Requests for Comment/Amendment of Stewards policy and Proposing yearly steward elections

The first stewards have been fairly active since Miraheze's founding, and there are not enough stewards to block disruptive users. NDKilla is a steward, and he is fairly inactive. We need to change the voting policies on Requests for stewardship or hold a yearly steward election, just like the Wikimedia Foundation, so that users such as CnocBride or MacFan4000 can be a steward. User:Revi is a steward on the Wikimedia Foundation, and he is currently not a steward. So we need to modify the Stewards policy so it could be more fair.

Proposal 1
The rules for the steward policies and the elections policy remain the same as they are.

Support

 * 1)  What is better than freedom to elect whenever? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Gaining stewardship should be hard not easy. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  You are contradicting yourself. By limiting appointment to yearly elections, you are preventing people from nominating themselves whenever they feel they're suited for the task. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  The current policy is fine. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) per all of the above. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
A yearly steward election will be held.

Oppose

 * 1)  Why? We can't garner the numbers on a continuous basis, why would a "nominate yourself during this one week of the year" make any difference? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is always having steward elections and because that even the most trusted users on Miraheze cannot gain steward rights and the elections happen once a year, while each year will elect one or two new stewards. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 10:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How will forcing yearly elections mean more stewards are elected? Anyone can nominate themselves now and when appropriate. Forcing it into a week seems more damaging as it’ll lead to more rushed and ill considered requests. We have few good candidates, setting a week aside won’t improve quality at all.John (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  We are not as large as the Wikimedia Foundation. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per above, yearly elections could work later but for now would not be useful in my opinion. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Last I checked this is *.miraheze.org? What works for WMF won't always work here. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
The rules for the appointment remain the same as they are.

Support

 * 1)  These are highly powerful and dangerous tools. Lowering requirements to fill a gap that doesn't cause any issues isn't appropriate. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per @John, these are powerful and dangerous tools and in the wrong hands could lead to damage or degrading of Miraheze (By making people think of miraheze as a unsafe place). Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Stewards may deal with confidential information and potentially controversial issues. It is normal to adhere to strict rules for the job. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Fine with status quo. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) per all the above Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Voters who elect a steward must be autoconfirmed on meta. clarified per comments below.-- 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1)  Autoconfirmed where? John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * on Meta. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 10:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which excludes a lot of the global community. John (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  We should not exclude a lot of our global community. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per above. yes, this is a bit too closed and conservative.-- 14:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per John and Paladox. I like to give all users (across all Miraheze Wikis) a say. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Why should we exclude a group of users from voting on anything? Why restrict the say of many Miraheze users? Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) and after that let's restrict voting to CVT members... Yeah no, let's not restrict the say of our community members... Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Voters who elect a steward must be logged in.

Support

 * 1)  though this is already the policy. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Definitely. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  This is already the policy, IPs cannot vote. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  IP votes can be used as a way to game the system. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  but just logged in is not enough. Account age is also a very serious circumstance to consider. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 23:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) per below. This can lead to a take over of the community more easily.-- 14:38, 11 May 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).

Comments
I would like to propose this option because opening the right to any registered users can result in manipulation using multiple accounts more easily (yes, they can simply create multiple accounts to cast a vote; and we're not sure if we can gather enough evidences to CU them, and even if we could, they may be able to avoid giving CU-based evidences to us).

Support

 * 1) we can check it easily from Special:CentralAuth, can't we?-- 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Per my comments above, including the one that we are not as big as the WMF (since I know they have a similar policy). Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Not sure. What about a requirement with regards to account age? (ie must be registered for at least 7/14/31 days) Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) *Perhaps that's a good idea indeed.-- 14:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 7 days by the time the voting begins.

Support

 * 1) Seems fair to me, to make the community as open as possible and at the same time to avoid take over.-- 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per the comment above. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 00:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6
Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 14 days by the time the voting begins.

Oppose

 * 1) Seems to be too long.-- 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per Pioneer Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7
Voters who elect a steward must be registered for at least 1 month by the time the voting begins.

Oppose

 * 1) Seems to be too long.-- 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per Pioneer Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
The rules for an election to be successful remain the same as they are.

Comments

 * 1)  Take a look at some of the resent RfS and RfC. I do not see 20 people voteing on anything. How about 15? Or 12? Bonnedav (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From a quick analysis of history: There hasn't been a question of not enough users, it's always been a question of enough consensus in favour. Two requests have passed, one with 20 and one with 27 - which shows when the right candidate presents themselves then the numbers show. The ones which have failed to meet the criteria of 20 are people who have been opposed out of success or do not meet the criteria of a good steward. The issue isn't the policy, it's the quality of candidates. John (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  These are highly powerful and dangerous tools. Lowering requirements to fill a gap that doesn't cause any issues isn't appropriate. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  per ^^, we should be making it difficult to gain these tools, not easy. Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Stewards may deal with confidential information and potentially controversial issues. It is normal to adhere to strict rules for the job. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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%.

Support

 * 1)  From what I have seen of previous RfS most don't even get 20 votes anymore. I feel that lowering it to 10 or 15 will make it more posable for those who deserve it to get it. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  10 votes isn't enough to consider a wide community view. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per John. I do agree with the support ratio, though that requirement is already effective. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Support ratio is fine, while 10 users is not enough. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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%.

Support

 * 1)  From what I have seen of previous RfS most don't even get 20 votes anymore. I feel that lowering it to 10 or 15 will make it more posable for those who deserve it to get it. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  10 votes isn't enough to consider a wide community view. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per John and also  for the support ratio. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (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 70%.

Oppose

 * 1)  Not much difference when considering it's 25 now, but the 70% ratio is too low. John (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Paladox (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per John. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Stewards will be elected by a community vote where:
 * at least 15 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 75%.

Support

 * 1)  Proposing this as a sort of compromise. Bonnedav (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This isn’t a compromise to any problem that exists. Do 20 users share their views? Not usually. Do 15? Nope. Usually 5 will and they’ll all be opposes. The issue preventing appointment is the quality and trust in the candidate, not the election criteria. To allow people to be elected now, the criteria will have to be something like 5 comments and 0% support ratio needed. This RfC and proposals do not consider what the problem is but rather want to paper over the cracks to reduce both the quality of stewards and the bar for gaining extremely dangerous tools. As the old saying goes, quality over quantity. John (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) How about we leave it to the closer to determine the consensus? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Support

 * 1)  There is already a very lenient clause in place for removal of rights. Southparkfan (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  As Southparkfan says, if users want a steward removed, it is not that difficult. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) per SPF Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstain
LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 08:48, 17 May 2019 (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.

Oppose

 * 1)  As I support Proposal 1. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per proposal 1 Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Support

 * 1)  LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 23:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  same as above. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ditto Reception Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)