Talk:Stewards policy

Archives 2010

Limitations

There's a separate section in the policy for the rule that stewards should not promote users in wikis which have (active) bureaucrats of their own. However, this principle is de facto applied more generally than just for promoting admins – we tend to not perform actions requiring advanced permissions if there are active local people to perform that action. For example: user renamings, bot flaggings (except when that's explicitly allowed by the local policy), CU/OS actions (except in emergency/cross-wiki cases) etc. I think this principle should be stated more broadly in the steward policy, so that the reader doesn't have to know the details of CU/OS/bot policies to know what stewards are normally allowed to do. Any thoughts? Jafeluv 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --95.180.42.160 05:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no objection. In fact, you're not going to modify any policy, just to reformulate something more clearly. So that's naturally okay for me, and thanks for doing it. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Inactivity

As it currently stands, the policy mandates a full year of inactivity and defines inactive as no actions in the preceding six months (and less than 10 actions in the last year). This means that a steward has to be continuously inactive for a full year and a half. I don't think this was the intent, and I think it should be changed to simply state that inactivity means no actions in 6 months and less than 10 in the last full year. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Never thought about it that way, although I guess that's one way to read the policy. How about just removing "for a full year" from the section:

Any steward inactive (as a steward) for a full year will have their steward permissions removed. "Inactive" means no steward action in the past 6 months and fewer than 10 steward actions in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular process.

Jafeluv (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be more clear and I definitely support this change. Thanks both. :) Trijnstel_talk 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed that was what I was trying to propose, Jafeluv. It would actually mean stewards can be inactive (I believe this would mean at least one steward would be classified as inactive, and possibly two). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would favour something that identified those who turn up once a year around confirmation time as being "inactive" but I imagine there would be howls of protest.

Either way there should be a policy. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support reasonable change. --Rschen7754 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)