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?
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 mihai@emma.ro 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 foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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>
:-)
On 1/27/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com 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
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 1/27/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com 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
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
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org