Talk:Stewards policy
Add topic
… since the steward group can easily control itself
[edit]| “ | However, since stewardship is typically a position likely to get into trouble and since the steward group can easily control itself, the confirmation itself will be done by other stewards. If the majority of other stewards request removal of steward access, the steward will lose their status. | ” |
| — Vogone, diff | ||
Not clear where did Vogone get this idea and to which enigmatic “the RFC” the edit summary referred. The diff provided in the edit summary has no mention of any RfC. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The edit looks like an attempt to codify the status quo as understood around the time of Requests for comment/Confirmation of stewards. The most important part of that edit is that there is no longer an expectation that stewards can be removed only if there is a consensus for removal. --Nemo 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The practice as of Stewards/Confirm/2018 shows that the community votes, not only “other stewards”. How this practice is related to the current reading of §2.2 Loss of steward access? Isn’t the community vote binding? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is not binding, indeed. The actual "vote" if you so will took place here, with the community comments being advisory (2018 was a rather uncontroversial year, it becomes more obvious if you look for steward confirmations in previous years). --Vogone (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are open ballots for stewards? @Vogone: who pressed for such a procedure? It is terribly wrong, of course. People making career in Wikimedia are usually conformists by themselves. This form of peer pressure induces them to even stronger conformity. If stewards’ vote is binding, then the ballots must be secret. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The procedure is almost as old as the steward group itself. I agree it is far from ideal, but reforming it is extremely difficult since the opinions on what would be best practice differ very much. --Vogone (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are open ballots for stewards? @Vogone: who pressed for such a procedure? It is terribly wrong, of course. People making career in Wikimedia are usually conformists by themselves. This form of peer pressure induces them to even stronger conformity. If stewards’ vote is binding, then the ballots must be secret. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is not binding, indeed. The actual "vote" if you so will took place here, with the community comments being advisory (2018 was a rather uncontroversial year, it becomes more obvious if you look for steward confirmations in previous years). --Vogone (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The practice as of Stewards/Confirm/2018 shows that the community votes, not only “other stewards”. How this practice is related to the current reading of §2.2 Loss of steward access? Isn’t the community vote binding? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Non "clear-cut" global locks vs. steward COI and local policies
[edit]FYI: A current case reported at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media and discussed on the talk page there raises policy questions about global locks, including how they may relate to Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest and Stewards policy#Check local policies. (TL;DR: A steward globally locked an account for actions on the steward's home wiki, with a rationale that appears to match none of the usual "clear-cut situations" listed at Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock, and with the user having been active on other wikis besides the steward's home wiki.) Not sure what the best location is for discussion about this; for better or worse it is right now happening on that page on enwiki, one of the projects affected by that particular global lock. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)