Requests for Comment/CVT changes

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

Boldly closing this - the discussion is stale, has not received any substantial comments from anyone other than the creator themselves, and is a major case of TLDR. Any steward is free to revert with an explanation if they feel this close was inappropriate. Amanda Catherine (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose a change to the CVT group since Miraheze is getting bigger, and also, making some wikis not opted out from CVT.

Discussion

Me, myself, think that CVT groups are way too manipulating. Therefore we need to set more rules (e.g. eligibility criteria, inactivity criteria, appointment criteria, etc) in order to make Miraheze's CVT group become better.

I agree with Spike that eligibility criteria should not contain the number of edits, but CVT members should have at least one eligibility criteria to ensure that the candidate is active. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

General

Proposal 1

The rules for CVT remain the same as they are.

Support

 Support --Dark Dragoon (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

•  Abstain We may want to have an inactivity clause, but I think we should have proposals reorganized by someone else. We're, you know, sort of tired of this recent rush of RfCs, mostly going in vain.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 10:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose We need to make the appointment criteria for CVT members. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 Comment: @Dark Dragoon: May you change your mind? We do not have an appointment criteria for CVT Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 09:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a "request for comment", not a "request for change your mind". My vote is only one, so the resolution of this depends on the community of Meta/Miraheze, so I ask you to respect my vote. Maybe there are users who think differently from me and can vote other proposals.--Dark Dragoon (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

A CVT may not be appointed or voted unless they are a wiki creator.

Support

•  Strong support looks good to me. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 Oppose There is no correlation between wiki creators and CVT so this is really pointless. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria

Criterion based on number of edits

Proposal 1 (500 globally)

A candidate must have at least 500 global edits.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (1000 globally)

A candidate must have at least 1000 global edits.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (2000 globally)

A candidate must have at least 2000 global edits.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 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.  Oppose Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 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.  Weak oppose Spike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. OK, but the last one is better. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 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

•  Weak supportSpike did a very good job at explaining why the amount of edits should not be part of eligibility requirements. However, we need to set an e-criteria in order to prevent new users and IPs from requesting this right. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Criterion based on account age

Proposal 1 (1 month)

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (2 months)

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (3 months)

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

Oppose

1.  Weak oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (6 months)

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

Support

1.  Support this is the fair one. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (1 year)

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Too long. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Criterion based on permissions

Proposal 1 (not required)

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

Oppose

•  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Support

1.  Support good. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (admin on 2+ wikis)

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (admin on 3+ wikis)

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Appointment

Proposal 1

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Voters who elect a CVT must be autoconfirmed.

Proposal 3

Voters who elect a CVT must be logged in.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Users may be evading CU checks. Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 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).

Support

1.  Support Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

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

Abstain

1.  Abstain Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Elections

Proposal 1

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

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

CVT will be elected by a community vote where:

• at least 10 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 80%.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

CVT will be elected by a community vote where:

• at least 10 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 70%.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

CVT 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 Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

CVT will be elected by a community vote where:

• At least 5 users share their view;
• There is a support ration of at least 80%.

Proposal 6

CVT will be elected by a community vote where:

• At least 5 users share their view:
• there is a support ratio of at least 70%.

Support

1.  Support Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of rights

(Note: There can be multiple ways to revoke, so proposals are not mutually exclusive and can work together)

Proposal 1 (Revocation)

The Meta 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

• receives at least the minimum number of votes needed for appointing;
• have 50% or more support for removal of rights

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Revocation)

The Meta 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

• receives at least the minimum number of votes needed for appointing;
• have 75% or more support for removal of rights

Proposal 3 (Revocation)

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

Proposal 4 (Inactivity)

CVT 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 administrator rights revoked by a bureaucrat.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Inactivity)

CVT 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 administrator rights revoked by a bureaucrat.

Support

1.  Support Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)

Once a CVT has their rights revoked for any reason, they must make a successful request satisfy the agreed criteria above in order to regain the rights.

Support

•  Support Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Readdition)

CVT 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.

Oppose

1.  Oppose Znotch190711 _{(Contribs - My wiki - CA)} 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

---

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