Requests for Comment/Stewards

Following a proposal from a community member around stewards, this organised request for comment has been designed to act as clarification over the role of stewards and other technical information to ensure stewards are able to complete the role they're given.

This will not deal with wording a policy but rather an agreement of specifics. Proposals are to be designed to get a point across rather than being a word-for-word suggestion. Additional proposals can be added with the assumption the most thoughtfully agreed proposal being the successful one or a combination of successful ones.

Proposal 1
Stewards will work with communities to address issues facing them locally such as disputes, abusive or disruptive behaviour as well as global issues such as disruptive behaviour across multiple wikis. This includes global and local right assignment, use of routine administrator permissions (delete, blocking etc.) on local wikis and in a global sense (locking accounts, renames), CheckUser and oversight permissions.

Comments
 * as a current Steward I think this is basically what we do. I think only taking action on issues affecting multiple communities will make it hard to create a functional global community and it will make it difficult for small communities to start up / stay active if the only people with rights leave. This opinion may change if people request administrative actions be performed by Stewards much, in which case I might recommend global sysops or similar. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Southparkfan (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Although a global admin right would be interesting, that is in itself a whole new can of worms. I only think that would be an issue if activity really picks up. -- Void  Whispers 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Stewards will only focus on global issues affecting multiple communities and the global community to prevent disruptive users and arbitrate global disputes. Stewards will avoid getting involved in issues affecting local communities unless they begin to affect multiple different communities. This includes global right assignments, checkuser and oversight permissions to support global efforts only.

Comments

Proposal 1
Stewards will be appointed by agreement of current stewards after the community have been given time to share their views on prospective candidates. This will mean existing stewards have the final say on future stewards.

Comments
 * I think this is kind of related to how system administrators are chosen. I could support this policy but am more in favor of proposal 4, where the community has a say. Maybe a combination policy could be proposed where current stewards can ok/block successful votes until issues raised by current Stewards are addressed? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:
 * at least 10 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%.

Comments

Proposal 3
Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:
 * at least 10 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 70%.

Comments

Proposal 4
Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:
 * at least 20 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%.

Comments
 * I think there needs to be a strong show of support before rights should be appointed. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - sounds good. Southparkfan (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Void  Whispers 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:
 * at least 20 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 70%.

Comments

Proposal 1 (Inactivity)
Stewards who do not participate in the community in some form (responding to questions, dealing with issues, administrative tasks on meta as a minimum) for 1 year will be deemed inactive and have their steward rights revoked. For the purpose of community, this include wikis or phabricator.

Comments

Proposal 2 (Inactivity)
Stewards who do not participate in the community in some form (responding to questions, dealing with issues, administrative tasks on meta as a minimum) for 6 months will be deemed inactive and have their steward rights revoked. For the purpose of community, this include wikis or phabricator.

Comments
 * I think responding to one question per 6 month time window is an easy enough display of activity. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Void  Whispers 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Revocation)
Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:
 * receives at least 10 votes;
 * has at least 50% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments

Proposal 4 (Revocation)
Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:
 * receives at least 10 votes;
 * has at least 75% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments

Proposal 5 (Readdition)
A steward can be given the rights back if there are no issues raised by the community in a period of 24 hours and if they were not previously revoked per a vote of no confidence.

Comments
 * Unless other issues are raised, I think all rights removed per inactivity or self-removal should be granted back upon request. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , provided that there is no change in the scope of Stewardship and what Stewards can do in the time between inactivity and re-application. -- Void  Whispers 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)
Once a steward has their rights revoked for any reason, they must make a successful request satisfy the agreed criteria above in order to regain the rights.

Comments
 * - Southparkfan (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Revocation)
Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:
 * receives at least the minimum number of votes to appoint a Steward;
 * has at least 50% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments
 * as creator. I think that the revocation vote should require the same number of addition votes (as above). -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - 75% seems a bit high. Southparkfan (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Void  Whispers 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Stewards do not serve a limited term. Once granted the rights, they remain permanent until revoked or removed by inactivity or a vote.

Comments
 * I think that a 50% removal / vote of confidence is simple enough, why make them a regular thing? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Stewards serve a term of 1 year. If a steward does not achieve a successful confirmation after one year, the rights will be removed.

Comments

Proposal 3
Stewards serve a term of 2 years. If a steward does not achieved a successful confirmation after two years, the rights will be removed.

Comments