Requests for Comment/CVT reform

Things are constantly evolving at Miraheze, such as the fact that there are more and more wikis. While this is obviously a positive thing it also brings along some problems such as disputes on wikis and global policy violations. The Counter Vandalism Team (also known as CVT) was initially created three years ago in March 2017 in an effort to help Stewards combat clear vandalism such as spam or blatant vandalism (blanking, gibberish, etc.). The current scope of the CVT is very limiting and due to the fact that there is a shortage of Stewards (three active, one semi-active/inactive) and one of the Stewards (Southparkfan) having recently resigned in order to focus on SRE, there is a need to change the scope and expand a group that can assist Stewards. With this many wikis it is very difficult for the few Stewards Miraheze has to be able to investigate and deal with every issue. This group would not have all the tools that Stewards have (as that requires more experience) but it would be able to also deal with more complex issues and instead of being focused on exclusively combating vandalism they can also assist Stewards by supporting the community.

The following proposals are not all mutually exclusive and do not all agree with the initial premise of the RfC but are there multiple options so that the community can decide which options they prefer. Please note that to avoid confusion proposals are per section and any new proposals (which are welcome!) should be added under the appropriate section. Also, since one of the proposals includes deciding the name of the new group to replace CVT is referred to as [GROUP1] throughout the RfC. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Accepting that there are not enough Stewards for the workload, a clear alternative to deputizing CVT to do this work too, or creating a new cadre to do the work, is simply to name additional Stewards.  23:02 8-May-2020

Proposal 0 (Status Quo)

 * The Counter Vandalism Team will remain as it is and no changes will be made to the current policy and scope.

Oppose

 * 1)  per proposal, too limiting. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per proposal -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I believe that some changes should be made for the benefit of the community. Bonnedav (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree that something needs to be done. See comments below for further thoughts. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I believe there is a need to change the scope and expand cvt.—Regurus (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I'm really of two worlds on this whole RFC overall. Part of me thinks that the problem lies not in what the existing CVT can do, but simply the number of people involved in CVT, and that the solution is not to expand CVTs scope but rather to appoint/elect more people to CVT. On the other hand, some of the arguments presented here are convincing, and therefore I'm just putting this abstain vote/comment here for the record.  Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1)  As Miraheze grows, we will continually face new challenges. In the spirit of facing those challenges, I broadly agree to most of the changes proposed here. More specifically, I think the two new groups are a great idea, as they allow volunteers who may not have enough experience to be comfortable with more advanced tools a chance to gain that experience. This lowered barrier of entry will allow us to recruit more volunteers, as well as give us a chance to weed out those who would abuse the tools before they have a chance to harm with the more sensitive permissions. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Scope
The scope of the group ([GROUP1]) is changed to the following:
 * [GROUP1] are users who assist Stewards in supporting the community and working with communities to address issues facing them locally as well as cleaning up vandalism, preventing it when possible and enforcing Miraheze's global policies.

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)   I agree that there are really not enough stewards on this project so people to help them is a good thing. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  With the firm caveat that opt-out will remain available. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I agree that the responsibilities of Group1 should be extended so they can act as sort of "deputy stewards" if you will. Bonnedav (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  As Stewards hold a great deal of power and responsibility, having another group to deal with lesser matters only makes sense. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) No opinion in particular. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm a little confused. Is this group intended for users only belonging to specific communities with no duties towards others? With what kind of powers/permissions?--Wedhro (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Name
While the name is not the most important element, it does in short reflect the scope of a group so it is important to have an appropriate one. Each user may support 1 name and any user is invited to propose a new name if they wish.

Global Sysop

 * 1)  I think global sysop best describes this group because the role of a sysop is to support the community as well as to combat vandalism, so the name works. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Since the members of group 2 will have most rights of the sysop only globally, I think 'global sysop' is a fitting name -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  No issues here. If anything "global sysop" will be more familiar to users because anyone with any knowledge of MediaWiki will likely know what a "sysop" is, but "Counter-vandalism Team" - while seemingly self-explanatory, is more complicated to understand for a total newbie to this whole wiki thing. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I like Global Sysop as it is the name used for the similyer group on WMF and fallows standard MediaWiki convention. Bonnedav (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Agree that Global Sysop is clearest descriptor of the group is and does. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  per above. —Regurus (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Opt-in/out

 * Wikis can choose to opt-out of [GROUP1] intervention as is currently possible with the Counter Vandalism Team

Support

 * 1)  Communities should have the option to opt out of global enforcement. By default it should be opt-in but if the local community does not want [GROUP1] assistance, then we should leave it to the Steward. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Not only that, but strongest possible support. This is an absolute requirement IMO if we are going to proceed with expanding the scope of CVT/global sysop/whatever you want to call it. There are people out there who will say "we don't want your help" even if they could clearly benefit from it - we need to respect that and not say something like "Sorry, but you have too much vandalism/spam on your wiki so we really don't care if you want our help or not but we are stepping in". I know people who are very sensitive to vandalism and spam and would want it removed as soon as possible, no questions asked. At the same time, people like myself take a less hardline approach, and my modus operandi is simply to remove disruptive content when I happen to see it, but it is not the end of the world if it sits there for a period of time (unless it's something requiring oversight, then by all means, a steward should go in and handle it). If we do not allow wikis/communities to opt-out from this global group, we are essentially saying "You need to accept our help whether you want it or not" which is unacceptable. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .  On a wiki that's not just editors+vandals but a real "community," Sysops are the leaders and might not want to share that role/authority with global Sysops chosen by voters from other wikis.  Preventing opt-out could make it harder for a wiki to induce its members to step forward as Sysops or even be viewed as changing the "contract" under which they volunteered.   23:09 8-May-2020
 * 4)  I agree to keep the Opt-out clause per the reasons for witch is was originally added. I would also like to note that the WMF global sysop group has opt-out as well. Bonnedav (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) - MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Amanda Catherine and Spike above. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) As Miraheze is community driven, each community should have the right to make a decision. However, it should be made clear that wikis, even opted out, may ask for help to [GROUP1] members if necessary (perhaps by opting them back in temporarily).-- 00:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  As said above, there is a lack of Stewards, and GROUP1 intervention would be necessary in some cases. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Transition

 * Users that are currently part of the Counter Vandalism Team are automatically transferred to [GROUP1] without a new vote.

Support

 * 1)  Since it is an expansion of the current CVT. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I see no reason why not. The two current members of CVT are people that I believe are great fits for being the first members of [GROUP1]. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. I think the current people there are capable. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  The current members of CVT were elected based on the confidence and trust of the voting body (community) that they would fulfill the existing CVT role and not abuse any of the tools. Expanding the scope of the group is changing the existing roles at the least (I don't think we're talking about giving any new rights to the group), and therefore the existing members should be reconfirmed to verify that they still maintain the trust and confidence of the community in this new role. Perhaps the requirements for success don't have to be as strict as the initial request - something like a basic simple majority would probably be okay, but it is important that we don't go around and say "well, we trusted you to do A, B, and C, so we will automatically trust you to do X, Y, and Z as well". There should be no such thing as "automatic trust". Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the idea was just that since there are no extra rights being given, just an additional scope. I am not against a confirmation vote or a vote of confidence, I just don't think a completely new vote is necessary. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  See my new proposal below. Bonnedav (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I prefer democracy over autocracy, so I'll oppose this.  The community should vote who stays at the CVT and who should go to GROUP1. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ultimately, this is a new group with a different scope from the current CVT. The community should have a say in who is a member of it. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Some CVT members are not very active, at least in CVT actions (maybe because there aren't many vandalism, but that's that). We should have some form of vote to check if they can really help us stewards by being active.-- 00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4.1: Confirmed Transition

 * Current members of the Counter Vandalism Team will be transitioned to Group1 after a 5 day confirmation vote on Requests for global rights, requiring 5 support votes with a 50% ratio to pass. During this 5 day period they will remain in the group.

Support

 * 1)  While I agree that the Current CVT members are very trusted users, they were elected based on the current role of the CVT. As such I believe that a confirmation vote should be held to ensure that there are no objections to granting these users increased authority and responsibility. However I do not believe that they should have to go through a full vote again. Bonnedav (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I prefer this over the other option as the community can decide who is trustworthy enough to do the task at hand. Simple as that. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  This looks to me to be a good compromise between not giving the community a say, and making the current CVT members go through another full vote process. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I agree with the basic idea of having a confirmation vote, but also think that 50% support rate might be too low. Perhaps around 60~70 would be better.-- 00:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Status Quo)

 * Appointment, Revocation and Inactivity policies remain the same as for the current Counter Vandalism Team.

Support

 * 1)  I think that the current policies are fair for the new role as well, assuming that users understand that GROUP1 will have more responsibility than the current CVT. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per Reception123 -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree that the current policies are sufficient provided that 2.2 passes as well. Bonnedav (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  the current policies are well worded, and will serve the new group well. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Tweaking the current rules would help prevent the website and administration from stagnating. If only a few stewards are allowed to elect someone to combat vandalism that would not only risk taking a while, but also there's a risk only like-minded people are appointed. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the current rules for cvt already call for a vote, not appointment by stewards. I guess I don't know what you meen. Bonnedav (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Appointment)

 * To be appointed [NAME] a request needs to be made at Requests for global rights. The community can discuss (support/oppose/abstain/comment) the request. The request will be considered successful if:


 * at least 15 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 70%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

Support
The community should elect new people if needed, they can choose who is more trustworthy. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This is essentially a duplicate of the current policy, with slightly tweaked numbers. Current policy calls for: request made at RfGR, 10 user share their view, 80% support, one week open vote. I see no benefit in changing the numbers, so I oppose this proposal. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2.1 (Revocation)

 * The global community can initiate a vote of no confidence or a request of removal at any time. In order for it to pass it needs to:


 * at least 15 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 50%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

A vote of no confidence or request for removal must include a reason for why users are requesting the removal of a [GROUP1], and it is not determined solely by the number of votes.

Proposal 2.2 (Revocation)

 * In the case of a blatant misuse of rights or an abuse of power, a Steward may remove a user from [GROUP1] at their discretion without a community vote. If this happens, the user must undergo a no-confidence vote while their rights are temporarily removed, and their rights may only be added back if the no-confidence vote does not pass. This should only be used in extreme cases and should not substitute a no-confidence vote in non-urgent situations.

Support

 * 1)  Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Users who choose to continually abuse their power should have it speedily removed. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  it's always good to be safe and to know that a steward can remove someone for abusing the rights. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Furthering my opinion of Group1 as "Deputy Stewards" I agree that stewards should have oversight of them for emergency situations. Bonnedav (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Abuse of power should never be tolerated. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Excellent policy, should have already existed for CVT. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * The current scope and responsibilities of the CVT are transferred to a new group called "Global rollback". It is clarified that a Global rollback should only act where there is clear vandalism or spam and should leave any more complicated matters to Stewards and [GROUP1] as well as alert them of any offending users that need to be locally blocked or globally locked.

Support

 * 1)  I was not sure whether this would be needed but in the end I think it's a good idea as it can help users who want to help fight global vandalism (but who don't have as much experience) to be able to do so easily. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This would allow newer users to help out in the global counter-vandalism field. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I like this idea as it would allow more people to help out globally and gain more trust and experience. Bonnedav (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  This group will make an good partner to the Global Sysop proposal above. Specifically, this will allow volunteers to help out who may not have the experience and/or confidence for more advanced rights. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Simply put, I don't feel that this is necessary at the current time. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Rollbackers are not always effective against vandalism, because they don't have the permission to stop it by blocking the vandal, and they could mess things up if a vandal choose to vandalize a single page with different IPs/accounts. Some wikis, in fact, do not use their local rollbacker group (which exists by default) because they don't find it necessary. Thus I think it's enough to leave it to each community whether they should have local rollbackers, at least for now.-- 00:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) No opinion on this. I just hope they will do their job as intended if the proposal passes. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1

 * If Proposal 1 is passed, the following rights are given to members of the Global rollback group:
 * Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)
 * Edit pages (edit)
 * Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (editsemiprotected)
 * Move pages (move)
 * Mark edits as minor (minoredit)
 * Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt (nominornewtalk)
 * Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
 * Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback)

Support

 * 1)  per above. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  In the interest of allowing something to pass for global rollback rights, I am changing my vote for this proposal to weak support. But only if proposal 1.6 below fails. Bonnedav (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Procedural oppose based on the fact that I don't think this group is even necessary. However, if the group does get created, the global permissions should be limited to only the   and   userrights... any of the other rights that have been proposed in the above list should not be included because IMO anyone applying for membership to this group should already have said rights either globally or independently on multiple projects (this is one way to demonstrate trust and increase confidence). Also, the "nominornewtalk" really shouldn't be given to anyone except housekeeping/maintenance bots... I can't think of any other valid reason why we would want any edits to user talk pages to not trigger a notification, minor or not. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I do not agree with this set of rights for Global Rollback. I will create my own rights proposal below. Bonnedav (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Changed to weak support Bonnedav (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I decide who may have their edits autopatrolled or not on my wiki, I just wish the feature wouldn't be so cumbersome to use, but that's a different issue. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I am abstaining from this proposal due to my lack of understanding of the intricacies of the various permissions. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * Technical question: I'd assume that even if a user has global edit rights, if they are blocked on a local project the local block will override the global edit right? If not that is a huge problem that would need to be addressed, either separately or as part of this RFC. Under no circumstances should any user on any wiki, including members of global groups, be "unblockable" (something that sets us apart from our competitors ShoutWiki and Fandom, in that both of their staff/global group members cannot be blocked locally in the event that they violate local policies, achieved via the StaffPowers MediaWiki extension). Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If a user is blocked, they are prevented from performing most actions, except read. Being able to edit through a block requires using the unblockself right to unblock yourself first. -- Void  Whispers 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2

 * If Proposal 1 is passed, the appointment criteria for the current Counter Vandalism Team is kept for the Global rollback group

Oppose

 * 1)  Assuming Proposal 1 from the Appointment section passes, the standards should not be the same as GROUP1, since GROUP1 entails way more. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per above -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Since this group has fewer rights and a more limited scope it should have less strict requirements for appointment. That would also support the idea of global rollback being a way for less experienced users who would like to help out to do so and gain more experience. Bonnedav (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bonnedav literally said what I was thinking. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.3
If Proposal 1 is passed, the appointment criteria for the Global rollback group is the following:


 * To be appointed Global rollback a request needs to be made at Requests for global rights. The community can discuss (support/oppose/abstain/comment) the request. The request will be considered successful if:


 * at least 5 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

Support

 * 1)  The standards should not be the same as GROUP1, since GROUP1 entails way more. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per above -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  looks like a good idea to me. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  those standards seem fair to me. Bonnedav (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  - MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I would prefer the support ratio be dropped to 75% or 70%, but otherwise I think the numbers are appropriate. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.4
If Proposal 1 is passed, the criteria for removing some from the Global rollback group is the following:


 * The global community can initiate a vote of no confidence or a request of removal at any time. In order for it to pass it needs to:


 * at least 5 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 50%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

A vote of no confidence or request for removal must include a reason for why users are requesting the removal of a Global rollback, and it is not determined solely by the number of votes.

Support

 * 1) . Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Of Course  there should be a revocation vote. Also, thees requirements mach the appointment requirements above just as the revocation requirements for Group1 and Stewards mach their respective appointment requirements. Bonnedav (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  - MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.5

 * In the case of a blatant misuse of rights or an abuse of power, a Steward may remove a user from [GROUP2] at their discretion without a community vote. If this happens, the user must undergo a no-confidence vote while their rights are temporarily removed, and their rights may only be added back if the no-confidence vote does not pass. This should only be used in extreme cases and should not substitute a no-confidence vote in non-urgent situations.

Support

 * 1)  Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Again, Stewards should have emergency oversight for all global groups. Bonnedav (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Tyranny of any form should never be tolerated, I'm definitely and completely supporting this proposal.
 * 6)  Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6

 * If Proposal 1 is passed, the following rights are given to members of the Global rollback group:
 * View the abuse log (abusefilter-log)
 * View detailed abuse log entries (abusefilter-log-detail)
 * Not be affected by IP-based rate limits (autoconfirmed)
 * Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)
 * Edit pages (edit)
 * Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (editsemiprotected)
 * Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits (markbotedits)
 * Mark edits as minor (minoredit)
 * Move pages (move)
 * Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt (nominornewtalk)
 * Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
 * Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback)
 * Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA (skipcaptcha)

Support

 * 1)  I feel that this set of permissions would better allow global rollbacks to do thare jobs while limiting spam. Bonnedav (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I don't understand the various right enough to have an opinion. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1)  My justification for each right.
 * abusefilter-log - Allow improved monitoring for vandalism.
 * abusefilter-log-detail - Allow improved monitoring for vandalism.
 * autoconfirmed - Allow reverting vandalism without worrying about rate-limits. Also bypassing abuse filters that might use this permission as a bypass.
 * autopatrol - There edits are trusted and should not spam the patrol logs or take up local admin's time patrolling trusted edits.
 * edit - Allow to edit wikis that are locked against editing as this is usually used by bureaucrats as a temporary anti-vandalism measure.
 * editsemiprotected - User is trusted enough to be considered autoconfirmed. Also to allow reverting vandalism on semi-protected pages.
 * markbotedits - Extended rollback permission to reduce spam on rollbacks.
 * minoredit - Allow making edits to revert vandalism without triggering watch list updates.
 * move - Allow moving pages to combat move related vandalism.
 * nominornewtalk - Allow editing talk pages without triggering new talk alerts.
 * noratelimit - Allow reverting vandalism without worrying about rate-limits.
 * rollback - Allow faster reverting of vandal edits.
 * skipcaptcha - Allow reverting vandalism without triggering captchas.

Proposal 1

 * In an effort to stop hat collecting (getting new rights just for show), candidates for stewardship must first serve as [GROUP 1] for a period of at least 1 month

Oppose

 * 1)  not enough time. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think that the voters should decide whether or not any prier group membership should be required for stewardship on a case-by-case basis during the vote. Bonnedav (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  As I said above, someone should be elected by the community directly. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  While the community should absolutely consider a candidate's experience, I am against putting an exact number requirement. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I agree with the spirit of this requirement, but I think it should be on a different RfC. It's off topic.-- 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * In an effort to stop hat collecting (getting new rights just for show), candidates for stewardship must first serve as [GROUP 1] for a period of at least 3 months

Support

 * 1)  as the proposer of the User close policy I definitely agree that Stewards should be people with a lot of experience and to be able to prove it. So being group1 before that will be a good way to do so. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I comment in the Intro that the motivation for this RfC is that there are no longer enough Stewards for the workload and suggest that an alternative is to elect more. So here we are voting new obstacles to Stewardship! and one of them is to have spent 3 months in an office that doesn't exist yet!  Hat collecting is not the heart of the problem; rather, asking to do a job you won't do well or even won't do at all.  Fortunately, there is a vote on becoming a Steward, and that suffices without this new rule to veto candidates.   23:20 8-May-2020
 * +1. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)  I think that the voters should decide whether or not any prier group membership should be required for stewardship on a case-by-case basis during the vote. Bonnedav (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  While the community should absolutely consider a candidate's experience, I am against putting an exact number requirement. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I agree with the spirit of this requirement, but I think it should be on a different RfC. It's off topic.-- 00:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * Add the "Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)" right to Group1 and (if it passes) Global rollback. This permission would allow fully reverting move-based vandalism without creating redirects.

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. Bonnedav (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I guess that would be good. So if someone vandalize the wiki, no redirect can be created by accident if the CVT has to intervene. That would definitely help cleaning up mess without creating more mess. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Sounds good, but I am aware that I don'y have a full understanding of how all the rights work and interact with each other. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * Add the "Delete pages with large histories (bigdelete)" right to Group1. This would expand their role as "deputy stewards" by allowing them to handle these requests as well.

Support

 * 1)  I believe that this would make sense with group1's new role. Bonnedav (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)