Stewards policy proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Stewards policy proposal

Mihai Floran
As the stewards community got larger and not so many things to do right now I think we should have a larger policy about stewards, their status and functions.

First of all I think that if we want to have neutral stewards they should not be members of staff in local projects (sysop, bureaucrat) because this can influence their decision.
The current stewards should have a period to think about the issue and consider if they want to leave their local status or the steward status.

Another urgent issue is checkuser policy regarding stewards. We don't have one and I think is immediatly subject.

Any other ideas?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,

A steward is someone who is trusted to do right. Are you of the
opinion that by curtailing what a steward can or cannot do you improve
this trust. The only thing that you do is that someone who is trusted
in his local environment and is trusted in a broader scope should give
up his position?? For what ??

No, this is something that may you think is the right thing to do. To
me it is not necessary. Worse, I think it is an awful idea.

As to the checkuser tool. When a suspicion exists that some sock
puppetry is happening and a trusted person, someone who knows how to
use the tool, uses this tool discreetly, I am all for it. I am all for
it because it is not necessary to fan the flames. When asked all that
needs saying if anything at all is that there is some sock puppetry
going on.

Please understand the operational word... trust....

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 1/27/06, Mihai Floran <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As the stewards community got larger and not so many things to do right now I think we should have a larger policy about stewards, their status and functions.
>
> First of all I think that if we want to have neutral stewards they should not be members of staff in local projects (sysop, bureaucrat) because this can influence their decision.
> The current stewards should have a period to think about the issue and consider if they want to leave their local status or the steward status.
>
> Another urgent issue is checkuser policy regarding stewards. We don't have one and I think is immediatly subject.
>
> Any other ideas?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
Mihai Floran wrote:
> As the stewards community got larger and not so many things to do right now

I like that statement very much :-)


I think we should have a larger policy about stewards, their status and
functions.
>
> First of all I think that if we want to have neutral stewards they should not be members of staff in local projects (sysop, bureaucrat) because this can influence their decision.

When first stewards were elected, there was a lengthy discussion about
that and there was a conclusion : a steward should avoid as much as
possible being the one who *desysop* people on his project. For example,
Maverick was asked not to desysop editors on the english wikipedia.

I think current stewards would do well to avoid doing any action when
they are in one way or another involved. And yes, recently, it happened.


> The current stewards should have a period to think about the issue and consider if they want to leave their local status or the steward status.

I do not support that proposal :-)
Being a steward on meta, and a sysop on one's local project are two
different issues.


> Another urgent issue is checkuser policy regarding stewards. We don't have one and I think is immediatly subject.

Absolutely agree with you. *this* is an issue.


> Any other ideas?

Yes

<subliminal message>

Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.

</end of subliminal message>

:-)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

Kat Walsh
On 1/27/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <subliminal message>
>
> Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
> projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>
> </end of subliminal message>

Agreed on this...

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

Chris Jenkinson
Kat Walsh wrote:

> On 1/27/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>><subliminal message>
>>
>>Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
>>projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>>
>></end of subliminal message>
>
>
> Agreed on this...
>
> -Kat

Rob Church is currently doing some coding of a nice userrights
interface, I'm sure that the ability for bureaucrats to grant/revoke bot
status will be part of it if we ask nicely. :)

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
[hidden email]

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

Walter van Kalken
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3

>
> Yes
>
> <subliminal message>
>
> Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
> projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>
> </end of subliminal message>
>
> :-)

And I absolutely agree with Anthere there! I want to put all my wight
behind that ........ and believe me that is quite a few kilo's ;)
...............


mmmmmm I have an idea for votes. Someone's vote weighs as much as the
person heheheheheheheheh

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Mihai Floran
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
>
> Yes
>
> <subliminal message>
>
> Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
> projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>
> </end of subliminal message>
>
> :-) Agree without conditions!And if there is installed the stewards interface to bureaucrats (of course simplified) they will have the possibility to give also rollback rights and in this case I think we should reconsider reintroducing this permission.M
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Mihai Floran
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
Hmm... anyway.... as a second tought...
(I still support Anthere's proposal)
what will the stewards do afterwards?

There is not so much activity at Requests for permissions nowadays... exception - of course - big discutions about desysoping some users.

M
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Walter van Kalken
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> <subliminal message>
>>
>> Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
>> projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>>
>> </end of subliminal message>
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> And I absolutely agree with Anthere there! I want to put all my wight
> behind that ........ and believe me that is quite a few kilo's ;)
> ...............
>
>
> mmmmmm I have an idea for votes. Someone's vote weighs as much as the
> person heheheheheheheheh
>
> Waerth/Walter

Let me hurry to register mine then. This evening... 75 kilos.

puff puff

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

KIZU Naoko
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
On 1/28/06, Mihai Floran <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hmm... anyway.... as a second tought...
> (I still support Anthere's proposal)
> what will the stewards do afterwards?
>
> There is not so much activity at Requests for permissions nowadays... exception - of course - big discutions about desysoping some users.

Besides what steward(s) should do, I propose that no discussion on
desysopping has not to be submitted on meta but on their own projects
unless desysopping in request is related to two or more projects, or
at least such discussion might be moved to more appropriate page (like
requests for comment).

Or, submission of request for desysopping might be qualified only if
there is already a closed vote on project(s) in question. (sigh)

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

Mihai Floran
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
>Besides what steward(s) should do, I propose that no discussion on
>desysopping has not to be submitted on meta but on their own projects
>unless desysopping in request is related to two or more projects, or
>at least such discussion might be moved to more appropriate page (like
>requests for comment).
>
>Or, submission of request for desysopping might be qualified only if
>there is already a closed vote on project(s) in question. (sigh)

I agree. There should be no discutions at Requests for permisions. There should be just approved requests which have to be done. Maybe we shuld have a special page for this kind of discutions? It is an idea with Requests for comment. If not, we can do another page.

M
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Stewards policy proposal

Essjay
I agree with the original statement: Desysopping should be discussed on the
project where the user is an admin. If it is done on Meta, it will prevent a
wide section of that project's community from commenting, and having wide
community input is essential in determining whether to remove admin rights
or not (as admin rights are the result of a community's trust of a given
user). Unless the discussion is about desysoping a meta admin, or
destewarding a steward, it should be done on the project where the rights
are assigned.

Essjay

On 1/30/06, Mihai Floran <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >Besides what steward(s) should do, I propose that no discussion on
> >desysopping has not to be submitted on meta but on their own projects
> >unless desysopping in request is related to two or more projects, or
> >at least such discussion might be moved to more appropriate page (like
> >requests for comment).
> >
> >Or, submission of request for desysopping might be qualified only if
> >there is already a closed vote on project(s) in question. (sigh)
>
> I agree. There should be no discutions at Requests for permisions. There
> should be just approved requests which have to be done. Maybe we shuld have
> a special page for this kind of discutions? It is an idea with Requests for
> comment. If not, we can do another page.
>
> M
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards policy proposal

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Mihai Floran
Mihai Floran wrote:

>>Besides what steward(s) should do, I propose that no discussion on
>>desysopping has not to be submitted on meta but on their own projects
>>unless desysopping in request is related to two or more projects, or
>>at least such discussion might be moved to more appropriate page (like
>>requests for comment).
>>
>>Or, submission of request for desysopping might be qualified only if
>>there is already a closed vote on project(s) in question. (sigh)
>
>
> I agree. There should be no discutions at Requests for permisions. There should be just approved requests which have to be done. Maybe we shuld have a special page for this kind of discutions? It is an idea with Requests for comment. If not, we can do another page.
>
> M


Hi Mihai

There is no reason to have a page on meta for this type of discussion.
The discussions should occur on local projects, where local editors can
participate. We do not have to make any "judgement" ourselves.


Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l