Meta:Requests for comment/Overhaul MSR

The following request for comments is closed. There is no consensus to implement the proposal. Supporters argued that stewards are already globally trusted and should be able to use their advanced rights on Meta without needing separate local requests. Participants opposing the proposal noted that Meta-Wiki is an independent community with its own processes and standards, and that stewards should continue to apply locally if they wish to perform administrative functions here. As there is no broad agreement, the proposal is not adopted. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

Let's look at the current wording of Meta:MSR. Currently, in practice, stewards that are not Meta-Wiki admins can only do basic anti-vandalism tasks (but edit the title/spam blacklist for some reason), and a few members of the community have interpreted this in rather restrictive ways (eg User_talk:EPIC/Archive_2024_(1)#c-EPIC-20240305060100-Minorax-20240305045000). This has resulted in many stewards requesting Meta adminship and checkuser when they shouldn't be. My perspective is that by electing a steward, we are trusting them to use advanced rights on this wiki as well.

My proposal is to instead

de-facto consider stewards as Meta-Wiki admins without having them to apply for the right separately. A significant number of users commented when I proposed adding Meta to the global sysops opt-in set that they were concerned that global sysops can then edit global JS pages. Stewards can already do it with the rights they have, so doesn't matter here. This also includes implicit use of translationadmin.
allow stewards to perform CheckUser/Oversight as if their already have the right on Meta-Wiki (this will mean that they can do this in non-emergency/cross-wiki cases). Same reasoning - most of the existing CU and OS users on Meta-Wiki are just (former) stewards (example).
but not allow stewards to handle permission requests other than emergencies - that's the area I consider truly "local" and can be handled by local admins or bureaucrats.
The same applies to interface-admin and CentralNotice (unless the community thinks otherwise), as stewards do not routinely make use of this permission.

Of course, this only applies for as long as they are a steward; when they are no longer one, they need to apply for adminship like anyone else.

Comments

Oppose Meta is an independent community. It shouldn't become subservient to the Stewards. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this proposal makes the community "subservient" to anyone; it's more about improving the workflow and stop wasting time with unnecessary permission requests. Leaderboard (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I would go further by allowing Stewards to act as Meta sysops, bureaucrats, CheckUsers, and Oversighters, in all cases and for all purposes. I strongly disagree that Meta is an "independent" community: to the extent that Meta's community exists as a discrete entity, it exists to support the other communities. Meta exists for "coordinating amongst the Wikimedia projects" (Meta:About). Its sole purpose is to support the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. Stewards, meanwhile, are elected by the global community, the very community Meta exists to serve. Specifically, the voting criteria for stewards are tied only to global (and not Meta-specific) contributions. Whatever legitimacy Meta admins derive from their election from the local Meta community, stewards have derived (and more) from their election by the global Wikimedia community. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 23:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if a steward wants to volunteer to manage local issues they should have little trouble requesting access, same as on any other project they wish to contribute administratively to. I expect our local administrators to be involved with the day to day local community here on m-w, but I don't expect the same of stewards. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux "manage local issues they should have little trouble requesting access" - such as permissions, interface admins and CentralNotice. That is still the case with my proposal. However, normal admin tasks, CheckUser/Oversight etc is more than "local issues". Also: "our local administrators to be involved with the day to day local community here" is not necessarily the case judging from past RfAs from stewards, also admins are only expected to make 10 edits per 6-month period. That is not "day-to-day local community". Meta is not "any other project". Leaderboard (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community is already empowered to determine if local candidates are appropriate or not - their standards are of course subject to change, however they generally involve evaluating if someone is locally active first. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Xaosflux. Meta has its own community and hosts its own content, alongside most of the Wikimedia stuff. If a steward wants to help out with Meta's stuff, I believe that the local community is more than willing to support it. The frequency of activity review of stewards and Meta's sysops runs on different intervals and during different months (Feb v. Apr/Oct). Are we suppose to grant stewards the immunity of activity removals when we've had stewards doing the bare minimum just to keep the rights in the past? Yes, stewards are chosen by the global community to serve. However, most of these users are not active here and generally pop by once a year to vote at the steward elections. Having these users electing our local admin doesn't seem right and technically if a bulk of users of Wiki A chooses User A to be a steward, does it mean that User A should also get sysop perms at Wiki A? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]