Talk:Global renamers/Archives/2021
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Contradictory rules for promotion, and discretion to extend
This policy mentions that (emphasis mine)
These requests will run for at least two weeks, and require consensus for promotion and a support margin of at least 80%.
However, the header under the Global permissions page (and the Global renamers page) says that
Please note that global renamer discussions are not votes and This is not a vote.
They directly contradict each other, and I was turned down for this role because the rejecting steward used the former policy against me. I think this contradiction should be resolved in some way, by choosing one of the two (and sticking with it). Personally I prefer the second one because it is in line with promotion for other similar global permissions (Global rollback/sysops). Leaderboard (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, in borderline requests (such as mine), is it possible to give discretion to the stewards to extend the voting period (this is the case for Meta RFA, for example)? I felt that my application should have been extended rather than turned down simply because two weeks were over considering the relatively fewer number of users commenting compared to other requests I've seen. Leaderboard (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't have time to understand the situation, but meta RFA we didn't have the tradition to extend voting. For the last marginal case, a crat chat determined that late votes won't count (i.e. 7 days is all it is given). I will say however, the rules on the SRGP page can be seen as guidelines and etc, but the global rename policy is policy. When both contradict, it should be always policies coming first rather than guidelines. If they contradict, let us make sure that the guidelines are fixed to reflect policy, not the other way round. I am just thinking the note of not votes are linked to the notion of giving stewards discretion when they see evidences of canvassing / revenge voting etc. Anyway, all these rights (GR/GS) are all based on stewards trust if I am not wrong, even if the community have unanimous support steward could still have the discretion to not promote, as all these roles are all to assist stewards. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Upon reading the essence of the request, @Leaderboard you should know that by pushing for it being not a vote, it will not benefit the application. I count several supports are just support (the very essence of not votes frown on) while the opposes had laid out their rationale in depth. Yes, there are some !votes for support (mine included) that had tried to address the opposes, from what I can read here is there is no consensus at best if we are trying not to have a vote tally. Just my 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I am not necessarily saying that I should have passed; to be honest, if I were a steward and had to close this request, I would turn it down (with your explanation) if there was no provision to extend the voting period. But then I think my application should have definitely been extended - I was one oppose vote off getting the necessary 80% support rate, which I personally think was borderline. Leaderboard (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, not very sure will an extension helped. Shall this be cross-posted somewhere for more awareness. @Leaderboard Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I am not sure that is necessary - as I am raising an issue with the Global renames policy, I thought this should be enough. But I don't mind it either - just don't want to be seen as needlessly protesting or something like that. Leaderboard (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, let's just keep it here then. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I am not sure that is necessary - as I am raising an issue with the Global renames policy, I thought this should be enough. But I don't mind it either - just don't want to be seen as needlessly protesting or something like that. Leaderboard (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, not very sure will an extension helped. Shall this be cross-posted somewhere for more awareness. @Leaderboard Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I am not necessarily saying that I should have passed; to be honest, if I were a steward and had to close this request, I would turn it down (with your explanation) if there was no provision to extend the voting period. But then I think my application should have definitely been extended - I was one oppose vote off getting the necessary 80% support rate, which I personally think was borderline. Leaderboard (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Upon reading the essence of the request, @Leaderboard you should know that by pushing for it being not a vote, it will not benefit the application. I count several supports are just support (the very essence of not votes frown on) while the opposes had laid out their rationale in depth. Yes, there are some !votes for support (mine included) that had tried to address the opposes, from what I can read here is there is no consensus at best if we are trying not to have a vote tally. Just my 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)