Requests for Comment/Meta administrator and bureaucrat policies

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

The follow proposals are passed:

• Administrators:
  • Scope: Proposal 1
  • Appointment: Proposal 7
  • Removal: Proposal 1, Proposal 3, Proposal 5, Proposal 6
• Bureaucrats:
  • Scope: Proposal 1 and Proposal 2
  • Appointment: Proposal 7
  • Removal: Proposal 1, Proposal 3, Proposal 6

John (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

---

NOTE: This Request for Comment is a local RfC and only affects Meta

As John pointed out here, we currently don't have a policy for administrators and bureaucrats here on Meta, so I think it is time that we make one, since right now everything is based on discretion. As always, please feel free to add proposals if you disagree with all the current ones. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

General comment

General comment. I don't see the problem with having everything "based on discretion" nor the need for this ballot. But it again highlights the awkwardness of our process. Numerous variations in wording are set out below as separate proposals, evidently with the largest plurality winning and no way to know whether the votes are lesser-of-many-evils votes or confirmation that we are going in the right direction. If we want to live by legislation, we really need to adopt the model of a legislature:

1. A designated committee (decide how it is populated) responds to a request by drafting the exact text of a proposed rule. This is an open and public process, over the course of a week or so, in which anyone can propose amendments (different thresholds, better wording, and so on). The drafting committee sees the public comments and assembles the text it prefers.
2. The result becomes a ballot, submitted in the name of the committee, for all registered Miraheze users to vote yes-or-no on the text (not on the personalities), with comments welcome.
3. If the proposal fails but there is still a need, the drafting committee is free to try again, especially based on the comments that arrived during the balloting. Spıke (talk)17:26 17-Jun-2019

 Comment: I already had that discussion about the board of Miraheze, and will be the vote on live with people voting on real ballots. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: This proposal is interesting from the point of view of actually drafting a more detailed policy based on the points made in the RfCs. Funny enough, to set a "model of legislature" I think you would need to call for another RfC to that effect. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Scope

Proposal 1

Meta administrators are users who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain actions on Meta (some of which include deleting/undeleting pages, protecting/unprotecting pages and blocking/unblocking users). Their role is mainly to help Meta users and the community, as well as to maintain Meta and protect it from vandalism and make sure that local policies are respected.

a) Support

1.  Support Makes sense to have it like this. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Yup, Meta admins generally focus duties are keep the local project clean from the vandals and spammers. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Strongest support I would actually suggest that the page at Wikipedia be directly copy-pasted into our Meta:Administrators page and add our attribution note, because some people have accounts on Wikipedia or on the WMF, like SA 13 Bro and -revi. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Obvious to me. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support I dont think this part really has anything to be opposed to. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8.  Support --Dark Dragoon (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
9.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

1.  Comment: I think there should be a clear comment stated somewhere (either on this section or on the bureaucrat section) regarding autopatrolled, confirmed, rollback, translators, and translation admins because currently these permissions can be handled by admins as well.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Appointment

Proposal 1

Meta administrators will be appointed by agreement of current bureaucrats after the community have been given time to share their views on prospective candidates. This will mean existing bureaucrats have the final say on future administrators.

b) Oppose

1.  Strong oppose This does not make sense. Administrators are elected by the community and although bureaucrats can comment on the candidates, mostly stewards will handle the requests, according to the support ratio and NOT the arguments. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Weak oppose I think it should be case-by-case if crats should have final say. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Crats shouldn't have the deciding view, but should be the interpreter of consensus. John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per John. Yes, elected as a Meta local admins are decision by the community consensus, not by the crats. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Per John. The community is the one who decides, bureaucrats just interpret the decision and assign the rights. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

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

a) Support

1.  Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   @Zppix: per my comment below, we are not a big community, and attracting votes may mean more edit conflicts on MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 06:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Strong oppose That would eventually lead to mass messages and editing problems to MediaWiki:Sitenotice and MediaWiki:Sitenotice-id. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm very confused about how this has anything to do with the proposal above? Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

1.  Oppose We won't make a global notice for local elections, right? Given the fact that it's not easy to gather voters even when a global notice is made, I think asking for 10 voters is too hard.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per of my vote comment at section "Proposal 3", and above of their vote comments. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

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

b) Oppose

1.  Strong oppose That would eventually lead to mass messages and editing problems to MediaWiki:Sitenotice and MediaWiki:Sitenotice-id. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose We won't make a global notice for local elections, right? Given the fact that it's not easy to gather voters even when a global notice is made, I think asking for 10 voters is too hard.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Miraheze Meta-Wiki are not the big community like WMF projects, requirement of at least 10 users share their view are not going to comply. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

• at least 5 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 80%.

a) Support

1.  Support This may be a low standard, but there are few users on Meta who currently comment on Requests for permissions, so for the time being, I think a minimum of 5 makes the most sense due to the small community. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Changed to Support proposal 7

   @Reception123: That's why the draft failed on Wikipedia, and that's why so less people come here. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

2.  Strong support This makes sense. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose I think asking for more than 80% support rate, the same rate as the elections of Stewards, is too high, considering that local admin is a far weaker permission.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   @The Pioneer: It’s just your opinion, but I do not think that it is too high, as admins must be trusted in the community. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 06:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Meta local admins are not stewards, which need 80% of elections support rate. I don't think this going to be make sense, sorry. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

I am not sure about the situation, what was Pioneer has elected as an local admins are slightly less than 5 users. Hence, this may let others to discretion in community. SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

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

a) Support

1.  Support --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support --Dark Dragoon (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

1.  Abstain only if the proposal above does not pass. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

@DeeM28 and Dark Dragoon: Admins must be trusted in the community, and the Support ratio above is too low even for me to consider, and I think that the right ratio is 75%. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 06:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. But i'm in favor of this option, because in the communities that i've participated before, it has always been considered that a simple majority was fine and since there is a similar option in this discussion, i give my support. --Dark Dragoon (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

• there is a support ratio of at least 80%.
• more than 1 week have passed since it started.

a) Support

1.  Weak support per my comment below, but weaker, as I don't think asking for the same minimum support rate as the elections of Stewards is necessary. Local admin is a far weaker permission.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support but I am not sure about this, so I support. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Meta administrators will be elected by a community vote where

• there is a support ratio of at least 70%.
• more than 1 week have passed since it started.

a) Support

1.  Support I don't think we need a minimum number, at least, yet, considering the fact that we don't have a minimum number for the appointment of CVT (which is a more powerful global permission in many ways).--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support While initially I chose proposal 4, I have decided to change my vote to this one. The reason being the fact that I have seen that even with this RfC, it was difficult to get five people to comment, even though we had a sitenotice. Therefore, we shouldn't be expecting a minimum number of users just yet. I trust however that bureaucrats will still not appoint someone as admin if they only have one or two votes. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

1.  Abstain Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 18:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of rights

(Note: There can be multiple ways to revoke, so the proposals are not all 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

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

a) Support

1.  Support If more than half of the community does not support an administrators actions, they should be probably be removed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
9.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
10.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 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

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

c) Abstain

1.  Abstain Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Revocation)

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

a) Support

1.  Support There should always be valid arguments and reasons for a removal. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Of course, there should be always have the proper of valid reasons to procedure the removal action, due to no confidence. SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support --Dark Dragoon (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Inactivity)

Meta administrators 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.

c) Abstain

1. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Inactivity)

Meta administrators 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.

a) Support

1.  Support I don't think it's asking a lot to have users who have been voted by the community as administrators to comment on a few things and such, and if they don't, they are clearly inactive, and can always be voted again if they are once again active. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support 6 months are the ideal proposal mentioned at AN, as here didn't appear very active vandals and spammers like Wikipedia, 1 year of proposal maybe too long. SA 13 Bro (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as initial proposer of this rule before. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support--Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)

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

a) Support

1.  Support per my comment on the section above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support As most of the other permissions work this way on Miraheze.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Readdition)

An administrator 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.

a) Support

1.  Support Implies that any opposal can prevent the rights from automatically be given back, so that's fine. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose If they were inactive they should prove their use again after with a new request --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   @DeeM28: this does make sense, but I would suggest listening to The Pioneer’s comment. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

•  Abstain only if the proposal above does not pass than this one will probably pass Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Abstain While Reception123's reasoning sounds fair enough, 24 hours, IMO, is too short to make a judgement.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 8 (Revocation)

Meta administrators 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 month will be deemed inactive and have their administrator rights revoked by a bureaucrat.

a) Support

1.  Strongest support actually, this page has a much stricter policy on admins and that's why I support it. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Too short, one can't be expected to be so active on a wiki like this where there is not that much activity anyway --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I agree that the time is too short, and that every admin has the right to be inactive for a month for whatever reason, without having to fear that their rights will get removed. The 6 months proposal seems like a more reasonable time to me. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose idem Hispano76 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose An user could be absent for a month for different reasons of daily life and I do not think that this is why he should lose his user rights. --Dark Dragoon (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose 6 months of inactive clause are the ideal proposal, 1 month couldn't be complying. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Oppose CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 4:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Strong oppose People have lives outside of MH Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Scope

Proposal 1

Meta bureaucrats are users who can manage permissions such as bot, administrator and other bureaucrats. Their role on Meta is limited to the assigning of the rights listed above (by community consensus or vote to be determined above in the RfC). Eventually, they may also resolve disputes between Meta administrators.

a) Support

1.  Support I see no current other possible scope for bureaucrats at this time. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support They are bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Meta:Requests for permissions. In the same fashion, they are expected to exercise judgement in granting or removing bot flags with the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. Actions by bureaucrats are also bound by the policy on use of administrative rights. Bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to remove administrator permissions in certain situations outlined below. Bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to remove bureaucrat rights from users or to grant or remove certain levels of access such as oversight or check-user rights. These actions are performed by stewards, a multilingual group of individuals who serve all Meta community and are elected and reconfirmed annually by their users. Changes in user rights by stewards are recorded at Special:Log/rights. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support Hispano76 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support Yes, their role are manage the permission of bots, and admins based on community consensus. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

(Note: This proposal is not mutually exclusive)

A bureaucrat may not be appointed or voted on unless they are already a Meta administrator.

a) Support

1.  Support There is no need to have a bureaucrat who is not also an administrator in my opinion, since they have very limited tasks anyway. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support Only experienced admins have the eligible way to appoint their bureaucratship. SA 13 Bro (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support This can make sure that the user is trusted on Meta. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support A bureaucrat that is not also an admin is useless --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support As they have the technical ability to become an admin, I don't think giving a crat perm to a non-admin member is a good idea.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Appointment

Proposal 1

Meta bureaucrats will be appointed by agreement of current bureaucrats after the community have been given time to share their views on prospective candidates. This will mean existing bureaucrats have the final say on future bureaucrats.

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose per my comment above on the admin section. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 13:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

• at least 5 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 80%.

a) Support

1.  Support same as above for administrators, the community here is not large enough to require 10 users currently. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC) same as above
2.  Support This is already the policy, per above. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

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

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

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

a) Support

1.  Support since bureaucrats have more responsbilitiy than admins it should be harder to get it --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

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

b) Oppose

1.  Weak oppose because 70% is not a good ratio Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

• at least 15 users share their view;
• there is a support ratio of at least 70%.

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Meta bureaucrats will be elected by a community vote where

• there is a support ratio of at least 70%.
• more than 1 week have passed since it started.

a) Support

1.  Support same reasoning as above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 00:22, 27 June 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

a) Support

1.  Support same reason as for administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support --DeeM28 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support --Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 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

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Revocation)

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

a) Support

1.  Support same reason as for administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Weak support Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support John (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support Yup, same for admins. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Inactivity)

Meta bureaucrats 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. (NOTE

If Proposal 2 from "Scope" passes, this will not matter since they would lose their bureaucrat rights as the same time as their administrator rights)

b) Oppose

1.  Strong oppose this is way too long. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Inactivity)

Meta administrators 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. (NOTE

If Proposal 2 from "Scope" passes, this will not matter since they would lose their bureaucrat rights as the same time as their administrator rights)

a) Support

1.  Support same reason as for administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Weak oppose per the same section above. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)

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

a) Support

1.  Support same reason as for administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support--Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 16:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Paladox (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Readdition)

A bureaucrat 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.

a) Support

1.  Support same reason as for administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

1.  Abstain As I already wrote above, 24 hours seems to be too short to make a judgement.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   I agree. Fungster ^{(contribs - email - CA)} 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

---

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