[01:22:52] <icinga-testwiki>	 PROBLEM - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is WARNING: PROCS WARNING: 311 processes   
[01:24:52] <icinga-testwiki>	 RECOVERY - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is OK: PROCS OK: 191 processes   
[01:30:52] <icinga-testwiki>	 PROBLEM - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is WARNING: PROCS WARNING: 274 processes   
[01:31:52] <icinga-testwiki>	 RECOVERY - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is OK: PROCS OK: 218 processes   
[02:12:37] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <globe_x> Secure poll consensus appears to be favoring just testing, the Piccadilly one is an easy close.
[02:15:23] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> There are clearly no rules against profanity and whatnot, no?
[02:16:18] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made, should become a policy opposing that contribution
[02:18:20] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> ~~There are clearly no rules against profanity and whatnot, no?~~ Oh wait, technically there is one. (edited)
[02:19:28] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made, should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly will have the desire to act contrary to those policies or not. (edited)
[02:21:50] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made, should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back, will she have the desire to act contrary to those rules or not. (edited)
[02:22:41] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made, should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back, will she have the desire to act contrary to those rules or not.
[02:22:42] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly, and she typically writes it on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the sections of the privacy policy but has been implied in some way or another. (edited)
[02:23:37] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made, should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back, will she have the desire to act contrary to those rules or not.
[02:23:38] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly, and she typically writes it on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the sections of the privacy policy but has been implied in some way or another. I mean, we should include it so that Piccadilly fire-rating of swearing bad words decreases tremendously. (edited)
[02:26:33] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back and whether she has the desire to act contrary to those rules.
[02:26:33] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly, and she typically writes it on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the privacy policy sections but has been implied in some way or another. I mean, we should include it so that Piccadilly's fire rating for swearing bad words decreases tremendously. (edited)
[02:27:26] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back and whether she has the desire to act contrary to those rules.
[02:27:27] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly, and she typically writes it on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the privacy policy sections but has been implied in some way or another. I mean, we should include it so that Piccadilly's fire rating for swearing bad words decreases tremendously, and other specific behaviors. (edited)
[02:31:27] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> ~~There are clearly no rules against profanity and whatnot, no?~~ Oh wait, technically there is one. *Anyways...* - Joe Biden (edited)
[03:08:02] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back and whether she has the desire to act contrary to those rules.
[03:08:03] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly but it happens sometimes, and she typically types it on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the privacy policy sections but has been implied in some way or another. I mean, we should include it so that Piccadilly's fire rating for swearing bad words decreases tremendously, and other specific behaviors. (edited)
[03:08:18] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Every negative contribution that Piccadilly has made should become a policy opposing those contributions. Then, we'll wait and see whether Piccadilly comes back and whether she has the desire to act contrary to those rules.
[03:08:18] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <faithfulatlai> Swearing is something we don't like to see from Piccadilly but it happens sometimes, and she typically types them on talk pages. Swearing is not clearly specified in one of the privacy policy sections but has been implied in some way or another. I mean, we should include it so that Piccadilly's fire rating for swearing bad words decreases tremendously, and other specific behaviors. (edited)
[12:07:15] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> it is nonsensical to add highly specialized rules with high potential of unnecessary side effect when the simple fact is that piccadilly has been identified doing disruptive things, has been told not to do them, and from here on out may be struck at will for doing them
[12:07:41] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> if there was a serious exploit in the current ruleset or no tools to address disruption, rules would be suitable, but lawyering up the wiki to deal with one lta is not a good move
[12:08:25] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> in any case piccadilly has been in violation of countless requests, rules and terms for years and this doesn't affect her fire rate diddly squat
[12:57:51] <icinga-testwiki>	 PROBLEM - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is WARNING: PROCS WARNING: 260 processes   
[12:58:51] <icinga-testwiki>	 RECOVERY - procs on server.testwiki.wiki is OK: PROCS OK: 204 processes   
[13:27:45] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <.arav200> We should not give the rights in wrong hands.. because whether it is a test wiki or Wikipedia, there is no difference in the rights. We should check the new members and then give them the right for testing.
[13:27:45] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <.arav200> The only difference is that that is Wikipedia and this is a test wiki but the software is the same, MediaWiki.
[13:28:05] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <.arav200> We should not give the rights in wrong hands.. because whether it is a test wiki or Wikipedia, there is no difference in the rights. We should chek the new users and then give them the right for testing.
[13:28:06] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <.arav200> The only difference is that that is Wikipedia and this is a test wiki but the software is the same, MediaWiki. (edited)
[14:03:09] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> there is not a reliable way to examine users for integrity before granting those rights, which you're right are sensitive in nature
[14:03:13] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> it is the risk of a test wiki like this
[14:09:19] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <bhairava7> We do not even have any method to protect our privileges from misuse.
[14:09:45] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <bhairava7> We do not even have any method to protect community privileges from misuse. (edited)
[14:09:52] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> even with liberal granting of sysop access, recovery is tedious but still not too difficult
[14:10:28] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> I'm of the mind bureaucrat shouldn't be a testing right though, it does hardly anything extra worth testing, is difficult to vet and is more tedious to deal with abuse from
[14:10:50] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> instead at most a form of autopatrolled for people who've been around the block long enough to be more autonomous
[14:15:02] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <bhairava7> I think giving bureaucrat rights to new users will not be right.. again it can be misused by inexperienced users . a separate right should be created instead of giving bureaucrat rights. Can't this be stopped?
[14:18:15] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <bhairava7> I think all the privileges are very sensitive in themselves.. if not used properly then they can destroy a wiki.
[14:26:00] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> well, this is test wiki, where it can't be prohibative to give access to tools that are normally restricted for a reason
[14:26:12] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> I do think rethinking the bureaucrat bit is a good idea
[14:27:21] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> for sysop access the only thing to be done is to look into the consequences, have mitigations against abuse and if no mitigations can be done perhaps restrict those buttons. But that doesn't seem to be a major deal as abuse currently appears quite rare
[14:33:23] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <bhairava7> right, but I thought It is not a reason grant Bureaucract right to new users who request for them.. But I thought If we increase rate of gaining Bureaucract right from abuse then, It will be good to prevent from abuse by the abusers or Vandalers.
[14:41:26] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <justarandomamerican> I would likely support this
[15:49:04] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <drummingman> I will leave the crat Abuse RFC open at least until ~Thursday~ (edited)
[19:01:53] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <sneezless> i definitely didn’t read that as sysadmin and get very confused :)
[19:02:51] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <sneezless> I would likely support having a form of autopatrolled instead of crat, but would crat just become a non-testing right?
[19:13:45] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> crat wouldn't have much reason to exist if that change in principle was applied
[19:14:07] <TestWikiRelay>	 [discord] <raidarr> or it would be redefined and the 'autopatrolled' form is built into it