TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy (edit)

Revision as of 19:02, 8 March 2023

4,829 bytes added , 1 year ago

close

VisualWikitext

Reception123

Bureaucrats, Consuls, Administrators

170

edits

Revision as of 00:53, 8 March 2023 (edit) 83.123.127.179 (talk) No edit summary Tag: Reverted ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 19:02, 8 March 2023 (edit) (undo) Reception123 (talk \| contribs) (close)
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user 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"> :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 [[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, I’d like to propose a series of changes to the TestWiki Consuls Policy. <i>Please note that no proposal in this Request for Comment is mutually exclusive to another.</i> [[User:BrandonWM\|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM\|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. [[User:BrandonWM\|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM\|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM\|contribs]]) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC) === 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) === === Oppose (1) === === Comments (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. [[User:Naleksuh\|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh\|talk]]) 06:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC) #:{{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 13 ⟶ 42: === Neutral (2) === === 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) === == Proposal 3 == Line 52 ⟶ 90: ::::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>