a crat on TW right [01:17:41] I am not a functionary of any sort there [01:17:47] got it [01:19:01] left my 2c on his bc request aside from that [01:19:18] i currently can't edit the RfP page :0 [01:19:29] so i'll just leave a message on his talk page [01:19:54] wonder why not [01:20:04] what do you mean [01:21:23] why would you not be able to edit rfp, or is that a testwiki unblock/block condition [01:30:28] I think it's a restriction placed on BrandonWM due to circumstances surrounding his use of his administrator powers there [01:39:14] this is why a million piecemeal restrictions aren't ideal, especially if their tracking is as scattered as in his case [01:51:09] Hello everyone, I've just finished translating from English to Chinese for the Main Page which is located on Meta. If can anyone can check my translation to help me change my mistakes. I'll be grateful! [02:29:28] Can I have a friend be able to edit the wiki as well? [02:31:46] [1/2] If you're talking about a public wiki, then all they need to do is register an account. However, if you are using a private wiki, you will need to add them either as a member (grants read access only) or administrator (grants additional privileges; depends how much you trust this person) using Special:UserRights. Simply enter their name into the form, and assign the group. If you [02:31:46] [2/2] want to take a look at what groups are on your wiki, as well as what permissions they grant, take a look at Special:ListGroupRights. [02:32:46] Man I miss when Miraheze is just about making wikis and doing people’s own opinions [02:34:49] Are u serious right now bro [02:37:22] Why did mihareze real life villains wiki got shut down by your policy’s is there an explanation? [02:41:03] Or it just got deleted to never to been seen again [02:45:18] rfc close is the only thing I'd give him a firm nope about [02:45:18] 6:04:25 PM [02:45:28] yup [02:45:37] it’s just annoying [02:45:38] @raidarr Why? There's nothing wrong with it and most people oppose having an RFC process on test in the first place [02:45:52] i plan to appeal my restrictions on the 29th [02:46:02] Naleksuh: it’s generally accepted policy [02:46:30] just like it isn’t policy not to edit others’ userpages but you shouldn’t anyway without extremely good reason [02:47:01] It's not generally accepted policy by anyone [02:47:30] Is this going to be a repeat of how it was "generally accepted" that users can't remove messages from sysops and that the person who left the message repeatedly reinstating it was exempt from the edit warring policy only for gaining consensus of this to fail? [02:47:43] i would disagree? it’s what meta seems to follow at least [02:48:05] Meta is meta, and besides, people oppose having this "RFC" process at all [02:48:12] rlv had too many unsourced claims about people, rant articles about people sometimes with zero or completely made up basis, and failed to address these issues in any solid way [02:48:47] it will not be seen again on miraheze but that does not preclude it being made again somewhere if there is a service willing to deal with that kind of premise [02:49:29] Naleksuh: not sure why this discussion needs to be had [02:49:30] Oh okay so that’s what happened to real life villains wiki [02:49:46] we don’t need to be wikilawyering everything [02:49:54] Because you reverted someone who was authorized to close it [02:50:01] yes, it was closed upon steward review, failed to address the issues in the allotted period (I believe 1 month) and was subsequently removed [02:50:14] they were authorized to close it? [02:50:22] please point out where it states that [02:50:37] Please point out where it states they aren't [02:51:02] given you seem to think anyone can close I'm surprised you aren't just going ahead and closing whatever tbh [02:51:12] I'd like to see how that plays [02:51:43] There were several unsourced negative claims about living people (sampling put it at roughly 80% of articles), which is against policy. [02:52:56] i would revert such a close, as has been stated before, bureaucrats are not permitted to close rfcs on test wiki [02:53:12] Jesus Christ [02:53:26] 1) There is no consensus to only allow consuls to close RfCs [02:53:26] 2) There *is* consensus to not have RfCs [02:53:30] I mean lets just have that out on wiki now if it's going to be argued about again and again [02:53:43] @raidarr I already did have it on-wiki but BWM chose to say it on IRC [02:53:56] clearly it was not decisive on wiki' [02:54:03] so let us make it so and put that topic to bed [02:54:05] i’m happy to respond on wiki if necessary [02:54:20] There is consensus to not even have this RfC process so at some point the "RfCs" will either be moved or deleted [02:54:28] i’m mobile for the next 5 mins [02:54:47] make it a discussion about closing matters of community consensus in general, it doesn't need to be a conversation limited by the semantic boundaries of frcs as seen on meta [02:54:50] and who can close the RFC RFC exactly? [02:54:56] That said, regardless of it, I have actually been waiting for a consul to close them, and no-one has [02:55:26] obviously rfcs as a process are going to be out sooner or later, whenever an uncontested closure whoever it comes from is finalized [02:55:55] no one but local functionaries should close rfcs [02:55:58] Define "out"? [02:55:59] that’s convention [02:56:08] 1) No it isn't [02:56:08] 2) There are zero local functionaries [02:56:21] obviously what classifies as a valid functionary here isn't a clear definition [02:56:59] @raidarr CheckUsers, Oversighters, and Stewards [02:56:59] I thought consuls by convention were the functionaries of the wiki to close community discussions but again, finalize that it is or it isn't on wiki so we don't need this silly 'sky is blue no it's clear' conversation [02:56:59] functionary means roles authorized to carry out serious actions on a wiki, including blocking and making administrative decisions [02:57:19] those are global functionaries and not the only ones at that [02:57:21] ie admins and crats on meta, consuls on TW [02:57:37] Functionary has always meant people with CheckUser/Oversight access. As you would say, "it's convention' [02:57:48] Consuls do not have CheckUser or Oversight access. [02:58:01] where exactly is that stated? [02:58:17] Same place your "only functionaries can close RfCs" is stated [02:58:34] functionary is a term that depends on context, ie, global vs local [02:58:44] to say otherwise is to unhelpfully split hairs about it to try and get your way [02:59:12] @raidarr Functionary has always been used to mean users with CheckUser or Oversight permissions. Globally, this means Stewards. Locally, this means local CheckUsers or Oversighters, of which Test Wiki has none [02:59:14] let’s listen to the GS in the channel, shall we [02:59:48] naleksuh: as there are no active CU/Os on wiki, the definition should be modified [02:59:56] to fit the wik [03:00:03] ie. consuls [03:00:07] What??????/ [03:00:32] Well there isn't any yellow in TestWiki's logo so let's change yellow to mean red [03:01:16] cu and os on local wikis are purely hypothetical at this point in miraheze time [03:01:25] yeah.... [03:01:33] obviously 'always been used' might be the case on wp and in your world but it is more broad in the rest [03:02:05] The only person who has said that meta sysops are functionaries was the same person who claimed to have oversight when they didn't, and had revision deletion [03:02:30] I don't recall claiming to have os [03:02:42] @raidarr nale means zppix [03:02:51] oh, well, obviously not just 'one only person' then [03:02:54] in a 9 month old post on his talk page [03:03:13] Zppix, me, you =/ 1 [03:03:42] so yeah not sure where the "1" came from [03:03:43] good start for odds especially when the colloquial term is, again, used broadly in most environments [03:03:49] yup [03:04:00] he likes to use that to diminish arguments he doesn't like, comes with typically being the only one who pushes his own argument [03:04:05] well Naleksuh: happy to have it out on-wiki if that's what you'd prefer [03:04:07] So you are directly reverting closes based on "conventions" you entirely invented yet expect me to have terminology written down somewhere [03:04:22] @raidarr Then just don't use the term, then [03:04:36] <:thistbh:764649024875528192> [03:04:38] he invented yet meta and other communities in general use it [03:05:02] I will not abstain from using a term just because the most willfully ornery user on the platform wants to split hairs about it by his own personal definition [03:05:23] Who are you talking about? [03:05:35] take a gander [03:05:49] couldn't imagine who.... [03:06:03] I'll abstain from the conversation as I'm probably only going to start getting ornery myself [03:06:11] goes nowhere as it typically does [03:06:28] @Orduin any thoughts on the convo? [03:07:13] Thoughts on the convo on a terminology that doesn't exist because it's just convention or thoughts on a process that exists because it's convention/ [03:10:30] Why do we need 10s of messages to clarify what the meaning of "functionary" is? Words can change meaning based on context, and all that should have been needed was a clarification that in this context BrandonWM was using functionary as a way of generalizing "roles authorized to carry out serious actions on a wiki" [03:11:04] I'm fairly sure we tried to cover that one very early on [03:11:16] @Orduin BrandonWM invented an idea that only functionaries can close RFCs even though that was never enacted anywhere and infact most people oppose having an RFC process at all [03:11:45] Ironically, their case for the functionary term was that it never was officially enacted anywhere, yet they are reverting other user's valid edits based on a "convention" that was never enacted anywhere [03:12:07] [1/3] Y'all, this conversation needs a nap. [03:12:07] [2/3] I also agree that RfCs happening on testwiki in general is iffy, since it's literally the crash dummy of wikis. [03:12:08] [3/3] That's also just my personal take. [03:13:19] @NotAracham No consul has closed the RFC in nearly a month, and BrandonWM has voiced an intention to revert any future close by a bureaucrat [03:13:26] Basically meaning it would just stay there forever [03:13:51] Well seeing the wiki is pretty small, I wanted to let time pass before the RfC closed [03:14:03] no real urgency exists to close the RfCs [03:14:42] Agent aren't you the one who wanted the process in a first place? [03:14:56] i'm so confused about how that has anything to do with this [03:16:29] This isn't a particularly good use of the finite life-minutes of any of the people in this chat. [03:16:31] Agent opened the RfC [03:16:56] Ok [03:17:08] ....and? [03:17:13] yeah, probably [03:17:18] but this has to be had [03:17:21] unfortunately [03:19:50] i've replied on-wiki [03:19:55] as @NotAracham said, let's be done here [03:27:29] Why do we need 10s of messages to clarify what the meaning of "functionary" is? Words can change meaning based on context, and all that should have been needed was a clarification that in this context BrandonWM was using functionary as a way of generalizing "roles authorized to carry out serious actions on a wiki" [03:27:43] @Orduin Is this stating BrandonWM's opinion, or saying that you agree with that opinion? [03:28:22] how on Earth did you manage to just miss the entire point [03:28:35] the entire point is that it isn't an opinion [03:28:38] just differing definitions [03:28:43] and it doesn't matter [03:28:54] @Naleksuh: can you actually just stop arguing for once about such a pointless definition [03:29:01] miraheze has more pressing issues than the definition of functionary [03:29:47] again, let's be done [03:29:51] please [03:30:16] This conversation needs to stop immediately. I will not jump in and voice an opinion either way, but I am saying it needs to stop. It has no point, and has gotten nowhere. [03:30:39] ok [03:31:13] @Agent see DMs? [04:51:15]