Requests for Comment/Direct Appointment by Stewards: Difference between revisions
From WikiOasis Meta
More actions
re |
close |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #f5f3ef); color: var(--color-base, inherit); overflow:auto; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #aaa)"> | |||
<div class="boilerplate-header"> | |||
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:var(--color-error, red)">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' | |||
::'''Unsuccessful'''. [[User:Globe|Globe]] ([[User talk:Globe|talk]]) 22:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
---- <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
</div> | |||
Hello! I would like to propose the following: | Hello! I would like to propose the following: | ||
Global Administrators and Global Patrollers, along with Wiki Creator (a future group) and any global group below Steward that is not controlled by the WOF, may be appointed by a Steward who receives a vote of confidence for the candidate from another Steward. Community governance makes sense to a point, but delegation/appointment fills in crucial gaps in volunteers. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | Global Administrators and Global Patrollers, along with Wiki Creator (a future group) and any global group below Steward that is not controlled by the WOF, may be appointed by a Steward who receives a vote of confidence for the candidate from another Steward. Community governance makes sense to a point, but delegation/appointment fills in crucial gaps in volunteers. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
| Line 7: | Line 13: | ||
#:: Two people can be wrong - if someone gets appointed who then starts banning users randomly, is the quick appointment better than the abuse never having occurred due to requiring a community election? I'd argue no - every incident of abuse has a lasting impact on community trust, and too many will lead to people leaving. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 22:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | #:: Two people can be wrong - if someone gets appointed who then starts banning users randomly, is the quick appointment better than the abuse never having occurred due to requiring a community election? I'd argue no - every incident of abuse has a lasting impact on community trust, and too many will lead to people leaving. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 22:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
#:::How about we require a community comment period? 2 days, let's say. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | #:::How about we require a community comment period? 2 days, let's say. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
#:::: We may as well hold elections in that case. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 22:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
# {{oppose|weak}} I'd expect there to still be some form of community discussion involved to prevent 2 or more stewards going and appointing their preferred candidates and bypassing community discussion — if there was still going to be community discussion involved then it may as well go back to elections. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 08:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
# {{oppose|strong}} Don't we have different user groups for a reason? --[[User:DarkMatterMan4500|DarkMatterMan4500]] ([[User talk:DarkMatterMan4500|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/DarkMatterMan4500|contribs]]) 15:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it</b>. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' </div> | |||
Latest revision as of 22:20, 21 May 2026
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hello! I would like to propose the following: Global Administrators and Global Patrollers, along with Wiki Creator (a future group) and any global group below Steward that is not controlled by the WOF, may be appointed by a Steward who receives a vote of confidence for the candidate from another Steward. Community governance makes sense to a point, but delegation/appointment fills in crucial gaps in volunteers. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
edit edit source
Oppose as written. Permanent appointment without community approval is exactly the problem community governance is trying to solve. Tali64³ (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t plan on commenting further as I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but the community would still be able to initiate a revocation request. Globe (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's not the point of community governance, stewards themselves are accountable to the community, and their powers can be taken away for appointing people willy nilly, and GSes, GPs, and WCs, along with similar roles, can also be elected. This simply creates another pathway to solve an inevitable lack of volunteers. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- Two people can be wrong - if someone gets appointed who then starts banning users randomly, is the quick appointment better than the abuse never having occurred due to requiring a community election? I'd argue no - every incident of abuse has a lasting impact on community trust, and too many will lead to people leaving. Tali64³ (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- How about we require a community comment period? 2 days, let's say. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
- Two people can be wrong - if someone gets appointed who then starts banning users randomly, is the quick appointment better than the abuse never having occurred due to requiring a community election? I'd argue no - every incident of abuse has a lasting impact on community trust, and too many will lead to people leaving. Tali64³ (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I'd expect there to still be some form of community discussion involved to prevent 2 or more stewards going and appointing their preferred candidates and bypassing community discussion — if there was still going to be community discussion involved then it may as well go back to elections. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 08:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose Don't we have different user groups for a reason? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.