The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following proposals pass:
Propsoal 1, Scope, New Group
Proposal 2, New Name, Global Sysop
Proposal 3, Opt-out
Proposal 4.1, Transition
Proposal 1, Revocation/Appointment
Proposal 2.2, Emergency Revocation
Proposal 1, additional rights
Regarding 'Global Rollback', this is an interesting issue. There exists weak consensus (62%) for its existence (Proposal 1, Proposal 1.3, Proposal 1.4, Proposal 1.5), but there does not seem to exist agreement or consensus on rights. Highest consensus is Proposal 1.1 with 57%, but with no reasoning on supports and some basis to oppose, I'm not comfortable calling it consensus. Next closest is 1.7 which has 100% but significantly less comments on it - which to me does not form a consensus in comparison to other proposals. Further, taking into account The Pioneer opposed the original proposal but not subsequent, should not discount his clearly identifiable view that the group should not exist - this unfortunately for me lowers the support for 1.1 to 50%. Therefore, I note there exists consensus to create a Global Rollback group, but without rights, it is no feasible to create this outside of an idea currently.
Administrative Note: For the transition, as there are few right changes, I will rename the current CVT group. I'll contact each CVT member on their talk page, setting a deadline of 7 days to create a confirmation request. Anyone who fails to create one by this deadline will be deemed 'resigned'.
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. Spıke(talk)23:02 8-May-2020
Abstain 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)
Comment: 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)
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.
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)
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.
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support per above. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support Agree that Global Sysop is clearest descriptor of the group is and does. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per above. —Regurus (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per above points. Hypercane (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Abstain it's probably a bit more than the role of a 'sysop' but not too fussed. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 08:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Strong support 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)
Support. 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. Spıke(talk)23:09 8-May-2020
Support 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)
Support per Amanda Catherine and Spike above. Sario528 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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).--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 00:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I agree with the above points. Hypercane (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose See my new proposal below. Bonnedav (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think they should be voted into the new group as well. Hypercane (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
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 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)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support Agreed with above points. Hypercane (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Abstain 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 00:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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)
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.
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 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)
Support This would allow newer users to help out in the global counter-vandalism field. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per above. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support 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 Simply put, I don't feel that this is necessary at the current time. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 00:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I don't quite think rollback is what we need, we need something new but I'm not sure it's going to help the issues we get. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 08:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak support 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 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 rollback and edit 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)
Oppose 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 supportBonnedav (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
OpposeI 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)
Comment: 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. -- VoidWhispers 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose Per above -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
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
Support 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)
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.
SupportStrong support 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) Changed to strong supportBonnedav (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose not enough time. DeeM28 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose As I said above, someone should be elected by the community directly. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Support 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)
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. Spıke(talk)23:20 8-May-2020
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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)
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 As proposer. Bonnedav (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support I was supposed to add this to the original draft but it seems that I forgot. Makes sense, move vandalism does happen. Reception123(talk) (C) 17:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think this is something that should still be limited to Stewards. We have already raised the limit for that anyway so there should be less requests for that. Reception123(talk) (C) 17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Authority should in principle be minimal.Stewards can add or remove all authority, so you can add the minimum permissions yourself when needed.--松 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)fix--松 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)