[17:04:27] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> Quite opposite views at [[Test_Wiki:Request_for_permissions#DodoBot]]
[17:05:35] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> While a NSS and another user pointed a way towards Test Wiki:Bots/Requests for Bureaucrat approval, justa granted it
[17:05:59] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <justarandomamerican> Since it was already posted, I think it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to deny the request on technical reasons
[17:07:04] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> I don't for sure, but since crat policy exists for a reason and it explicitly states "Exceptions may be granted by stewards or other bureaucrats for bot accounts."
[17:07:33] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> I think justa did it right - but shouldn't that bots/rfb approval be deleted?
[17:10:00] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> oh just saw the discussion at the community portal regarding the deletion of the page (was inactive this month, fellas, so excuse me)
[17:14:35] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <globe_x> It appears it was removed by the author
[17:20:30] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <justarandomamerican> Crat Abuse RFC is divided evenly
[17:20:33] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <justarandomamerican> 4 and 4
[17:20:51] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <justarandomamerican> (between do nothing and the other options)
[17:31:36] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <globe_x> Yeah, there is definitely no clear consensus
[17:32:11] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <globe_x> Not sure how it will be closed as the community and stewards have differing opinions
[17:52:09] <MacFanBot>	 [02mediawiki] 07Justarandomamerican pushed 1 new commit to 03REL1_43 13https://github.com/Test-Wiki/mediawiki/commit/504951ca9e46b67ac57814c3b5ff860969a9a697
[17:52:09] <MacFanBot>	 02mediawiki/03REL1_43 07Justarandomamerican 03504951c Update LocalSettings.php
[18:23:31] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> The recent discussion about secure poll is just a mess at this point.
[18:25:06] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <savageszym> Agreed
[18:29:05] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> Didn't you vote on 2 quite contrary options (option 2 and 4)?
[18:32:46] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <savageszym> I’m currently supporting both the second and fourth option however the fourth option has my strongest support
[18:33:04] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> but they are quite the opposite
[18:34:15] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> option 2 is in favour of adding for testing AND community discussion, while option 4 is in favour of adding for only  testing
[18:34:54] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <astor.pastor> so shouldn't you strike your support for option 2? if 4 has your strongest support?
[19:10:21] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <globe_x> yeah 😭
[21:57:12] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> the absence of consensus would favor no change to status quo
[21:58:51] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> even if it was 5 to 4 I would be reluctant to call it a meaningful majority
[21:59:19] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> at that point it would depend on the strength/unity of those votes, but if no majority can be mustered then it is moot
[22:01:15] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> the secure poll vote however seems to comfortably favor its inclusion as a testing tool
[22:01:53] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> these do *not* contradict, and your explanation of option 2 is not accurate
[22:04:15] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> Since option 4 entails a strong majority, it would appear to be a favorable consensus. One can read a vote for option 2 and for option 4 as being supportive of both ideas. Between them, the more durable proposal should succeed, in this case the one with five in favor instead of two.
[22:06:16] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> However I will retract my original line there because I hadn't read the proposal properly and the logic of vancity supporting both does contradict. I stand by there being reasonable cause to support both, however vancity's explanation (which is mostly absent anyway) doesn't support this
[22:06:49] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> ~~these do *not* contradict, and your explanation of option 2 is not accurate~~ <-- this is not accurate but there is still nuance here (edited)
[22:08:23] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> ideally the rfc was structured more clearly; the explainer in the original text should have featured in the proposals themselves as they do for 3 and 4, with the original text sticking to a summary role. This is where I was confused and entered strongly as I took 1 and 2 as standalone votes between usage by stewards and usage by the open community
[22:54:29] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> I will leave the crat Abuse RFC open at least until Thursday.
[22:54:59] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> Then we look further
[23:02:23] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <savageszym> What about the Piccadilly ban and SecurePoll?
[23:07:19] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> I can't close all three. But this one at least I want to do, the other cases could another stewards check if possible?
[23:08:18] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> I can't close all three. But this one at least I want to do, the other cases could another steward(s) check if possible? (edited)
[23:09:23] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> I can't close all three. But this one at least I want to do, the other cases could another steward(s) handle it, if possible? (edited)
[23:19:20] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> Piccadilly I am not going to handle in any case.