Requests for Comment/CVT policy


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * For Scope, proposals 1 and 3 have passed. For Appointment, proposal 2 has passed. For Removal of Rights, proposals 1 and 3 (on revocation), proposal 5 (for inactivity), and proposal 6 (for readdition) have passed. And, per the final section, it is clarified that a wiki must achieve community consensus in order to opt out of CVT. -- Void  Whispers 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the other Requests for Comment that we have had, the Counter Vandalism Team remains the only main right (global and local) that is vague in terms of policy, and does not mention any inactivity or revocation procedures, making it fully up to Stewards and also making it possible for a CVT member to be inactive for a unlimited amount of time, when one of the main roles of CVT (in my opinion) is to be actively involved in combating vandalism across wikis. Additionally, it is currently not very clear where and how CVT are allowed to intervene and whether some matters should be reserved for Stewards to handle. I am aware that there have been previous RfCs that have gone stale on this topic, but I hope this one will have more comments and discussions.

As usual, users are not limited to vote for one proposal and may vote for multiple proposals as long as they are not mutually exclusive, and are free to add new proposals if they feel like the current ones don't include what they want. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 09:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Me, myself, think that CVT groups are way too manipulating. Therefore we need to set more rules (e.g. eligibility criteria, inactivity criteria, appointment criteria, etc) in order to make Miraheze's CVT group become better.

I agree with Spike that eligibility criteria should not contain the number of edits, but CVT members should have at least one eligibility criteria to ensure that the candidate is active. —znotch190711 (temporary signature) 04:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I will be completely ignoring this RFC. 49.130.128.224 06:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not respecting this RFC znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Znotch's mention of me is boilerplate text based on our agreement in a previous RfC, and is not necessarily an endorsement of what I've written below.  18:54 18-Aug-2019

I'd like some context before making my votes on selection and revocation. How many CVT members do we have now, and what is the current turnover rate (if any) of the CVT membership? --Robkelk (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently 4 as of 17-8-2019. --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 00:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Need for the proposal
The rulebook does not need to define how many CVT members there are nor who gets appointed. An active group of Stewards, with a desire for a smoothly running Miraheze and with accountability when not running smoothly, does equally well. At the same time, numerical thresholds may become obsolete as activity waxes and wanes. If the thresholds here became out-of-date, the Stewards would propose an amendment and a majority-of-those-interested would rule anyway.

A written rule should distinguish reverting vandalism, versus enforcing Miraheze Terms of Use and enforcing civility on individual wikis. It seems wise to mandate that the CVT (1) defer to Admins on local wikis wherever possible and (2) defer to management on tough calls. The CVT need not be completely reactive; it can notify Admins and management that it thinks there is a problem.

I repeat my note in a previous RfC that having voters deliver pluralities on a bunch of competing proposals is more awkward and difficult to interpret, than having voters approve or disapprove a single proposal whose details have been worked out (in a process they can participate in). (Yes, I know, I should write this as an RfC!)  18:54 18-Aug-2019
 * Wow, Spike! --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * CVTs should only act in their CVT capacity if:


 * there is vandalism, spam or any type of clear disruption on the wiki and there are no local sysops or bureaucrats acting in a reasonable amount of time
 * the global Special:AbuseLog shows attempted spam that hasn't been dealt with by local sysops or bureaucrats
 * a request to remove spam is made by a member of the local community

In any other case CVTs should not interfere on any wiki in their CVT capacity, and in doubt should leave the matter to a Steward.

a) Support

 * 1)  makes sense, I think the role of CVT should definitely be to concentrate on clear vandalism and leave more complicated matters to Stewards. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems to clear up a lot.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Some communities have peculiar rules about vandalism so it's better if CVT only acts when nobody else does.--Wedhro (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  It's better to let local sysops have a chance to do something. If it doesn't, CVT acts Gustave London (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Yes, CVT shouldn't exercise their duties when there is currently got a local admin are available on any Wikis, except for emergency case. SA 13 Bro</b> (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) counterterrorism against kids that have nothing else to do in case ppl are absent for a while is appreciated, ty for your effords as always. - aira
 * 7)  Best compromise between freedom of individual wikis and protection of Miraheze as a whole. --Robkelk (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
How about some Notification to local stewards first, then after x hours/days no response from local team the CVT takes action? this would partly avoid clashing between CVTs and local admins/stewards. -aira
 * You should probably open a new proposal for that. Plus, please sign your posts with . --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 08:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * CVT members may not lock users unless they are clearly vandalizing or spamming a wiki. More complicated cases of disruption and not respecting local policies should be left to be dealt with by Stewards.

a) Support

 * 1)  per comment above. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Allows for action against a vandal or spammer who targets a single wiki that does not have active administrators. --Robkelk (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) rather it was more than 1 wiki but otherwise okay. 1 wiki can be a normal block.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) when it is only a few wikis then individuals can block them znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Support Proposal 3. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Blocked on 1 Wiki can be handle by local admins, unless the vandals or spammers engaging an cross-wiki abuse. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * CVT members may not lock users unless they are clearly vandalizing or spamming multiple wikis. More complicated cases of disruption and not respecting local policies should be left to be dealt with by Stewards.

a) Support

 * 1)  as proposer and comments in proposal 1  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 07:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  per proposer. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 07:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Yes, applying the global lock for cross-wiki abusers. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  This would allow spammers to span a single inactive wiki, keeping that wiki alive and preventing it from being closed for inactivity while providing no check against the accumulation of spam. --Robkelk (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CVT would be able to take local action against a user just not global action. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 14:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
How many wikis? znotch190711 (temporary signature) 07:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In it's current form they could act at 2 wikis but they would be able to use discretion as to when it becomes cross-wiki abuse or clearly a vandalism-only account which they do now Anyway. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 07:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 wikis is way also too low. Maybe 4 or 5 wikis where individual blocking will not take effect. --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 10:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think that you don't need much to tell when it becomes cross-wiki abuse and in most cases with the type of abuse we get I see them locking at 3 maybe 4 but it's quite easy as well to tell what is abuse and I trust the current CVT will not abuse the ability to lock at 2 wikis and are able to identify abuse. If the abuse becomes more complex or situations change, policy can adapt. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 10:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * CVTs are appointed by Stewards following a community discussion and vote held at Requests for global rights. Stewards have discretion in determining their appointment.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Too vague, and it should be up to a clear community vote, not discretion. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Too much discretion.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Stewards job are interpret the decision by community consensus, not by stewards discretion. S</b>A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  users should decide --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) When stewards should have the discretion is only when we have no active users znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If a stewards' got involved then it's probably serious or global enough we aren't going to wait or we're likely dealing with global Policy issues. In this case, both stewards and staff have the full right to act. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 06:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Didn't realise which question this was for - oops  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * CVTs will be elected by a community vote (on Requests for global rights) where:


 * at least 10 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%.
 * a period of one week has passed since it started.

a) Support

 * 1)  Half of the number of votes for Stewards is a decent number for CVT. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sounds like a good number.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  A great rate Gustave London (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  I can understand here have no very active vandals and spammers than Wikimedia projects, but CVT members has the advanced duties than local admins, therefore their cross-wiki experiencing must be certain higher level than local admins, so there must at least 80% support ratio in 10 users view are worthily. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  good number. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) I really like the term used by User:SA 13 Bro as Miraheze meta wiki and not WMF meta wiki, we are not that active. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * CVTs will be elected by a community vote (on Requests for global rights) where:


 * at least 5 users share their view;
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%.
 * a period of one week has passed since it started.

a) Support

 * 1) I really like the term used by User:SA 13 Bro as Miraheze meta wiki and not WMF meta wiki, we are not that active. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Considering that we've been using a person's track record as an active member of the CVT as an unofficial criterion for granting Steward rights (whether that was the intention or not, that's what the reality has appeared to become), we should make it relatively easy to get this membership and establish that track record. --Robkelk (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Not enough users must share their view for a to elect a user hat does have quite a few rights across Miraheze. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  a bit low for a group with a lot of rights.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  As I mentioned my comment at below, and the vote comment at proposal 2. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * Global CVT are difference kind of duties from Meta local admins, which have the certain administrative access on all Wikis (excluding of CU and OS access). I agrees the term that here have no very active vandals and spammers than Wikimedia projects, but when emergency time there is currently no any active admins on any Wikis, CVT is needed to perform certain tasks on global action. So users appointment to be the CVT volunteer they must have the cross-wiki experiencing than Meta local admins it is, I think I may try to pay the attention regarding on this policy changes. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 10:25, 17 August 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 global 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)  makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  per reception  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Now i would make it to a weak support. --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 10:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per all above. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  A simple majority on a non-confidence motion is good enough to dissolve Parliament and force a general election. It's good enough IMHO for removing somebody from the CVT, as well. --Robkelk (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Robkelk. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Revocation)

 * The global 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

a) Support

 * 1) Majority prevails. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Changed to support Proposal 1

b) Oppose

 * 1)  75% is too much IMO. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  too high  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  75% is a bit too high, 50% is a bit too low: i am banned from proposing new proposals at RfCs, so i dont know what to do but to weakly support the proposal above. --znotch190711 (temporary signature) 10:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Have at least 50% is enough. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  too much to remove a CVT --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 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 a CVT member, and it is not determined solely by the number of votes.

a) Support

 * 1)  makes sense. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Needs a reason to stop grudges.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Needs a reason to stop grudges.  ~ znotch190711 (temporary signature) 06:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Kind of a no-brainer.--Wedhro (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per RhinosF1 Gustave London (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Of course. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) Support on requiring a reason, oppose on ignoring the votes. --Robkelk (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Inactivity)

 * CVT members who do not participate in CVT duties in some form (countervandalism, locking abusive users, etc.) for for 1 year will be deemed inactive and have their CVT rights revoked by a Steward.

a) Support

 * 1)  -znotch190711 (temporary signature) 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  One year is too long, as I said in the opening statement the point of a CVT member is to be active. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  too long.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  A bit too long. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Inactivity)

 * CVT members who do not participate in CVT duties in some form (countervandalism, locking abusive users, etc.) for 6 months will be deemed inactive and have their CVT rights revoked by a Steward.

a) Support

 * 1) CVTs should at least have some form of activity in 6 months. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Good length of time to show activity.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) CVTs should at least have some form of activity in 6 months. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 07:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Even 6 months is probably too much but still better than 1 year.--Wedhro (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  CVT's members have of the be that active.6 months not is much. Gustave London (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  6 months were be better. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Showing up and doing something twice a year is generous, but workable. This gives more than enough time for a CVT member to show interest in continuing to do the required work. --Robkelk (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  per others. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Readdition)

 * Once a CVT member 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)  they should be able to show that they will be active again, and that they will benefit the community by having the rights. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  would be nice if they can be community.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  they should be able to show that they will be active again, and that they will benefit the community by having the rights. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 07:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) per too much Gustave London (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  as per comment by Reception123. --Robkelk (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Per all above. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  How well this works depends on the rules for appointment, but they're not decided yet.--Wedhro (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Readdition)

 * An CVT member 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.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  per comment above. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ^^  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 15:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  24 hours is too short of a notice for people that only login in the weekend or such.--Wedhro (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  It appears to me that the only reasons for removing a CVT member are no-confidence or inactivity. If somebody who didn't bother to take part wants to take part, that person can go through the normal process. --Robkelk (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  24 hours is too short to make a good judgement. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  not enough time and what I said above. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) I would now abstain. 24 hours is too short to make a judgement. znotch190711 (temporary signature) 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * If there is a local consensus a wiki may request to opt-out from CVT, therefore not allowing CVT to take any actions there.

a) Support

 * 1)  Wikis should be allowed to choose whether they want outside help, and maybe some wikis like large wikis don't want that kind of interference. Reception123  (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  per reception znotch190711 (temporary signature) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  If a wiki does not want CVT to act they should be able to say that. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Of course.The wikis need of the autonomy. Gustave London (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  per everyone else.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat) · CA · contribs · Rights - ) 13:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
Just to note, if this proposal does not pass, it is the de facto state anyway, it would just not be written into the policy and would be at the discretion of Stewards. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#DC143C">'C' ) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


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