Requests for Comment/Amendment of Stewards policy and Proposing yearly steward elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gonna go ahead and close this as an uninvolved Steward. Seems like nothing at all is changing but let's just break this down:

• elections
  • 5 in favor of not changing election policies
  • 0 in favor of having yearly elections
• appointment: overwhelming support for keeping the same
• elections: overwhelming support for keeping the same
• terms: 1 in favor of having steward terms. many against.

Looks like nothing's changing to me. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Am I Eligible? You are eligible to make comments and vote if you registered your account (anywhere on the Miraheze wikis) before 2019-05-01 00:00 UTC. You can check it by entering your username here.

The first stewards have been fairly active since Miraheze's founding, and there are not enough stewards to block disruptive users. NDKilla is a steward, and he is fairly inactive. We need to change the voting policies on Requests for stewardship or hold a yearly steward election, just like the Wikimedia Foundation, so that users such as CnocBride or MacFan4000 can be a steward. User:Revi is a steward on the Wikimedia Foundation, and he is currently not a steward. So we need to modify the Stewards policy so it could be more fair.

General

Proposal 1

The rules for the steward policies and the elections policy remain the same as they are.

Support

1.  Support What is better than freedom to elect whenever? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Gaining stewardship should be hard not easy. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Strongest support You are contradicting yourself. By limiting appointment to yearly elections, you are preventing people from nominating themselves whenever they feel they're suited for the task. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support The current policy is fine. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Strongest support per all of the above. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

A yearly steward election will be held.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Why? We can't garner the numbers on a continuous basis, why would a "nominate yourself during this one week of the year" make any difference? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

   @John: The Wikimedia Foundation is always having steward elections and because that even the most trusted users on Miraheze cannot gain steward rights and the elections happen once a year, while each year will elect one or two new stewards. LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 10:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

   How will forcing yearly elections mean more stewards are elected? Anyone can nominate themselves now and when appropriate. Forcing it into a week seems more damaging as it’ll lead to more rushed and ill considered requests. We have few good candidates, setting a week aside won’t improve quality at all.John (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

2.  Oppose We are not as large as the Wikimedia Foundation. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per above, yearly elections could work later but for now would not be useful in my opinion. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Last I checked this is *.miraheze.org? What works for WMF won't always work here. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Appointment

Proposal 1

The rules for the appointment remain the same as they are.

Support

1.  Support These are highly powerful and dangerous tools. Lowering requirements to fill a gap that doesn't cause any issues isn't appropriate. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Per @John, these are powerful and dangerous tools and in the wrong hands could lead to damage or degrading of Miraheze (By making people think of miraheze as a unsafe place). Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Stewards may deal with confidential information and potentially controversial issues. It is normal to adhere to strict rules for the job. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Fine with status quo. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support per all the above Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Voters who elect a steward must be autoconfirmed on meta. clarified per comments below.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

1.  Comment: Autoconfirmed where? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

   on Meta. LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 10:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

   Which excludes a lot of the global community. John (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose We should not exclude a lot of our global community. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per above. yes, this is a bit too closed and conservative.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per John and Paladox. I like to give all users (across all Miraheze Wikis) a say. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Why should we exclude a group of users from voting on anything? Why restrict the say of many Miraheze users? Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose and after that let's restrict voting to CVT members... Yeah no, let's not restrict the say of our community members... Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Voters who elect a steward must be logged in.

Support

1.  Support though this is already the policy. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Definitely. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support This is already the policy, IPs cannot vote. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support IP votes can be used as a way to game the system. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support but just logged in is not enough. Account age is also a very serious circumstance to consider. LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 23:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose per below. This can lead to a take over of the community more easily.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Voters who elect a steward must have more than 10 edits in at least one of the wikis on Miraheze (by the time when the voting begins).

Comments

I would like to propose this option because opening the right to any registered users can result in manipulation using multiple accounts more easily (yes, they can simply create multiple accounts to cast a vote; and we're not sure if we can gather enough evidences to CU them, and even if we could, they may be able to avoid giving CU-based evidences to us).

Support

1.  Support we can check it easily from Special:CentralAuth, can't we?--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Per my comments above, including the one that we are not as big as the WMF (since I know they have a similar policy). Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain Not sure. What about a requirement with regards to account age? (ie must be registered for at least 7/14/31 days) Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
   • Perhaps that's a good idea indeed.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 7 days by the time the voting begins.

Support

1.  Support Seems fair to me, to make the community as open as possible and at the same time to avoid take over.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support per the comment above. LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 00:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 14 days by the time the voting begins.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Seems to be too long.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per Pioneer Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 1 month by the time the voting begins.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Seems to be too long.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per Pioneer Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Elections

Proposal 1

The rules for an election to be successful remain the same as they are.

Comments

1.  Comment: Take a look at some of the resent RfS and RfC. I do not see 20 people voteing on anything. How about 15? Or 12? Bonnedav (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

   From a quick analysis of history: There hasn't been a question of not enough users, it's always been a question of enough consensus in favour. Two requests have passed, one with 20 and one with 27 - which shows when the right candidate presents themselves then the numbers show. The ones which have failed to meet the criteria of 20 are people who have been opposed out of success or do not meet the criteria of a good steward. The issue isn't the policy, it's the quality of candidates. John (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support These are highly powerful and dangerous tools. Lowering requirements to fill a gap that doesn't cause any issues isn't appropriate. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support per ^^, we should be making it difficult to gain these tools, not easy. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Stewards may deal with confidential information and potentially controversial issues. It is normal to adhere to strict rules for the job. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (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%.

Support

1.  Support From what I have seen of previous RfS most don't even get 20 votes anymore. I feel that lowering it to 10 or 15 will make it more posable for those who deserve it to get it. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose 10 votes isn't enough to consider a wide community view. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per John. I do agree with the support ratio, though that requirement is already effective. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Support ratio is fine, while 10 users is not enough. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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%.

Support

1.  Support From what I have seen of previous RfS most don't even get 20 votes anymore. I feel that lowering it to 10 or 15 will make it more posable for those who deserve it to get it. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose 10 votes isn't enough to consider a wide community view. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per John and also  Oppose for the support ratio. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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 70%.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not much difference when considering it's 25 now, but the 70% ratio is too low. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per John. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:

• at least 15 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 75%.

Support

1.  Strong support Proposing this as a sort of compromise. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose This isn’t a compromise to any problem that exists. Do 20 users share their views? Not usually. Do 15? Nope. Usually 5 will and they’ll all be opposes. The issue preventing appointment is the quality and trust in the candidate, not the election criteria. To allow people to be elected now, the criteria will have to be something like 5 comments and 0% support ratio needed. This RfC and proposals do not consider what the problem is but rather want to paper over the cracks to reduce both the quality of stewards and the bar for gaining extremely dangerous tools. As the old saying goes, quality over quantity. John (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Terms

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.

Support

1.  Support There is already a very lenient clause in place for removal of rights. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support As Southparkfan says, if users want a steward removed, it is not that difficult. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support per SPF Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

 Abstain LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 08:48, 17 May 2019 (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.

Oppose

1.  Oppose As I support Proposal 1. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per proposal 1 Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Support

1.  Strongest support LegoMaster (talk Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth) 23:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose same as above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose ditto Reception Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

This page was taken from Requests for Comment/Stewards partially.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.