Requests for Comment/CheckUser and Oversight

CheckUser and Oversight
With Miraheze's new privacy policy close to its final stages of draft, I think I can address the use of CU and OS. Currently, it is restricted to Stewards. This is something I strongly disagree with. As noted in the RFC on Stewards overall, I personally feel that wiki founders should have access to these tools, but be binded by regulations. Please share your thoughts on each of the following proposals.

Proposal 1
These tools will remain limited to Stewards, even after the new privacy policy offically goes into effect.

Comments

 * Per the reasons for opening this RFC in the first place. Amanda (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude or come off as threatening, but I really don't think you understand these tools or what they are for. Neither tool is restricted to Stewards. If you view interwiki rights logs on this wiki, you will see that Stewards grant these rights to themselves as needed, and then immediately remove them when they are done. These tools can be handed out indefinitely or permanently to anyone else for the same reason, but so far there has not been a demonstratable need for this. If a wiki became so large and has issues that it needed these features often, they would be handed out, but even All The Tropes (our largest wiki) has not ever requested access to these tools. There is no way to globally monitor CheckUser usage, so unless Stewards regularly viewed the CU log on every wiki, they would not even know that 'founders' are abusing the rights. Also, the founder user group does not exist on any wikis unless it has been requested, thus, to make any of the other proposals work, bureaucrats would have to be given the right by default. Also, why do you need oversight? Are you going to suppress every single log on your wiki after you duplicate mistakes or something? Currently Oversight is the highest-level of on-wiki removal, used only for private information or legal removals that non-global staff should never have access to. If you had access to oversight, then the only thing we could do is implement a new form of revision deletion you wouldn't have access to, which, no offense, I assume you would just complain about as well, or we would have to actually delete the information directly from the database (which can only be done by Operations members and is, for the most part, irreversible). Pup (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2
These tools will be available to wiki founders once the new privacy policy is officially in effect, and such founders will be allowed to create local polices binding their use of the tools.

Comments

 * This is acceptable, but I would prefer to see proposal 3 instead. Amanda (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Founders should not have the authority to create local policies regarding access to nonpublic information. Pup (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3
These tools will be able to wiki founders once the new privacy policy is officially in effect, and such founders will be required to comply with the global polices that dictate Steward use already. Any local polices cannot conflict with the global ones.

Comments

 * Per comments above. Amanda (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The pages (which FYI aren't in the Meta namespace) aren't official policies. Also, like mentioned in my comment on proposal one, there is no central log for use of these tools, so monitoring for abuse would be more or less impossible unless it was reported to us. Pup (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)