Requests for Comment/Eligibility criteria to apply for CVT and Steward

While interwiki administrators have clear eligibility criteria, CVT and Stewards have no clear eligibility criteria documented. This means even IPs (though not technically impossible to gain rights) can nominate themselves (seen here), as well as those who would probably face snowball (seen in many recent candidates). This is not very productive for our community, and as CVT and Stewards have powerful permissions, I think it's time we should have clear eligibility criteria for these permissions as well.-- 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

General discussion
I support this effort but have no idea what the right thresholds are, and suspect that the right numbers will change over time based on global activity and participation on Meta.

There is no rule prohibiting people who don't understand the basics of social interaction, and no rule keeping them from opening a Miraheze account and, as their first move, trying to take over. The important thing for Meta's legislators is to provide a basis for Stewards to quickly dispose of self-nominations by newbies, and avoid the divisive discussions nearby (by others who don't know the basics of social interaction) to try to convince them they are newbies.

To the extent people are proposing numbers as the basis for who should prevail in their stewardship request, the people who care enough to vote always do a better job of evaluating the request. The only vital job here is to reduce the noise level. 12:46 26-May-2019
 * I also have no idea as well, but I agree with Spike. Any new users or non-experienced users appointed their poor self-nominations statement of stewardship shall be speedy closing the request as invalid, the candidate is useless for those illegitimate users to self requests for stewardship, as what have stated at here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Further, on the proposals to require Adminship of "3+ wikis": Anyone can be an Admin of 3 wikis; all you have to do is request 3 wikis (invent 3 plausible things you might do with different wikis) as you are initially an Admin on each one. It proves nothing. Perversely, it might lead to requests to create unneeded wikis simply to accumulate credentials. (Reception123 uses the excellent term "hat collecting" on the Stewards' noticeboard today.) On the other hand, Borderman, as far as I know, has only TheLonsdaleBattalion, a museum he has maintained so meticulously and for so long as to want success for Miraheze. I am Admin of two, both of very limited interest. There is no legitimate reason for me to open a third right now; there could eventually be reason for me to request closure of one or both I have, none of which should be an arbitrary barrier. So the requirement to be Admin on a number of wikis is neither necessary nor sufficient. Even success at moderating a community on another wiki is not a qualification to climb on top of this one.

Likewise, a number of edits made on single-purpose wikis (developing high-quality editorial content? or gossiping on talk pages?) does not show commitment to Miraheze, nor does its absence prove absence of commitment. 19:37 26-May-2019

Proposal 1 (500 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 500 global edits.

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (1000 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 1000 global edits.

Support

 * 1) Having the same criteria as interwiki admin seems to be fair enough to me.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I oppose this per Spike and my own discution on RfC:interwiki-admin changes. However If one of thees has to pass and the requerement is not removed from inter-wiki admin, then this is one i think it shuld be.

Proposal 3 (2000 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 2000 global edits.

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (500 globally, 100 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 500 global edits and at least 100 edits on meta.

Oppose

 * 1) Not all users are active on meta (though they still may be active globally). As meta is opted out from CVT, no edits on meta should be required as well.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (1000 globally, 100 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 1000 global edits and at least 100 edits on meta.

Oppose

 * 1) Not all users are active on meta (though they still may be active globally). As meta is opted out from CVT, no edits on meta should be required as well.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (2000 globally, 200 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 2000 global edits and at least 200 edits on meta.

Oppose

 * 1) Not all users are active on meta (though they still may be active globally). As meta is opted out from CVT, no edits on meta should be required as well.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (1 month)

 * A candidate must be at least 1 month old since registered.

Support

 * 1) Having the same criteria as interwiki admin seems to be fair enough to me.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (2 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 2 months old since registered.

Oppose

 * 1) Too long.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (3 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 3 months old since registered.

Oppose

 * 1) Too long.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (6 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 6 months old since registered.

Oppose

 * 1) Too long.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (1 year)

 * A candidate must be at least 1 year (12 months) old since registered.

Oppose

 * 1) Too long.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (not required)

 * No local/global permission is required to run as a candidate.

Support

 * 1) Some users may not create their own wiki(s), but still can be active globally. Such users may be able to help us fight against cross-wiki vandals, but may not have an admin permission anywhere. Thus, this proposal, IMO, is acceptable.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  While it would be rare to get CVT rights without already having other local/global rights, I prefer to only have strict appointment criteria, not strict eligibility criteria. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (admin on 1+ wiki(s))

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 1 wiki.

Support

 * 1) (continues from my comment on Proposal 1) However, I do think a candidate should have some experience of administration. Thus, I would like to support this proposal stronger.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (admin on 2+ wikis)

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 2 wikis.

Oppose

 * 1) I think it's too hard to set as a criterion.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (admin on 3+ wikis)

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 3 wikis.

Oppose

 * 1) I think it's too hard to set as a criterion.-- 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (500 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 500 global edits.

Oppose

 * 1) Too weak considering that interwiki admins should have 1000 or more edits.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (1000 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 1000 global edits.

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (2000 globally)

 * A candidate must have at least 2000 global edits.

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (500 globally, 100 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 500 global edits and at least 100 edits on meta.

Oppose

 * 1) Too weak considering that interwiki admins should have 1000 or more edits.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements.  Southparkfan (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (1000 globally, 100 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 1000 global edits and at least 100 edits on meta.

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (2000 globally, 200 on meta)

 * A candidate must have at least 2000 global edits and at least 200 edits on meta.

Support

 * 1) The criteria to apply for a Steward must be higher than the other global permissions. And as we have our stewards' noticeboard here on meta, I think a candidate should be active on meta as well.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (5000 globally, 350 on Meta and 500 across WMF)

 * A candidate must have at least 5000 global edits, at least 350 edits on meta and at least 500 edits globally across WMF.

Support

 * 1) Very high, but we can ensure that the candidate has enough experience on Meta as well as on WMF. Fungster ''My talk 12:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Absolutely no. I don't have an account on WMF, in fact. WMF is a different project, and contributions there shouldn't be required.-- 12:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Besides, it's absolutely nonsense to require experience on a completely different project. Southparkfan (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't deem that across WMF is required although I am also a member on Wikimedia, Miraheze Wiki host server is difference kind of projects from Wikimedia, except for some certain basic policies are resemble. Yes, stewards are the responsibility to handle checkuser and oversight private information access, but acknowledgment the WMF wikipedia:meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy is sufficient. SA</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  NO! What udder nonsense! Why shuld requesting rights on here require contributing to a completely different project ran by a completely different group of people with completely different goals? Besides, edit counts are not good elegiblty criteria anyway per above. Bonnedav (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (1 month)

 * A candidate must be at least 1 month old since registered.

Oppose

 * 1) Too weak.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (2 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 2 months old since registered.

Proposal 3 (3 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 3 months old since registered.

Support

 * 1) 3 to 6 months old, IMO, is a good enough account age.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (6 months)

 * A candidate must be at least 6 months old since registered.

Support

 * 1) 3 to 6 months old, IMO, is a good enough account age.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (1 year)

 * A candidate must be at least 1 year (12 months) old since registered.

Support

 * 1) That's why the stewards in the Wikimedia Foundation are so trusted. Fungster ''My talk 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I think it's a bit too long. Some user might be able to help us greatly even if s/he is less than a year old.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (not required)

 * No local/global permission is required to run as a candidate.

Support

 * 1)  While it would be rare to get Steward rights without already having other local/global rights, I prefer to only have strict appointment criteria, not strict eligibility criteria. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) As I think the user must have some global permissions before running for a steward.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose Per the comment above. Fungster ''My talk 13:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (admin on 1+ wiki(s))

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 1 wiki.

Support

 * 1) I think s/he should have a local experience of administration to have the highest permission.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (admin on 2+ wikis)

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 2 wikis.

Support

 * 1) and 2 sounds fine as well.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (admin on 3+ wikis)

 * A candidate must have an administrator permission in at least 3 wikis.

Support

 * 1) 3 seems to be tougher, but still not very hard (considering that you can have at least 2 relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis).-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  "[...] considering that you can have at least 2 (wikis where you hold administrator rights) relatively easily on the English and Spanish testwikis" makes this completely useless. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (CVT or interwiki admin)

 * A candidate must have either the CVT permission or the interwiki admin permission.

Support

 * 1) Though I personally think a steward candidate should experience CVT, being an interwiki admin can also be a proof for global trust. Thus, I would like to support this idea weakly.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  While it would be rare to get Steward rights without already having other local/global rights, I prefer to only have strict appointment criteria, not strict eligibility criteria. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (CVT)

 * A candidate must have the CVT permission.

Support

 * 1) CVT has powerful permissions such as lock and global block. Still, stewards have even stronger permissions (as OS and CU). Thus, it seems fair enough to me that every steward candidate should be a CVT.-- 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  While it would be rare to get Steward rights without already having other local/global rights, I prefer to only have strict appointment criteria, not strict eligibility criteria. Southparkfan (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7
The user requesting Stewardship must have an account on the Wikimedia Foundation, and that account must not be currently blocked on any of the projects in the Foundation. ''that's why I am not eligible for stewardship. Fungster My talk 11:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) It's just WMF imperialism. As I already said, WMF is a different project and activities there should not be required.-- 13:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Miraheze is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation and vice versa. It is absolute nonsense to require presence of a non-blocked account there. Southparkfan (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  As I've described at here, Miraheze Wiki are not Wikimedia. Before requesting for stewardship is dependent on how much of experience contributions that volunteer to exert it, block on WMF it doesn't affected the procedural on here. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Also NO, also udder nonsense! Why shuld requesting rights on here require trust on a completely different project ran by a completely different group of people with completely different goals? Besides, somtimes admins block just because thay feel like it or because of local policy that has nothing to do with trust or abuse. I am blocked from a wiki on here just for not being a member of there organization. Bonnedav (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)