TestWiki:Requests for Comment/Amending Consul policy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)