Talk:Stewards

Delete Account / Wiki
PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT AND WIKI. --JORGEFE (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Accounts are not deleted but I will make your wiki up for deletion. John (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your wiki has been made inaccessible, but the database contents haven't been deleted yet (will be shortly). -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 12:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Steward
We should have more than 3 steward it very fast to respect and create new group Example:
 * System Admin on git and phab only manage or work in there.

And
 * Steward only respect in here(wiki), work in here, not only in phab or git. Such as WMF
 * Ombudsman

is promote and presentations on village or some people.
 * it looks neat and very smart, if that can do.

TriX (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? Stewards and system administrators are already separate. They have very different rights and responsibilities. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 16:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like southparkfan and other, can make a group or modify group system Admin add (steward groups) so, not a redudant groups. I mean Steward full work and monitoring in the wiki such as WMF, so fast, quick do it. Strategy for WMF is good, I hear yesterday"Account of admin name:**** was hacking, and not more than 1 minutes, steward locked it account" it show the strategy wmf is quik and fast. I have intent do it.

Cheers TriX (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you mean that we should have more Stewards? Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 10:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes TriX (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Translations
I have prepared a translatable version of this policy here. Could it please be implemented? MacFan4000 (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How to request / 如何申请
I am a native speaker of Chinese and a user of Wikipedia, Command, and Miraheze. I am thinking about how to request for steward rights here.
 * Hey, you can request at Requests for Stewardship, but I think you're not eligible...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Stewards without wiki creator right
Hi. I recently became aware that the steward toolkit contains the  right. I have nearly seen all the stewards who create wikis to be wiki creators. Are the stewards who aren't community elected wikicreators allowed to create wikis. There is no policy or any mention about this on any page, so I came here. And I think it should be clarified or added to s whether non-wikicreator stewards should create wikis or not. Magogre (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Magogre My understanding is that Stewards have access to all parts of the MediaWiki interface, including CreateWiki. Thus, there would be no need technically for them to be Wiki Creator as they (by policy) have access to every MediaWiki interface. Agent Isai Talk to me! 18:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is confusing. I hope you aren't including the local meta administrative things in the policy defined MediaWiki interface. It states that they are authorised and permitted to use tools on any Miraheze wiki but they aren't actually allowed to use them on meta. Are they? Recently, there was a local IPBE RFC which restricted them to grant local IPBE. And this should be enough to outdate that part of policy. Meta's WC group is a local group with global effects and a bit different from other local groups. I personally see this part of the policy outdated and confusing. And it may be better to change it to something else - a clearer one. Magogre (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned in previous RfCs, to understand the scope of stewards on Miraheze, you must understand that stewards do not particularly fulfill a policy-based or technical role, but one purely of community trust. The inherent nature of stewards is that they have realistically unbridled access to any tool, so long as it continues to be used in the public users' trust. That is also why Stewards are unique in the ability of Miraheze users to remove and elect stewards at any time, for any reason. Consider also that there is no rationale for removal of steward rights due to "misuse" or "policy violation", as the power for permanent removal of Stewards ultimately relies on community consensus. Thus, even a local policy as you cited, even though it is in the best interest of both the acting steward, and the Miraheze and Meta communities, does not hold any real binding authority on stewards, and any such policies (global or local) may realistically be violated by stewards so long as such an action does not lead to distrust or non-confidence of such an acting steward. So, in reality, stewards may use any tool available to them, even in violation of policy, so long as the community holds and maintains trust of such an action. This is all, of course, regardless of personal codes of conduct set individually by stewards for themselves. This is why stewardship is such a big deal. dross  (t • c • g) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Magogre, thank you for the question. As wiki creator is a Steward-delegated and -supervised global role, even though it's a local user group, it is by policy a global user group. While the community may elect wiki creators, it is Stewards that supervise wiki creators and are responsible for guiding them as to incorrect wiki approvals and/or declines and to revoking the bit, where required. As well, the Stewards policy provides for full access to MediaWiki software and, indeed, and is informed by successive RfCs together with pre-existing conventions and customs that predated the policy. In short, you cannot have wiki creators without Stewards. If you are wondering about two Stewards at Wiki creators/List that do not have the  user right, we could probably remove them, but they can still create wikis, but as Stewards. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarifying that non-wikicreator stewards are allowed and able to create wikis technically as well as by policy. But I'd like it to be clarified on the policy page. Because an RFC would be too much for this change, I'll request here. What I propose adding to the scope of responsibilities section is follows:Stewards have access to the CreateWiki interface and may create wikis from time to time. The wiki creator group is superceded by Steward group and stewards don't need wiki creator rights to create wikis. with reference to this discussion, if nobody objects. --Magogre (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity
What about stewards inactivity? We have few here, and we need more. Isn't six months short for a global law that demands responsibility like this? It should be, at least, about 4 months of inactivity, and we ourselves have a steward who hasn't done even an edit since the beginning of December, although a month's inactivity seems little, it doesn't require a task as a steward (help in the SN, requests for adoption, etc.) over a year ago, I haven't counted but it must be a long time. Users with these rights should not just be closing discussions or making small edits, but helping as a way to improve the project. With that, it is only occupation of the vacancies, it edits a lot at the beginning and when at the end, it is inactive for just guaranteeing. There should be a clause that thinks about helping the user more. It costs nothing to resolve an action in the SN (such as resolving an exemption). More it seems that the limitation of users destined to contribute in Meta is the cause of this. Not always. In my opinion, Void and Dmehus actively contribute as stewards precisely by solving noticeboard tasks, the latter being very active, giving the impression that he is the only steward. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 23:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy was made with the fact that Stewards have real lives to attend to in mind. It's understandable if a Steward needs to take a break or is occupied with real life responsibilities, it happens. If you really think the inactivity timeframe should be shortened, I would suggest you bring it up on the Community noticeboard to see what others think. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really want the time to be shortened, just my opinion on how inactive some stewrds are, and especially to a steward in question (hasn't done steward work in a while). I totally understand, and I think two weeks without editing is reasonable, there are things in their lives to sort out, the problem is going without editing for a very long time (currently, as a steward for a long time) so there is no lack of time, but rather lack of interest. Also, we have Dmehus as an example, I'm sure he must be very busy with work to do, but he comes back every weekend, and shows no lack of interest. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 23:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that in general, Stewards as a group should be more active. Unfortunately they (this no longer includes myself) are all volunteers, and it can be difficult for some people to remain active. On the same note, there are currently only 3 Stewards and there really hasn't been any agreement on anyone else becoming a Steward, so activity levels will likely remain similar to what they are now if the Steward body remains it's current size. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 05:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I first joined I was a little more hardline about activity. It was on the edge of one of the platform's worse periods where Doug's availability was more intermittent (not long after, absent for a period of time), and Void was forced to fill in for some basic things to be achieved. There's definitely a problem if the proactive activity of stewards lies on one user. John is excellent when requested, but there needs to be proactive members of the ranks. So I think the need is well demonstrated. Such is unfortunately very difficult to find, in the right composite of basic trust among users both established and in bulk, competence with the tools and judgement as the largest day-to-day responsibility that could exist on the platform short of being a prolific member deep in SRE.
 * It's important to note from a communal perspective, the community is able to cover to a large extent, such as many SN requests that don't strictly need Steward intervention and benefit from user boldness in resolving problems. A lot of what Stewards do amounts to technical necessities which, by their deepness in the platform, are trusted in the hands of Stewards even if they're quite clerical in nature. Such is how John is an effective steward despite having minimal activity in the wiki community - he assesses and resolves things cleanly. I agree we shouldn't settle with this alone of course. But perhaps we can lower our expectation as far as sheer activity, and focus more on trusted users having the ability to fill in for each other in the Steward capacity. I'd trust a user like Reception to do this well. While probably not as prolific as Dmehus, I believe Reception would be able to swipe a number of topics routinely on the path of performing his GS/SRE functions. Perhaps we should not expect Stewards to be do-all at a given time, just effective in various scopes that fall under the Steward umbrella while able to work through something less familiar when needed. What I think is needed is a reliable eye towards community issue resolution (a backup/second opinion for Dmehus in this regard, especially when he is not available) and/or someone proactive for clerical tasks (RfAs, following up on resolutions, technical requests on the SN that require rather basic discretion to pull off). I think we can pretty simply fulfill the latter; it's skittishness regarding the former and the CVT angle of checkuser/oversight + more advanced responsibility in CVT that puts otherwise amicable candidates off and heightens trust, as the platform's highest position of community moderation.
 * Perhaps we could explore a stewardship with someone who is sufficient in temperament and competence who will defer to Dmehus's experience in the CVT/resolution angle, but can more directly take the edge off clerical tasks. Heck, a lot of why I joined GS was on the path of attempting to do this for the community aspect, and when available CVT as well. I'm not confident taking the front line on CU, oversight and CVT as a whole, but I would be confident in addressing clerical functions and I think others would be too, and there should be no shame in the deference. As necessary and if direct peers are not available, I think it would be a mark of extreme competence if a Steward was willing to confer with another experienced community member to address issues, even if their rights are no more glorious than autoconfirmed on Meta or from a small but respectable corner of the platform for advisement. Really, the ultimate Steward responsibility is to make a reasonable and final decision.
 * Some boldness is needed through nomination, either from users who can fill some form of the above for themselves or for a nominee they think would be competent. Observe the activity of the Stewardship thus far - the practical expectation is not very high. A good portion of tasks are indeed 'no big deal'. Obviously we should not take this as an opportunity to risk on unknown or fundamentally not quite trusted nominees, and those who've struggled with RfPs so far should consider very very carefully before using this blurb as a launchpad for boldness. But with the new year, new tech, and so forth, perhaps a new approach in this would be warranted to catch up. My lengthy 2c. --Raidarr (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)