Meta talk:Meta–steward relationship/Archives/2009

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Merge

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to see this merged with Special global permissions, since I think what this page is talking about applies to all those global groups. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That can be done, sure. Kylu 03:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree... Can you elaborate further, Mike? These seem different topics to me. ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that he meant move the basic information about the "assumed admin/bureaucratship of stewards" to a Steward section at Special global permissions. I'd love to hear more from both sides, actually. :) Kylu 06:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I was operating under the impression that the Ombudsman Commission wasn't included on Special global permissions, but stewards were. So... yeah that doesn't make sense. I've linked them from see-also sections instead. Good catch, Lar. Let's blame Kylu. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 07:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Always a good plan. I hear she's responsible for the great Crash of 2008 as well. But see above, now that that's sorted, let's take this live! ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Lar likes digging up old graves :p ..but I think a merge will be the best option since it will be well-organised :) ..--Comet styles 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? we just got done agreeing that these are different topics. So color me confused. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)