TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This RfC is closed as follows:

• Proposal 1: Successful. As this proposal is made specifically in relation to Consuls it supersedes the inactivity policy and introduces a 6 months period for Consuls.
• Proposal 2: Unsuccessful.
• Proposal 3: Unsuccessful.
• Proposal 4: Unsuccessful.

Reception123 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone,

I’d like to propose a series of changes to the TestWiki Consuls Policy. Please note that no proposal in this Request for Comment is mutually exclusive to another. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Add a revocation criteria that states that if the user has been inactive for a period of 6 months or more (log actions, edits, any contributions to TestWiki in any manner), their rights will be removed. They of course, can request admin or bureaucrat at TW:RfP at any time, or consul here. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (1)

1. Support As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak support Because of the proposer's rationale regarding inactivity policy. 50% of current Consuls hold multiple global elected and non-elected hats, and I think extending Consuls' inactivity period for that reason is reasonable. Dmehus (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Agree with Dmehus. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Support This is something that should have existed originally before now. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
6. 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. Hypercane (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
8. Support 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments (1)

1. This is pointless because they will already be removed after 3 months, as being a consul no longer gets you an exemption from the inactivity policy. Therefore, this would never happen. Naleksuh (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   @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. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 06:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   All consuls have been cleared out from the list. Right now only Revibot is exempt. Naleksuh (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   ​ 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. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 15:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The appointment requirement for consuls is 75% with at least 5 users leaving their comments. The request also must be left open for at least 7 days. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (2)

1. Support As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

1. Weak oppose We run by consensus, not !votes or support ratios. The community has shown themselves to be discriminating in terms of approving new Consuls, so I don't think a large need to get too cute or micro-managerial in imposing strict thresholds like this. Dmehus (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
3. 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. Hypercane (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The revocation requirement (when it comes to community revocation requests and not inactivity or misuse of rights, etc.) for consuls is 60%, with at least 5 users voting and the request being left open for at least 7 days. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (3)

1. Support As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

1. Oppose as a solution in search of a problem and because the existing 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 global policy, or there is overwhelming 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. Dmehus (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
3. 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. Hypercane (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Consuls have the ability to demote other consuls, as opposed to only Stewards. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support (4)

1. Support As proposer. BrandonWM (talk - contribs) 02:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (4)

1. 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. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Agent Isai. Dmehus (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Agent Isai. Hypercane (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments (4)

1. This is not globally allowed per meta:Local_elections#Removing_bureaucrats but with consuls. Changing this policy must be discussed at Meta 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 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. Naleksuh (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

​​ 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. BrandonWM (talk - 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." 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. --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