TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy: Difference between revisions
TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy (edit)
Revision as of 19:02, 8 March 2023
, 1 year agoclose
(username removed) (Moved from CP) |
Reception123 (talk | contribs) (close) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
::This RfC is closed as follows:
* Proposal 1: Successful. As this proposal is made specifically in relation to Consuls it supersedes the [[TestWiki:Inactivity|inactivity policy]] and introduces a 6 months period for Consuls.
* Proposal 2: Unsuccessful.
* Proposal 3: Unsuccessful.
* Proposal 4: Unsuccessful.
[[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 19:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
----
Hi everyone,
Line 8 ⟶ 17:
=== Support (1) ===
#{{Support}} As proposer. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
#{{Support|weak}} Because of the proposer's rationale regarding [[TestWiki:Inactivity|inactivity policy]]. 50% of current [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consuls]] hold multiple global elected and non-elected hats, and I think extending Consuls' inactivity period for that reason is reasonable. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
#{{Support}} Agree with [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]]. [[User:C1K98V|<b style="color:#FF0000">''C1K98V''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:C1K98V|💬]] [[Special:Contribs/C1K98V|✒️]] [[Special:ListFiles/C1K98V|📂]])</sup> 04:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
# {{Support}} --[[User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]] ([[User talk:Ameisenigel|talk]]) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{support}} This is something that should have existed originally before now. [[User:Ugochimobi|Ugochimobi]] ([[User talk:Ugochimobi|talk]]) 15:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{support}} I believe this is a good compromise between them being completely exempt from inactivity and having 3 months to work with. 6 months for them should be more than a reasonable amount of time. [[User:Hypercane|Hypercane]] ([[User talk:Hypercane|talk]]) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{support}} [[User:Syunsyunminmin|Syunsyunminmin]] ([[User talk:Syunsyunminmin|talk]]) 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{support}} [[User:Sakura emad|🌸 Sakura emad 💖]] ([[User talk:Sakura emad|talk]]) 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
=== Neutral (1) ===
Line 17 ⟶ 33:
#:{{ping|Naleksuh}} Where does it say that consuls are no longer exempt from the inactivity clause? As far as I've seen, there's nothing to suggest that. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 06:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
#::All consuls have been cleared out from the list. Right now only Revibot is exempt. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
#:::{{hidden ping|naleksuh}} Yes, but this policy would extend the inactivity period for consuls. It allows them a bit more time to be inactive before revoking rights. If they're senior, trusted members of the community, I feel they've earned that. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 15:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
== Proposal 2 ==
Line 27 ⟶ 44:
=== Oppose (2) ===
# {{Oppose|weak}} We run by [[w:WP:CON|consensus]], not !votes or support ratios. The community has shown themselves to be discriminating in terms of approving new [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consuls]], so I don't think a large need to get too cute or micro-managerial in imposing strict thresholds like this. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} per above --[[User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]] ([[User talk:Ameisenigel|talk]]) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} Per Dmehus, getting Consul here is not such an easy task already. Let's not get ahead of ourselves with this since it isn't needed in my opinion. [[User:Hypercane|Hypercane]] ([[User talk:Hypercane|talk]]) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{oppose}} per above [[User:Syunsyunminmin|Syunsyunminmin]] ([[User talk:Syunsyunminmin|talk]]) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (2) ===
Line 40 ⟶ 61:
=== Oppose (3) ===
#{{Oppose}} as a solution in search of a problem and because the existing [[TestWiki:Consuls|local policy]] is actually less stringent than what the proponent is proposing. The current policy allows for removal where a Consul has blatantly misused rights, violated a [[m:Category:Global policies|global policy]], or there is overwhelming [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] at [[TestWiki:Community portal]]. Since we consider discussions by consensus, and not !votes, I do not see any reason to change what is already a pretty well written policy. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} per above --[[User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]] ([[User talk:Ameisenigel|talk]]) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} Per Dmehus again, I do not believe this is a needed solution either. To be quite frank as well, I don't believe that this has happened in the past with the consuls to start with. [[User:Hypercane|Hypercane]] ([[User talk:Hypercane|talk]]) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (3) ===
== Proposal 4 ==
Consuls have the ability to demote other consuls, as opposed to only Stewards. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
▲<s>The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.</s>
:This is not globally allowed per [[:meta:Local_elections#Removing_bureaucrats]] but with consuls. Changing this policy must be discussed at Meta [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)▼
::The article you linked says "by default". I tested it on my wiki, and yes, it's absolutely possible to grant bureaucrats the ability to demote other bureaucrats. The article also says that it's ''not'' a policy [[User:Collei|Collei]] ([[User talk:Collei|talk]]) 07:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)▼
::: The purpose of the page isn't about what the interface allows, it's about the policy on how it can and cannot be used. Removing the managewiki group is supposed to be done by a steward. If a consul were to do it, the user whose groups were removed would have every right to have a steward put them back. '''Stewards are delegated the removal, and this is a long standing custom for many years'''. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 07:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)▼
=== Support (4) ===
#{{Support}} As proposer. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 02:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Line 57 ⟶ 76:
=== Oppose (4) ===
# {{Oppose}} As consul is the local equivalent to bureaucrat and as we don't allow bureaucrats to demote each other by default in order to prevent a takeover, I don't support this as it makes it easy for any consul to unilaterally demote one another. [[User:Agent Isai|<span style="color:skyblue">'''Agent</span><span style="color:lime;" > Isai'''</span>]] <sup>[[m:User talk:Agent Isai|<span style="color:orange;">'''Talk to me!'''</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} per Agent Isai. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} per above --[[User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]] ([[User talk:Ameisenigel|talk]]) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{Oppose}} Per Agent Isai. [[User:Hypercane|Hypercane]] ([[User talk:Hypercane|talk]]) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
# {{oppose}} [[User:Syunsyunminmin|Syunsyunminmin]] ([[User talk:Syunsyunminmin|talk]]) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (4) ===
▲
▲
▲
:::{{hidden ping|Naleksuh}}{{hidden ping|Collei}} Moved to comments because that's the appropriate venue, and as far as I'm concerned, each wiki makes its own policy. That's also been the custom for years. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 15:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
::::"it's about the policy on how it can and cannot be used"
::::Actually, at the top, the non-policy says: "This page describes Steward practices but is not a global policy." [[User:Collei|Collei]] ([[User talk:Collei|talk]]) 16:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
::As someone who was substantially involved in writing the linked page, the basis was codifying unwritten practices that were largely defined by Dmehus, then written/altered by me, and altered again by the current team. It reflects the preference of the Steward group but as stated above is ''not'' a formal policy. It would break nothing if a wiki decided to allow this especially through consensus. Many wikis (most frustratingly reception wikis) in fact had made this tweak in permissions for a long time and self-managed bureaucrats(the problems with that are why it's strongly discouraged and reiterated by the snowball in this section). Stewards take the subject case by case, of course there are default circumstances which the article reflects. Just some background for what the article is on about. --[[User:Raidarr|Raidarr]] ([[User talk:Raidarr|talk]]) 22:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
----
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section </div>
| |||