Requests for Comment/CVT intervention

I never really understood why Global Sysops couldn't use their rights on Meta, especially in emergency situations. Any help we can get is appreciated, especially when a project is run entirely by volunteers. That prompted proposal 1, to allow GS to intervene on Meta in emergency situations. This has happened before and so that cemented further the demonstrated usefulness of having a GS intervene in emergency situations. Proposal 2 was prompted to clarify when GRs should use their rights to add legitimacy to the use of their tools, especially since GS can't intervene on Meta but no formal restriction exists on GRs. Proposal 3 was bundled in as the result of an interesting discussion, which took place here and which fits closely with the topic of this RfC. Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal co-sponsored by:

Proposal 1 (Global Sysops)

 * Global Sysops should only intervene on Meta in emergency cases of spam and vandalism attacks where Meta administrators are unavailable. If local administrators are around to block and delete spam and vandalism, Global Sysops should leave it to them, unless a local administrator requests their help in which case they may intervene.

Explanation: Presently, Global Sysops cannot intervene in Meta for any reason. They are limited by a wiki set which disables their abilities to use their rights on Meta. However, having Global Sysops intervene in emergency cases makes a lot of sense. While the current Global Sysop team is small and our only lone GS at the moment is also a Meta admin, in the future if the project grows, it'd be of much help if a Global Sysop intervened to thwart spam and vandalism attacks should local administrators be away. While not rooted in policy, this has happened before when a Global Sysop blocked a user on Meta for vandalism and endless socking despite not being a Meta admin, and people generally agreed that such a block and local intervention was appropriate because of the emergency nature of the situation and the unavailability of local administrators. The position of Global Sysop is one of high trust so we can trust our Global Sysops to use their abilities in accordance to policy or they can face a vote of no confidence if they repeatedly violate this. Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support (1)

 * 1)  Per explanation and foreword.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per explanation. Makes sense to me. Universal Omega (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Global Sysop involvement on Meta should be the same as on any other Miraheze project. It should be restricted only by community consensus.  dross  (t • c • g) 02:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Makes sense. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Even though Meta is a separate project with its own administration and policies and has a sufficient amount of administrators it seems acceptable to allow for exceptional intervention "where Meta administrators are unavailable". I point out that I only would support a narrow interpretation of this phrase which would not mean that if administrators do not revert vandalism in one minute that would qualify them as being "unavailable". Reasonable time should be observed. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Per above, due to lower numbers of local admins as well it makes sense to allow trusted GS' to intervene for countervandalism only if necessary. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I support this idea by agreeing with the trust and comments of users.  Hey Türkiye  message?  16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  100%, not sure why we can't trust our GS' on Meta if we trust them everywhere else. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  This can work out well. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Makes sense. Absolutely. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  As above, given existing high-trust to the role, having a 'last-line' defense available to limit platform damage seems wise. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  This can cause wikis to be more diverse. Spencers (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (1)

 * 1)  Just posting here to show that I looked at Open Request.  I am unfamiliar with Global Sysops and don't quite yet know enough about the issue.  If there is any way to learn more - please share with me.  Thank you.

Comments (1)

 * I was under the impression this already was the case. I think the thing Agent Isai is referencing was this, in which case, the only problem I have with it is that the block was indefinite. Should have been at most 24 hours with a local sysop choosing to extend it if they want. Naleksuh (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The block was made with deliberate outreach to a local sysop to amend it to be what was appropriate. The actual duration in that context was irrelevant. Best practice would have been to set as temporary initially, but oh well. --Raidarr (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Global Rollbackers)

 * Global Rollbackers may use their rollback and  abilities on Meta only to revert obvious spam and vandalism. They should not use their abilities to rollback in place of normal undoing if the edit they're reverting is not obvious spam or vandalism.

Explanation: There is not much harm with having Global Rollbackers use their abilities on Meta so long as they use them to revert spam and vandalism, in keeping with their scope of "revert[ing] spam and vandalism across all of Miraheze." Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support (2)

 * 1)  No issues with GRs using their rights on Meta.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Universal Omega (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Same as proposal 1.  dross  (t • c • g) 02:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Makes perfect sense. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  GRs are trusted so there should be no issues as long as it's used only for the purpose described. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  Makes sense as global rollbackers are not competent enough to be a global sysop or a steward but are competent enough to revert vandalism and spamming nonsense on all wikis here. TF3RDL (talk &#124; contribs &#124; FANDOM &#124; Wikipedia) 14:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I support this idea by agreeing with the trust and comments of users.  Hey Türkiye  message?  16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Again, we trust users with these permissions for a reason. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  per all of the above. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Makes sense too. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Same as above rationale for GSysOp. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  Spencers (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Opt-outs)

 * If a wiki has opted out of Global Sysop intervention, Global Sysops may nevertheless intervene in relation to enforcing global policies (i.e. Content Policy, Code of Conduct, etc.) only.

To accomplish this, the current wiki set used to restrict Global Sysops would be eliminated. While wikis will still be able to opt out of countervandalism intervention, they will not be able to opt out of global policy enforcement. Under this new system, Global Sysops would honor wikis' requests to not have any countervandalism intervention but there would no longer be a wiki set that restricts them.

Explanation: As stated by DeeM28 in the Global Rollbackers RfC, "by having an opt-out, wikis are able to restrain the people who are able to enforce policies. It is as if a city could "opt-out" from national police and only allow local police to enforce laws - it does not make much sense." Though the current GS team is small, in the future if it expands, it could potentially be curtailed in it's abilities to respond to global policy violations if a wiki decides to opt out of its intervention. Trivial things like removing a blatant attack page would have to be resolved by a Steward rather than by a Global Sysop who is unable to use their tools on wikis that are opted out of their intervention. In a project like Miraheze, any manpower is appreciated especially since we're all volunteers and may not always have time to check Miraheze to help resolve any issues. If a GS can take something off our plate, we'd appreciate it a lot so that we can get to more complex tasks like CheckUsers and such. Since Global Sysop is a position of high trust, I'm certain we can trust our Global Sysops to respect a wiki's desire to not be subject to Global Sysop countervandalism intervention and should they do that, they can always be subject to a vote of no confidence if they exceed policy. Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support (3)

 * 1)  Per explanation and per CN post linked.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  In the scope of the United States, the example regarding a city opting out of national police is a poor example, as that does in fact happen. Analogy aside, it is more appropriate than restricting tools on particular projects for the projects opting out to establish appropriate local policy and advice for global functionaries (Stewards, Global Sysops, and Global Rollbackers). This comes, of course, with an exception in the pursuit of global policy enforcement.  dross  (t • c • g) 02:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am not a citizen of the US respectfully it is I am sure not possible for a city to opt-out of the FBI enforcing federal law there as it is applicable to everyone in the country. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not really the right venue for this conversation, though I will reply with this. It happens frequently in the USA that local law enforcement will take a case from federal investigators on jurisdictional means. What you describe in this comment does, in fact, occur sometimes. You're correct that it isn't universal, but there are valid justifications. In a way, this can apply to the way we justify the degree of community autonomy Miraheze projects have. dross  (t • c • g) 09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I very much appreciate that my ideas have allowed for this proposal to come into existence. This obviously does make sense but I would also add that other than countervandalism measures wikis would also be fully within their rights to opt-out from global administrators to enforce local policies - but I imagine that very rarely happens. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish to add that after further thought I oppose the elimination of the current wiki set as I do not understand where wikis who wish to opt-out from non-global policy interventions would be able to make themselves known otherwise. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Stewards shouldn't be the sole enforcers of global policies. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I support this idea by agreeing with the trust and comments of users.  Hey Türkiye  message?  16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Makes sense. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Weak because of the comments in the oppose section, which also make sense. But I still think that a wiki should not be able to opt-out of global policies, so I support this. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  per both supporting and opposing. Spencers (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (3)

 * 1)  I have concerns about expanding the number of roles/user capable of intervention when non-intervention had already specifically been agreed to in the past with those wikis in question.  While I agree that content policy enforcement is crucial, it seems like this delegates that decision-making about what is or is not policy-adherent to GSysOps, which may be an inadvertent escalation of intended role privilege and purview... I welcome comments that could shift me to one side or the other. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is within Global Sysops' purview to enforce global policies, per the Global Sysops policy which states that they "are users who assist Stewards in [...] enforcing Miraheze's global policies." This clause is more intended for clear cut cases of removing pages which violate the CP, not harder complex cases which they should leave up to Stewards anyhow and currently do on wikis where they can intervene. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That puts me in a better place re: potentially granting this ability to Global SysOps, though per comments section I feel like a clarification on what opt-out wikis are able to opt-out of would be appropriate before making this change.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

 * 1)  Per my comments below, this proposal does not seem to make it clear the concept and where the line is drawn. For that reason, I can not currently support this proposal. Universal Omega (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which part appears unclear to you? I think it seems clear that Global Sysops are only allowed to enforce global policies and that is it. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is a global policy. Therefore this proposal contradicts itself. Naleksuh (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Opting out is opting out. I also don't see any real way to do a thing where Global Sysops just "check" a page before doing anything for counter-vandalism. I also think global sysop's ability to enforce Miraheze policy is very poor, and this is a Steward task for a reason. Overall it sounds like this proposal just wants to remove the ability to opt out, which isn't necessarily a bad idea on its own but not in this manner. Naleksuh (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per UO

Comments (3)

 * 1)  This makes sense to me. But the question I do have is how would it be enforced to global sysops to not interven in countervandalism whereas it is okay to intervene to enforce global policies, where is such a list kept? How to we actually enforce it on global sysops? Where is the line drawn on countervandalism and policy enforcement? Can they revert the vandalism on opt-out wikis to revert cross-wiki vandalism or spam, or do they ignore such an instance on any opt out wikis? Meta is currently opt-out as of now, but proposal one counteracts this, they can interven in the instance of emergency spam or vandalism on Meta if that passes, does the same thing apply to any other potential opt-out wikis? Universal Omega (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In this respect I'm of the mind that the entire opt-out concept is a bit silly; the only reason for intervention should either be vandalism/abusive and otherwise unwanted content or global policy issues with little room for ambiguity. If a wiki is handling things well enough on its own then global intervention won't be required in the first place. Perhaps this could be an additional proposal or RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that with these new proposals the opt out concept is diminished and there is a blurred area between Content Policy and local policies and custom. Although this is the case I still think that a wiki should be able to say whether they want Global Sysops to assist them with anything other than global policies. Examples are not only countervandalism but also enforcing local policies and helping with local disputes. If wikis do not want this from Global Sysops I do not think it is necessary to impose this on them. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that if we want to expand the scope of where non-intervention requests will be overridden, we should clarify this via a policy change first, whether that's to clarify that non-intervention does not apply to global policy in all cases or remove the opt-out entirely. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)