Requests for Comment/Changes to the Dormancy Policy (3)

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The changes proposed here relate to wikis being made read-only (as in locked from editing) being part of the dormancy process.

The proposals below are not dependent on other proposals unless otherwise stated. K599 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

General commentary[edit | edit source]

This section is for commentary, not for voting.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I don't think it is ideal to create an additional RfC to expand upon the details of an already messing/ongoing RfC, given this now splits between two pages, uses a formal structure that's difficult to change through discussion once votes are cast, and could well indeed be influenced by the passage or failure of details on existing RfCs. In other words I find this page to be premature, and better represented through the CN or informal discussion to iron out generally agreeable stances to then vote upon once there is a preliminary assessment through the original RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Raidarr: Please state what "details" of the other RfC that this RfC is apparently "expanding" upon. K599 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps calling it 'details' is clerically incorrect, but I hold that the overall topical relevance and discussion is a splinter of the existing RfC and does not stand well here on its own. Good luck with it in any case. Per discord and other on-wiki discussion you seem quite convinced of the path. --Raidarr (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Even though they both cover the topic of the Dormancy Policy, the intention for this is that it deals with different aspects of it, and therefore discusses different issues. That said, looking over the other RfC, I suppose I'll acknowledge that it could be considered that there might be overlap concerning adoption. K599 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that! YellowFrogger (Talk Edits) 19:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Per my message here, I disagree with the hasty opening of a new RfC for this very controversial topic and would prefer that this request is withdrawn and a new Dormancy Policy RfC is created after a draft is first opened and discussed/collaborated on to create several proposals that can be voted on. Reception123 (talk) (C) 20:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    I'll put this page in a "drafts" section, but I'm not going to throw away the proposals. K599 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@K599: Would you be opposed to changing references to "bureaucrats" to "users with the managewiki right"? Some wikis might replace the bureaucrat group or use it for something different, so wording it this way will refer to the equivalent of bureaucrats in such situations. — Arcversin (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Arcversin This is a minor semantic difference. Dormancy Policy may mention the bureaucrat role, but where a wiki had no bureaucrat role, Stewards would treat any group(s) holding the managewiki user right as functionally equivalent. Dmehus (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I know, just wanted to do so for clarity (and since it seemed to involve some automated stuff). — Arcversin (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay, fair enough. Dmehus (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I ask anyone to feel free to provide assistance or suggestions in making the below proposals more "clear". K599 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • On another note, users committing vandalism on inactive wikis should be handled by CVT, and if there are people who want to make an inactive wiki into an active one, it would be more ideal that they would be free to do so without having to deal with the wiki being closed off from editing. K599 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Finally, there should be clear confirmation on whether or not there is notification sent to bureaucrats when a wiki is marked as deleted, as the Dormancy Policy page does not state this as far as I can tell. K599 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Part 1 (Inactivity state)[edit | edit source]

Part 2 (Adoption) (archived, don't vote)[edit | edit source]