Talk:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki suffrage in regards to local elections

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

Please discuss, not vote. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up! ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A.B.'s proposal[edit]

  • Although I don't think it's perfect, I would prefer a bit more bureaucrat discretion in what votes to allow/disallow, I can live with this proposal if it becomes consensus. I see having some number of contributions required as a significant improvement over the current status quo. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Perhaps using this as a guideline, and simply noting that bureaucrats have some latitude would be enough? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We've got confirmations coming up and no guiding policy. While I find the numbers themselves a bit strict (I wonder how long it took me to hit 50?) I'd choose this over the other alternatives that are currently listed. I'll add a slightly modified proposal below. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently this looks like the frontrunner, and we need something in place by confirmation-time. I would suggest that, in the absence of other solutions, we use this system until a long-term solution can be found. Perhaps we can agree to this as policy until either we have wider acceptance of this proposal or until something better comes along? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That would work for me. Perhaps buttonholing a few folk directly to comment might be good, though. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think, in light of the current admin confirmations, we should just use this if any unclear situations arise. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

current Steward election-like[edit]

  • Having suffrage like that for steward elections sounds good. As I've said many many times: I think time on this project is not that important. Meta-wiki is an additional project. It would not exist if the others didn't. It depends on the other projects. So, in effect, we depend on other users. As I've said, I'd prefer ~3 months activity on another wiki, and no suffrage here, except their account should have been created before the election. A valid link on their userpage proving who they were should be required. But absolutely not edit count/time count on Meta-wiki. Majorly (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the idea but hold reservations:
  1. The thing that concerns me regarding steward-like elections for Meta-admins is that if granted, Meta-admins would have a global mandate and therefore the role could be expanded with some justification into technical temporary adminship on small projects. While, admittedly, I've requested adminship on small projects for technical purposes, providing a rationale other than "I'm a meta-admin and have the mandate" is desirable. That's a function which has a different use than what the majority of us do now. To clarify: There have been suggestions on Bugzilla to allow Meta-admins to perform blocks without leaving the comfort of Meta, but have been turned down due to lack of a mandate such as Stewards have. Giving us a mandate would remove that obstacle and give Meta-admins a rationale to request abilities that perhaps should be left difficult to enact.
  2. While there is an obvious need to get the input from other projects (Editing the Wiktionary portal without bothering to discuss the changes with the Wiktionaries would be ill-advised, for instance), we should also require at least some familiarity with the procedures used in this global project. Users from English Wikipedia, for instance, might not understand that a somewhat different set of rules apply here if they don't have familiarity with support projects such as Meta and Commons.
  3. It might be easy, otherwise, to gain adminship on a small wiki and leverage it for access to Meta adminship. I'll avoid nasal legumes and leave it to the reader's mental exercise to determine why this is a Bad Idea.
Ideally, we would have a global mandate for our functions and still be limited in scope to functions on Meta. While I'm not worried about the current crop of Meta-admins (and bureaucrats), I worry about those who follow in our footsteps. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, "I think time on this project is not that important. Meta-wiki is an additional project. " <-- Sysop is a job. To hire somebody for the job, whilst any comment from anybody could be useful, it is best to leave the decision to those who are more familiar with the machine. Hillgentleman 07:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's important to get comment from both sides; comments by Meta regulars would probably carry more weight, but the input of those familiar with the candidate from non-Meta places is certainly useful. —Giggy 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposals[edit]