Requests for Comment/Request for Oversight Authority

'''This is a draft. Please do not vote, just make comments.'''

Normally, you would need to contact Steward to exercise your Oversight rights, but that does not allow us to take immediate action on copyright infringement statements, personal information statements, etc. Therefore, we request the establishment of Oversight privileges on local wikis. ナムコォッ！ (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

General commentary
This section is for commentary, not for voting.
 * What is the aim of this Request for Comments? It is rather vague and does not make its intentions clear. If you want to be elected a local Oversighter on a wiki, making a Request for Comments is not the way to do so. To be elected a local Oversighter, you must hold a vote on the wiki you're requesting the right on. This vote must fulfill the requirements for Stewardship which is that there must be a minimum of 20 unique votes casted and a support ratio of 80%, along with a signed NDA with Miraheze and so on. Should the vote be successful, a Steward will promote you to local Oversighter. However, I'd like to note that RevDel is sufficient for most use cases and that Stewards respond quick enough to Oversight requests so the need for electing local Oversighters is few. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 07:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agent Isai. Without presenting a pressing need there is very little chance of an RfC like this passing or indeed someone being elected as local Oversight. Revision deletion should be sufficient for most cases and if not Stewards are able to use oversight in extreme cases. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There should also be 2 local oversighters so there is always a local user who can monitor / give 2nd opinions. There is nothing preventing local oversighters & stewards being appointed. There's just very few wikis that could realistically appoint them meeting the criteria. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too.If the serious problems happen,They can be handled mostly with administrative privileges.We do not necessarily need to use oversite authority. by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 09:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If this proposal tends to lower the requirements of becoming a local oversighter, I will oppose this proposal since this right allows access to private information (oversighters can access the private information which stewards hide) and should have very strict requirements. If this is not the case, can you explain clearly about what is the purpose (the aim) of this proposal? Thanks. -Matttest (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do recall that it was possible to change the view level with administrative privileges.--ナムコォッ！ (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So do you want to continue this proposal? If you do, I think you should state clearly about the aim and purpose of this request for comment. If no, you can request a steward (either here or at their talk page) to close this drafted proposal. --Matttest (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Local Oversight Introduction
Local Oversight allows for quick description confidentiality without the need for Steward's intervention. ナムコォッ！ (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 09:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Isn't it better off with what we have now? :/ --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What we have now is exactly what this proposal is asking for. Which is why I was waiting for this RfC to be deleted. Naleksuh (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  A vague RfC that have no clear purpose. I may change this comment when the proposer gives reply to my question above. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 10:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)