Talk:Requests for Comment/CU and OS local policy

Considering that Requests for Comment/CheckUser and Oversight was closed less than a month ago, why is this RfC even being made? --Robkelk (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The other RFC was closed because it was just a request to hand out the rights, whereas this one actually discusses assignment and revocation criteria, and how CU would be monitored for abuse. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I hope that you are not strong opposing everything merely because I started this request. Please look beyond who the author is, and look actually at the point of the discussion. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 01:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read my comments, or are you reacting in a knee-jerk reaction because I'm the person who made them?

You said "Please share your thoughts on this", but as soon as a thought that you didn't like was added, you deleted it. That is censorship of dissenting opinions. Put it back. --Robkelk (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete your comments - I deleted a proposal that contradicted the entire purpose of this discussion. The reason why this is open is to establish a consensus as to how CheckUser and Oversight should be used outside of the hands of stewards and sysadmins. Having a proposal to just "keep things as is" does nothing constructive for the argument. That is why it was removed. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 02:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is about regarding how CheckUser and Oversight should be used outside of the hands of stewards and sysadmins - specifically, that they should not. It is a valid option no matter how much you might dislike it personally, and that's why it's put back. --Robkelk (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My problem with both of your arguments is that

• Maintaining the status quo is a valid proposal, since it's basically 'other proposals fail'
• The status quo isn't "available only to stewards and sysadmins" the permissions are tied to local groups that nobody else has been added too because in all requested instances, privacy concerns have outweighed demonstrated need. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@NDKilla:, would you be kind enough to re-write Proposal 4 so that it accurately reflect the status quo, please? It was my understanding that only Stewards and sysadmins had access to CU and OS. --Robkelk (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least H1 seems to know what they are doing! You guys can say whatever you want - I don't have to listen to nor reply to arguments that contradict the overall main argument, like the one above does. Let's see what the community overall says. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You asked for our thoughts. --Robkelk (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked for your thoughts - that's different than asking for you to present a new argument that totally contradicts the main point I am trying to make here! Well, anyway, I'm going to bed now. I'll check this page again in the morning. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 02:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: You need to stop speaking like you are sure the entire community will agree with you. This was a Request for Comments - you have to expect some of the comments will not be in agreement with your desires. If you cannot accept dissent, then you should not be creating RfCs. --Robkelk (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think not only the steward or sysadmin who holds CU / OS. We can work independently. If we rely onstewards, how many stewards are required to serve in 1000 is a wiki? H1 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@H1: the only reason more people don't have access is a lack of need stewards have done a fine job handling all requests. The steward policy says these rights may be delegated if there's a need. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@NDKilla:Kay, I like this "The rights may be requested by anyone but you needto demonstrate a need for the rights and convince Stewards (who are responsible for the rightsthemselves and the delegation of rights, per the approved policy) that they are not sufficient to handle the requests and that the rights should be delegated." H1 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Userright on local

I think we can acces userright for the founder groups, and exempt for add steward right to self. How do you think? H1 (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, users who are not stewards will not be able to add themselves to the steward group locally. They aren't stewards for a reason. This would allow them to globally block, lock, and rename users from their wiki. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 11:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think what H1 is saying is that we could grant the "userrights" permission to founders locally, but add a global override exempt that allows founders to edit all local groups except steward. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 15:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not how the userrights permission works. It allows access to any and all user groups. We could make OS and CU addable by default, but since new wiki requesters / bureaucrats aren't vetted by staff, granting access would violate the privacy policy. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Allowing access to oversight by default wouldn't violate the privacy policy. Using my wiki as an example, a user with oversight permissions on Elements Wiki would only be technically able to suppress content on Elements Wiki, and they would only be able to see suppressed content on Elements Wiki. They wouldn't see any personal information that they themselves have not handled. --- DeltaQuad (talk contribs email), 17:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

what information do you have that you need to hide from administrators on your wiki. Usually oversight is only used to hide personal information. So if someone posts something on your wiki, requests oversight, Steward suppresses it, and boom you have access to their personal information! -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)