User talk:SPQRobin/policy

Old discussion

Bureaucrats

Nice. But why on RFP a section for b'crat elections? (I thought you become after 2 months in your proposal) --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the proposed policy says that you can only request it after you have already been an administrator for 2 months. In the proposed policy, you don't get it automatically. Cbrown1023 talk 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Because a bureaucrat will be more important, and most wikis has a seperate vote for bureaucrats. SPQRobin 11:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting

So if nobody has any comments, I will start a voting SPQRobin 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the bureaucrat policy, becuase most users did't like that part. SPQRobin 11:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

• SPQRobin 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cbrown1023 talk 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• VasilievVV 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (bu I'm still in doubt of bureaucrat policy)
• Tonyfroio 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

* MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)I don't support, but I also do not oppose. --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Olaf Voljavo / 𐤏𐤋𐤀𐤅 𐤅𐤏𐤋𐤉𐤀𐤅𐤏 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• — Timichal 12:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Are we voting again? Each month a new policy? -Markvondeegel 12:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Xazoj CoospojQuitlc
• SeriCtam 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• I completly do not agree with the bureaucrat part. --Ooswesthoesbes 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Netraol.
• See below. — Timichal 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.

Comments

Now I have some comments:

• I think a bureaucrat section is not needed on RFP. That could go to the sysop section and be mentioned in the headline (e.g. "Bureaucrat access User XYZ")
• translators can edit the interface. I propose that non-sysop translators who edit Incubator-specific MediaWiki pages like MediaWiki:Sidebar or MediaWiki:Sitenotice are misbehaving and their transalator right will be removed.
• please clarify "misbehaving himself or other such reasons". How can you misbehave yourself?
• will test sysops be desysopped when project is rejected? That happened to Yaroslav Zolotaryov and his test sysop status for ru-lat.
• a bot flag should also be removed when a bot doesn't work and only causes harm.

--MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Bwah, that doesn't matter I think. But if you want to do that, please do so.
2. Yes, you're right. I translate at Betawiki, and if I want to translate the sidebar or sitenotice, I can't edit it (and no, it hasn't been protected) I've asked it at Betawiki, and it appears that translators are not able to edit these pages.
3. Vandalizing, you know, doing what you don't need to do, etc ... I've already seen on some wikis, good contributors who suddenly vandalize or misbehave themselves.
4. I've changed "Test-administrators will be desysopped after a domain request for their langauge is completed." to "Test-administrators will be desysopped after their test is deleted (see Incubator:Policy#Closure or deletion)."
5. Hmm.. I think I forgot this. Anyway I changed "Only per request, otherwise never." to "Per request, when he is inactive, misbehaving himself or other such reasons."

SPQRobin 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy this is a bit difficult. Xazoj CoospojQuitlc

Timichal's comments

I disagree with bits of that policy:

• We specifically set up the bureaucrat system as it is now (sysop=bureaucrat) because this is not exactly a "one community" project, rather, there are people working on their incubator projects and then sysops working on maintenance and helping other people. We don't need a special bureaucrat class at all, as sysops can "approve" translators and test administrators just fine. Note buraucrats will *not* become "more important" after a test-sysop group is created; it will work in the exact same way as it does now, except it'll be easier for us to maintain. (Personally, I never wanted this to be rules-encumbered project, but more like a frinedly development place... however, I think this is changing.)
• When there are no votes or comments anymore in the next five days after the last vote or comment, a bureaucrat will make a decision based on the votes and comments seems very impractical to me, what if someone keeps adding random comments every four days? The RfA would never end. There should be a sensible limit for the duration of the RfA. — Timichal 14:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. These are actually reasons for the creation of the Incubator Plus. These policies make it hard for (sometimes not/bad English speaking) people to understand what they can do and what they can't do. -Markvondeegel 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that project, I think it's a pity Incubator can't be more open and we have to create forks (more or less). For example, with the language-must-have-an-ISO-code requirement: I think this was included because of langcom's influence, but I've (both as an Incubator admin and a langocm member) always opposed any langcom control over Incubator. Hope I'm not sounding too trollish, but recent policies here kind of disappointed me. — Timichal 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We only give ourself much work with this policy. We'll constantly need to move pages and delete tests. This week over 3 tests have been deleted and 1 is still nominated for deletion. -Markvondeegel 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is really a pity that we have this 'ISO-code or delete' rule, but otherwise Incubator could become a trashbin for "languages" like ru-lat. It is also a problem that languages on Incubator Plus have a very little possibility of being approved by the Langcom, so having them here would be a kind of "trashbin" also, a kind of wasting the Foundation's webspace. --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Incubator could become a trashbin" - if the deletion process works properly, then it couldn't; "very little possibility of being approved by the Langcom" - you never know, do you? :) — Timichal 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

About the space. If you delete a page an administrator can still see that page. So even if you delete a test the space is still in use. -Markvondeegel 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, forget everything I said... --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer on Timichal's comments:

• I changed the bureaucrat part, now you may choose if you want to be an admin, or also a bureaucrat.
• Hmm... I don't think someone will do that, but I've added a limit of 15 days.

SPQRobin 11:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much better now. :-) — Timichal 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, when you now start an admin election, and also want to be bureaucrat, you write that in your election? And: why make elections for the admins that are bureaucrats now? If they used their bureaucrat rights, they agree with being one, and if there were no protests about their bureaucratship, the community also agrees with them being b'crat, I think. --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 12:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Firt question: yes. Second question: That sentence remained after I removed the bureaucrat part. I will remove it. SPQRobin 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Official

9 support, 1 oppose and 1 neutral at this moment; I will make this policy official when bugzilla:10727 finally is done. SPQRobin 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

After many months, the devs have finally fixed bug 10727. It was my intention to replace the current I:A page by the new policy discussed above. But I merged my two pages into one and updated it a bit. Actually there is almost nothing changed compared to the current I:A and the previous proposal. But, you never know, so if anyone is against this page (content and/or lay-out), say this. I don't like another voting, just argument about the page :-) SPQRobin 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO there is no need to change the current I:A page except this section which could be complemented from User:SPQRobin/Policy#Test-administrators. Also, I don't like the lay-out of the proposal. I think continuous text is better. --MF-W {a, b} 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with MF-W but don't have an opinion on either layout. Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)