Requests for Comment/Stewards

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

Following a week of discussion the following proposals have passed:

• Scope - Proposal 1
• Appointment - Proposal 4
• Inactivity - Proposal 2
• Revocation - Proposal 7 (50% and 20 users)
• Readdition - Proposal 6
• Terms - Proposal 1
• Approval of Actions - none.

John (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Following a proposal from a community member around Stewards, this organised request for comment has been designed to act as clarification over the role of stewards and other technical information to ensure stewards are able to complete the role they're given.

This will not deal with wording a policy but rather an agreement of specifics. Proposals are to be designed to get a point across rather than being a word-for-word suggestion. Additional proposals can be added with the assumption the most thoughtfully agreed proposal being the successful one or a combination of successful ones.

This being said, none of the below constitutes an official policy. After the closure of this Request for Comment, the existing team of Stewards will draft an official policy based on the consensus gathered here. If there are multiple similar proposals with support and no objections, the official policy may be some combination of them. After the entire group of current Stewards agree on a policy, it will be implemented and take effect with all future actions regarding Stewards.

Scope

Proposal 1

Stewards will work with communities to address issues facing them locally such as disputes, abusive or disruptive behaviour as well as global issues such as disruptive behaviour across multiple wikis. This includes global and local right assignment, use of routine administrator permissions (delete, blocking etc.) on local wikis and in a global sense (locking accounts, renames), CheckUser and oversight permissions.

Comments

•  Strong support as a current Steward I think this is basically what we do. I think only taking action on issues affecting multiple communities will make it hard to create a functional global community and it will make it difficult for small communities to start up / stay active if the only people with rights leave. This opinion may change if people request administrative actions be performed by Stewards much, in which case I might recommend global sysops or similar. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Southparkfan (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Although a global admin right would be interesting, that is in itself a whole new can of worms. I only think that would be an issue if activity really picks up. -- Void ^Whispers 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Global admin TriX (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per comments above. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense per NDK. — revi 17:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose I personally think that managing local wikis should be left to the wiki founder(s). In an ideal situation, the wiki founder(s) would have CU and OS rights just locally on their wikis, and they would be able to take care of the local technical stuff of all sorts. Stewards should only get involved for global matters. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• My issue with this and why I don't support the global matters only is that we don't and probably won't give CU / OS to individual wikis except in extreme cases of demonstratable need. It's a privacy concern. If every wiki's founder has CU on that wiki, then there is no privacy for any users of that wiki. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 18:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "There's no privacy"? If the wiki founder(s) had these abilities, they could still be subject to the global policies concerning use of these tools. If a Steward thinks that a founder has abused the tool, they can remove it (although in the cases of large communities, consensus should be requested first). These tools aren't and likely won't ever be used for fishing - if they were, chances are they wouldn't still exist. Amanda (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking ahead of CU and OS, both myself and my sister feel that Stewards should not have the technical ability to "interfere" with local community operations. Currently, they have the ability (I believe) to override any local sysop or crat action - if I'm correct about that, this should not be allowed. Local community management should be left 100% to the respective community founder(s) and administrator(s). Amanda (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Stewards have no authority over ridding the community or getting involved in overriding any action done by a bureaucrat or sysop. John (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact that they still have the technical ability to perform such actions isn't good. Amanda (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Technical ability" is rather a wide concept. The ability to read is a technical ability, same with editing. The tools a steward has are to be used in supporting a community not interfering with a community. If someone uses the access they've been trusted with to interfere with a community then they're not fulfilling the role they've been appointed to do and therefore are liable to lose the ability to do so. John (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Say whatever you want, John. I still  Oppose this proposal regardless. Amanda (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Amanda: I'm starting to think that we can't change your mind, so I won't really bother trying that much, although I feel the need to clarify that the very first words of the proposal are "Stewards will work with communities" (quoted). Stewards have always had the technical ability to access any part of the user interface (they have the technical ability to edit their own global user-rights using on-wiki interface. Changes are logged at the bottom of this page. Stewards have always had this right yet very rarely exercise these rights, and typically only do so in the cases of cross-wiki abuse or requests from local users. Stewards will probably always retain this technical ability even if it's not used, because otherwise it would be extremely complicated (do you propose Stewards aren't technically allowed to edit their own rights, in which case System Administrators would have to? this is moot because all current Stewards are also System Administrators.) Stewards don't over-turn local staff actions except where nescesary (for example, I strongly oppose the deletion of the article I created on your sister's wiki, and I could have re-created it without Steward permissions, but I think it's rediculous to take the effort). -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My sister said that she would prefer for the contents of that article would be better off on the Main Page than in a separate article, so that's exactly what I did. Note that be glad my sister didn't see the above comment, as she likely would've taken it as a threat to interfere and may have temporarily blocked you (I won't, so don't worry). Amanda (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless I personally feel that Stewards (and perhaps sysadmins too) should only use their technical abilities in the event of emergency cleanup situations, on request by the wiki founder, or if there are no local sysops/crats besides the founder and an action really needs to be taken. In any circumstance, Stewards should only be able to make technical edits to their own accounts - and not be even able to overturn actions not related to user rights. I must also note that the end of the description of this proposal contains "use of routine administrator permissions (delete, blocking etc.) on local wikis". This fits the exact description and reasoning for my strong opposition.

@Amanda: my point was that the entire proposal is about working with communities. We won't even use CU or OS unless we feel it helps local communities. Also I didn't mean to sound threatening. (IP address redacted) 13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

NDKilla, I'm assuming that's you - you may want to Oversight your own IP that you seem to have revealed. Amanda (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"we feel it helps local communities" sounds like a bottomless abyss. - TBeholder (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Amanda is right on this. Issues should be dealt with in the local scope if possible. Also, limited, well defined sets of responsibilities are good. Conversely, recruitment for generic "work with communities" with essentially admin priveleges? It's an open invitation for infiltration and abuse team politicking. - TBeholder (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

...Unless it can be limited to specific well defined cases. To deal with things like a wikis dying, turning into spam nests due to neglect or accounts hacked, their local bosses trying to play strange games with licenses - yeah, probably will have to be done now and then. Reinforcements to be called if one of wikis drowns in spam, etc - yeah. But it needs to be spelled out and made into as little of rat bait as possible. - TBeholder (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@TBeholder and Amanda: would you two be okay with this policy with the addition of "Stewards must have a reasonable reason for any Steward actions taken on any wiki, and must provide this reason to local users on request." ? As it stands this proposal is probably going to win either way. Also note that when it comes to editing or moving pages, Stewards can still do some actions as normal users. Pup (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC) -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 04:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would still  Oppose this policy. However, it may not be as strong as an oppose. I personally would be in heavy favor of the new policy added at the bottom of this page. Amanda (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Strong support as per NDKilla's comment at the top of this comments section. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bertie (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This seems to be the best option providing stewards do not make unnecessary changes to people's wikis; I don't see why they would as this could be seen as interfering in a wiki's development. I will say this, stewards take care of our interests and this is a positive thing, especially when addressing issues such as disputes and disruptive behaviour. Things such as deleting/editing pages etc. is fine if there is a well grounded reason, however, I would rather be informed directly of any problems reinforced with valid reasons and take action myself instead of a steward making those changes. With regards to permissions and locking accounts etc. this is another useful role and provided these are not abused I can't see there being any issues with this proposal. One thing of note is that stewards should be diplomatic in their role and not use abrupt or overly complicated language for those that might not directly understand what they are talking about. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support Per initial comment above. ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Stewards will only focus on global issues affecting multiple communities and the global community to prevent disruptive users and arbitrate global disputes. Stewards will avoid getting involved in issues affecting local communities unless they begin to affect multiple different communities. This includes global right assignments, checkuser and oversight permissions to support global efforts only.

Comments

•  Strong support Per above. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Appointment

Comments

• What about security? It's not going to be completely foolproof without requiring attention either way, but there's an obvious problem with open voting on net. What would prevent takeover by sockpuppets (or Chinese Gold Farmers™ meatpuppets)? It's one of the main threats to any Internet community (just look at TVTropes, or Ruby developers). This doubly applies to what is already very close to "abuse inquisition" (see also: Ruby "Code of Conduct" mess, Twitter "Trust and Safety council"). - TBeholder (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1

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

Comments

•  Weak oppose I think this is kind of related to how system administrators are chosen. I could support this policy but am more in favor of proposal 4, where the community has a say. Maybe a combination policy could be proposed where current stewards can ok/block successful votes until issues raised by current Stewards are addressed? -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Changed to oppose per below comments (specfically that users in charge shouldn't have a final say on their replacements). -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Weak support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think the stewards must master at least seven languages ​​in the world. Anything. And for appointment, I think we held a minimum of 2 years or less with suggestions. TriX (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose This could lead to bias problems - current Stewards shouldn't have the last say over who may take their place or who should join them in their roles. It should all be done by community consensus. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per Amanda's comment. I've seen what happened elsewhere when this was implemented; it's almost never been good for those wikis or forums as a whole, no matter how much it benefited the people in charge. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Of course, problems are possible. No matter what - everyone is biased. But what choice is here other than between risk of becoming an echochamber defined by existing admins/stewards/whatever and risk of becoming an echochamber defined by sockpuppets who aren't interested in any existing projects as such, just taking over a ready site and gradually turning it into another mirror preaching to the choir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBeholder (talk • contribs)

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%.

Comments

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%.

Comments

•  Support Currently I'd go for this one instead of the 20 users one, as our community that is active on Meta doesn't even consist of 10 users yet. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support sounds good to me. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Reception123 makes a valid point re numbers.Bertie (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2016 (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 80%.

Comments

•  Support I think there needs to be a strong show of support before rights should be appointed. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - sounds good. Southparkfan (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Void ^Whispers 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support It's Okay TriX (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Stewards deal with private information, they have access globally, they need to be trusted by lots and lots of people. — revi 17:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support If somebody can't get 20 "yea" votes across all of the wikis, they aren't making their strengths and assets well enough known. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support For the same reasons as Rob. Also, I approve of consensus decisions of this nature. GethN7 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This sounds very reasonable to me. Considering the power a steward has it stands to reason the elected individual would have previously shown they are suitable for the role. A higher proportion of "yea" votes from the community would show a sense of trust in that person's abilities, however, as Reception123 points out in proposal 3 the regular number of users most likely does not meet proposal 4's ratios. Currently, those that would vote on a new steward are already active on Meta and have a position of power in the community, but this is not enough. The problem is trying to get the wider community to vote in the first place. Even if 50% of the more active founders/bureaucrats voted that would be enough within the scope of this proposal. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per comments above. 20 users and 80% seems more fair for a "powerful" position like steward. ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 5

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%.

Comments

Removal/Readdition

Proposal 1 (Inactivity)

Stewards 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 steward rights revoked. For the purpose of community, this include wikis or phabricator.

Comments

•  Support This is standard protocol on WMF projects when it comes to privileged users in general. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Inactivity)

Stewards 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 steward rights revoked. For the purpose of community, this include wikis or phabricator.

Comments

•  Support I think responding to one question per 6 month time window is an easy enough display of activity. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Void ^Whispers 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support It's Okay TriX (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is a good way to deal with inactivity. Maybe we should have a minimum number of logs / contributions set. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 1y is too long. — revi 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral per above. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Otherwise known as the "resignation by inactivity" clause. Agree with Revi that one year is too long. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose On Wikiversity we found it helpful to call upon the "old timers" on occasion. Inactivity does not imply incompetency.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bertie (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support A six month period of inactivity seems fair enough, however, there should be other factors involved. If a steward has proven to be effective but would like a "time out" this should be accounted for. There could be personal reasons involved for inactivity, which should not go against a steward. Rights shouldn't be automatically revoked unless a steward has proven to be neglectful in his/her role. And, in addition to this, stewards shouldn't be put in a situation where they have to achieve a certain number of contributions in certain time period. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Revocation)

Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:

• receives at least 10 votes;
• has at least 50% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments

•  Oppose If revocation depends on a simple majority, then people who dislike actions that need to be taken will probably be able to remove stewards who are acting in the best interests of Miraheze as a whole. Better to have a supermajority. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Five people should never have that power.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The barrier for removing people in that case is too small, guy vandegrift puts it very well, all it would take is 5 users from one of the 1000+ wikis to have a grudge and it could do some damage. LulzKiller (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Revocation)

Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:

• receives at least 10 votes;
• has at least 75% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments

•  Support sounds good to me. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support If revocation depends on a simple majority, then people who dislike actions that need to be taken will probably be able to remove stewards who are acting in the best interests of Miraheze as a whole. Better to have a supermajority. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support revocation should at least have the same requirement as appointment.Bertie (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Readdition)

A steward 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.

Comments

•  Oppose Unless other issues are raised, I think all rights removed per inactivity or self-removal should be granted back upon request. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC) changing to opppose as it should be easy enough for Stewards to retain rights, and I'm hoping my rights are never revoked. Specifically, the I'm changing my votes because of Robkelk's comment below -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, provided that there is no change in the scope of Stewardship and what Stewards can do in the time between inactivity and re-application. -- Void ^Whispers 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support No problem TriX (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support If the user left by their own will or inactivity I would say 24 hours is enough time for the community to decide, as it's more of a "check" than a vote. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Right now, we're looking at removal only by either "no confidence" or inactivity. This specifically does not apply to "no confidence" removals. If you aren't interested enough to take part for six months / one year, why would you be interested enough to take part after having your rights removed and restored? Allowing this could clutter the Stewards list with inactive "stewards" who show up once or twice a year to say "please don't kick me off the list", which does not benefit Miraheze as a whole. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per my comment below. ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)

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

Comments

•  Support - Southparkfan (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per "konsekuensi" TriX (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Once you leave the restricted zone, you're going to do all the checks again to enter. Same way. — revi 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Revoking steward rights is series business - it shouldn't be done except in extreme circumstances (the exception being inactivity). Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support As per Revi's comment. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Robkelk's comments on readdition above and revi's words in this section. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bertie (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support As this is directly linked to the inactivity and revocation proposals, it can get convoluted quickly if clear guidelines aren't set in stone so to speak. I agree that once a steward has had his/her rights revoked then he/she should submit a request to regain those rights. This, however, should be defined carefully as revoking stewards rights are serious for the community and should be done for very specific reasons that do not necessarily assume the steward was neglectful in his/her role. For example, I don't think a steward should have to go through this process if he/she proved they were useful and effective but for whatever reason requires time away from the role. There should be a separate category for that where a steward can have a time out and come back to the role at a later date. Saying that, that period of time shouldn't be too long either as Robkelk makes an interesting point in proposal 5 re inactive stewards list. Maybe a time out can last 3-6 months. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 17:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support If user is trusted by the community there should be no problem being "re-elected" ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Revocation)

Stewards can have their permission revoked through a vote of no confidence or a request for removal where a vote:

• receives at least the minimum number of votes to appoint a Steward;
• has at least 50% in favour of revoking the rights.

Comments

•  Neutral as creator. I think that the revocation vote should require the same number of addition votes (as above). -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - 75% seems a bit high. Southparkfan (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Void ^Whispers 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per southparkfan TriX (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is obvious, but we should not only base it on the "number" of votes, but also on the argument that the users provide. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support — revi 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Would prefer a supermajority of votes instead of a majority, but this is better than nothing. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not really sure what numbers are good.. open to more ideas. I think that 70% may be high, but there is an 80% requirement for addition of rights (based on current votes). I think that it shouldn't be easy to remove good Stewards, so maybe 60 or 66.6% is better. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The first point seems to be fair. Revocation should be of equal weight as appointment (unless a steward has severely violated his/her role, in which case an instant revocation would be in order) A majority vote would, however, be better but 80% I think would be too high so I agree with NDKilla, maybe around the 60% mark. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 17:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (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.

Comments

•  Strong support I think that a 50% removal / vote of confidence is simple enough, why make them a regular thing? -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support Per above comment. MacFan4000 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Void ^Whispers 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong support - Southparkfan (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe remove if missused TriX (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Miraheze currently only has three Stewards, and I honestly think we need more. Limiting the terms will do the exact opposite of getting a higher number - yet some users (myself included) feel slightly that Stewards should "give others a chance" as well. Amanda (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support If we're requiring a vote with a supermajority of "yea" votes to be selected as a Steward, then anyone who is selected already enjoys the confidence of the community - or, at least, of the people who care enough to make their voices heard. --Robkelk (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bertie (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This seems to be the most straight forward. A stewards role is a serious and technical one. If a steward has been voted into the role the he/she has already proven to the community they are capable and committed to the role. As a result of this they shouldn't have to serve a period of time to prove otherwise. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ImBoPhil (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (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.

Comments

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.

Comments

•  Support I'll be alone here. I may not trust someone I trust now after few years. — revi 17:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think I may have mentioned this on IRC, and won't try to get you to change your votes, but IMO your comment is the exact reason for votes of no confidence. Users should not worry about creating these requests as long as there is a valid reason. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Approval of Actions

Proposal 1

A steward will take no action within local wiki without approval from local wiki authorities, or majority of local wiki community. The two exceptions from this rule are:

1. immediate action that should be done ASAP (such as malware link removal)
2. cross-wiki vandalism.

Comments

•  Strong support Per comments above. Basically, I'll lay it out like this: Stewards should primarily be involved in global matters, such as stopping cross-wiki attacks, etc. Ideally, wiki founder(s) should have access to OS and CU, especially after Miraheze's new privacy policy becomes offical. Founders would still be binding to the global policies regarding these tools. Stewards should get approval of the wiki authorities before taking any local action. Also, Stewards by themselves (without any other user rights) should not have technical access to local administrator functions, such as blocking and deleting. Stewards should need to be granted these local rights in order to do so. Amanda (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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