Requests for comment/Approval of the rewritten Meta-Steward relationship document as policy/Vote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The voting is closed and after the period of one week, the result indicates that 84.21% of the participants are in favor to adopt the proposed policy in question as an official Meta-Wiki policy. — T. 16:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC Request for comment to approve a new version of Meta-Wiki's steward relationship policy (vote)
This is phase 2 of the RfC which discussed whether Meta:Meta–Steward relationship/Rewrite should be adopted as Meta-Wiki local policy (this has nothing to do with other projects). This vote will be kept open for a week. To finally adopt this policy we need 75% of support as stated in the RfC. Absent specific rules about voting at Meta, the rules used at RFA applies here[1]
  • Vote opens: 15:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Vote closes: 8 March 2013 15:37 (UTC)
  1. All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate.



  1. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. --MF-W 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. When I became a steward, I was told that Meta is home to stewards and stewards can take the roles as needed in meta. But in the later years I have experienced badge flashings and complaints for trying to help when asked for. I have stayed away from meta actions as I have no time and need to spend my energy on titles and badges. I support the definition in the current form --Jyothis (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. — mantis [religiosa] — 17:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Seems reasonable. Meta is a community, albeit small, so "visitors" need to be aware of that. --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. --Millosh (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  6. The rewritten policy is an improvement, although I share Snowolf's view about local oversighters in particular. If we at some point decide to get rid of the local oversight flag and let stewards handle the job, the relevant section in this policy will of course need to be tweaked accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  7. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  8. Stewards should be able to do noncontroversial admin actions on Meta-Wiki, without having to apply for local adminship here. The new version seems reasonable, and less out-of-date. πr2 (t • c) 20:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  9. Trijnsteltalk 21:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  10. Érico Wouters msg 21:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  11. The fact is that we have current checkusers and oversighters. Allowing stewards to perform CU/OS on meta can be discussed surely (failed in the past?), but no reason to oppose the current draft. --Bencmq (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  12. Sounds good to me. -Barras talk 13:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  13. BruTe talk 16:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  14. Reasonable to me too. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 17:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  15. I don't know if it's the best policy possible, but the proposed text makes sense and looks better than some previous versions. The repetition of some passages may make it look wordy, but makes it simpler (to understand). I'm not sure I understood Herby's vote striking and the current opposers and I have no strong opinions about the proposal, so I'll check later in case there are elements for changing my vote. --Nemo 18:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  16. Courcelles 20:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


  1. I personally do not think that it any sense for meta to have local Oversighters, and possibly checkusers. Snowolf How can I help? 17:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Good proposal for non-controversial use of the sysop bits, but like Snowolf I see no need for local checkusers or oversighters. The majority of CU/OS here are also stewards, so having a local group for people to collect doesn't make sense to me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Strangely I've always considered it important to have some non stewards in these roles for the community's sake - my views on trust of people with power have been coloured by life I guess. --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that there should be local, non-steward checkusers/oversighters allowed. I just don't like how stewards can't make casual use of the checkuser and oversight rights under this proposed policy (and the current one). IMO, there should not be this local bureaucracy preventing stewards from using their rights here in continuance with their scope on other projects. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. The page states that it is a relationship, yet gives procedural instruction. Keep it simple explain the relationship with some clear principles and the clear separation of roles. This is a case where 'less is more'. Emergency role exists for stewards it doesn't need to be redefined or clarified what it is at meta. I am totally in favour of local checkusers, irrespective of steward status (different focus, different pull on their requirements) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)



Please use the talk page.

If the policy proposal holds, grammatically we would preferably word as should not rather than should avoid. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Principles could be

    • Meta is essentially a coordinating project rather than a content wiki and accordingly has a mixture of steward only tools, and local administrative tools
    • Meta hosts globally restrictive configuration pages that are primarily for the use of stewards, global sysops, though these are editable by advanced rights holders locally on meta
    • Stewards tools and access are provided for globally modifying access rights and for emergency actions on all wikis
    • Local admins, bureaucrats, oversight and checkusers will undertake the actions that are local and specific to the wiki and its community; stewards have the ability to undertake actions though defer to local advanced rights for these specific issues
    • Standard rules of conflict of interest apply, and stewards and local advanced rights holders shall avoid acting in areas of conflicted interest

I'm still not able to tell the differences between this proposal and the current policy. Can someone please explain? --Rschen7754 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)