Meta talk:Meta–steward relationship/Archives/2008

First thread

So I like the general thrust of this... there have been no other comments. Anyone see any problems? ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this seems sensible. Meta and the stewards have a "special relationship" and I think we should make it clear that the stewards wouldn't be stepping on toes were they to perform local oversight or checkuser actions here. WJBscribe (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this "Big brother" relationship meta has with the stewards and it positively helps both, it will make an excellent guideline :) ..--Cometstyles 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of w:1984, Big Brother is perhaps an unfortunate term, :) but I know what you mean and totally agree. I'd like to see this moved from guideline to policy but we don't have enough voices here yet to say there's consensus. Maybe spend a little more time making sure we are truly happy with the wording, then put something on babel or the sitenotice to gather more input? ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The premise of the proposal seems sound, and, in light of out recent RfO's, a page documenting and putting into phrase these matters seems necessary and useful as a reference. I agree we should ask for more input, in order to ensure the page is as complete as it can be. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I really like this: it's good to get our practices "on paper" so it's clear. Cbrown1023 talk 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Lar's "Anyone see any problems?" I doubt that. It is obviously a good idea to keep separate things separate. Huji 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you're in favour of this policy? ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

Added WM:MSR. Makes it easier to sneak into conversations. :D Kylu 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're sneaky! Good thinking. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other actions" section

Added today, allowing Stewards to do noncontroversial actions such as renames and deletions, if a user demands it.

If there is controversy surrounding a decision, it would be best to have community input first. Kylu 22:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Call the question?

Let's make this policy. Bring it to Babel and see what people say? ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it's just stagnating here. WJBscribe (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. PS, good edits just now to tighten up and clarify it, Mike. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So what happened? Why is this still "proposed" instead of "Policy" ??? ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno... I think we've agreed this is good, so... does anyone remember why it's not marked as having gained consensus?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've categorized it as guideline a) to be cautious, b) because it's quite vague and it doesn't "enforce" anything, but I suppose it wouldn't be a problem to consider it a "policy". --Nemo 05:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)