Talk:Stewards policy/2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Vogone in topic … since the steward group can easily control itself
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion. |
… since the steward group can easily control itself
| “ | 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)