FAMEPedia:Requests for comment/functionaries policies

Proposal 1
Delete all the policies related to CheckUsers and Oversighters There can be no CheckUsers and Oversighters other than stewards. It is the policy of Miraheze to not to give the CheckUser and Oversighter rights to anyone other than stewards who add themselves to the group only when there is a serious need to run a check on any user. There is no point in keeping those pages.
 * Reason

Support

 * – as proposer. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose
--Chimobi (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * per, the same policies here on FAMEPedia is also what is used on Miraheze and the CheckUser and Oversight rights aren't given out yet doesn't mean it'll remain so forever. Things are bound to change.

General comments

 * , while I do think your oppose is reasonable but we have a contacting ways which listed at those policies' pages which are totally wrong. For example we have an email, checkuser-en-wp@FAMEPedia.org, listed at FAMEPedia:CheckUser which is wrong. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, That I will update as soon as possible. Chimobi (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2
If the above proposal 1 fails, I suggest the addition and the creation of own discord and IRC channels for the contacts of Arbitrators

Discussion
Since the CheckUser and Oversight groups are global, then I think the contact should be the contact of the Miraheze CheckUser and Oversight Chimobi (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are no CU's and OS's on the Miraheze wikis. In my opinion, the contact should go to Stewards but indirectly, we can create a committee or a clerk group (until Miraheze's policy on CU changes) who will handle requests at FP:SPI and if CU is required, they can contact stewards to perform the check. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For that, we have a local CheckUser policy pages already which also applies to global checkusers so I think some set of Administrators should be elected as a Local CheckUser, they'll handle the requests then onces it requires a CU check then we contact a Steward on Miraheze. Though maybe before then I'll request to be a Steward on Miraheze, so we won't have these issues on FAMEPedia on contacting CheckUsers. Chimobi (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with it. But we can't give administrators the CheckUser name because they don't have access to Special:CheckUser or the Special:CheckUserLog, it won't be good. But we can modify the existing SPI clerks policy according to our needs and we will mark FAMEPedia:CheckUser as the future policy and ineffective. But the new SPI Clerk whose members will be all the administrators will be set effective in fighting Sockpuppetry if the RFC will succeed. The policy's content content be discussed in any other RFC. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarification, a page like wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks will be created at FAMEPedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks to handle requests at FP:SPI who will contact stewards if CU is needed. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah as I was almost implementing that Clerks page but the all admins as SPI clerks can't happen cuz we only have few admins currently doesn't mean it'll remain so, that's why all admins can't be SPI clerks. Only Elected Admins can be SPI clerks and the Election is gonna happen just the same way RfAs are processed, seeking consensus from the general wiki. Chimobi (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh, if that is the matter then we can elect the clerk at FAMEPedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Where the Arbitrators will appoint clerks after the successful request. The request will be open for three days and only arbitrators can carefully close that. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice proposal and Ideas, I'll close RfC after I've successfully implemented and designed the Page for Electing Arbitrators. Chimobi (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  – as proposer. ~ Mazzaz (talk)  08:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

General comments

 * So, CheckUser and Oversight can, technically, be granted locally; however, there are some significant prerequisites. Firstly, the user must have signed an NDA with Miraheze Limited, a copy of which can be requested from Owen. This includes being eligible to sign a Miraheze Limited NDA (which the Miraheze Limited Board Secretary would verify). Secondly, the user must undergo a local election on each wiki where the permission is being requested, and that local election must meet the requirements for Stewardship. That is to say, the user's local election must have had at least 20 unique persons to have expressed a view (positive, negative, or neutral), with a minimum net 80% support ratio (support/neutral less any opposing views). Finally, ideally, as a check-and-balance, there would need to be two (2) users successfully elected as local CheckUsers or Oversighters. In the latter case, where a Steward held local  rights on the wiki, they could, potentially, be treated as the second such user, if they were willing. Following that, Stewards would then assess the local election request, and confirm the user meets the prerequisites with the Miraheze Limited Board Secretary. Once successfully elected, Stewards would then still serve as auditors of local CheckUsers and Oversighters. Contrast that with the local requirements for local interwiki administrator, which can be found interwiki administrator. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)