From Orain Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In an attempt to make Orain even more community-ran - the Staff have decided to re-evaluate permissions. In this, we are working on finalizing some drafts to the community with regards to CheckUser and Oversighter access on a local level. These will come in due course.

For now, we have decided to make a clear definition on stewards. As this is a community role - all stewards in future will have to go through a community discussion for one week and a steward will make a call about whether or not the community support this. To start this off - we have decided to put all current stewards through this process.

The discussion below will last until Tuesday 2nd of September (23:59). At which point, an existing steward (most likely myself) will close this and make a call based on the community's decisions. Community users can comment in the usual SON (Support/Oppose/Neutral) format.



Public note: I am discussing this with Dusti. Consensus for is granting; No consensus and against consensus means revoking. Dusti's decision here is one I disagree with as looking at how supports and oppose are placed; I do not believe there is consensus to keep Kudu as a steward. John (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2014 (BST)
For the record, I disagree with John and am in agreement with Dusti's decision to allow Kudu to retain his steward flags. It is not clearly stated what shall happen in the case of no consensus and the wording of the confirmation description offers no assistance or guidance to whether a candidate need to attain an affirmative vote for keeping the flags or just not get a majority negative one. In the case we have here, I agree it is the correct decision to allow Kudu to keep his flags given he has provided an explanation for his activity levels and there are no other reasons brought to suggest the need to remove his steward flags at this time. -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:10, 4 September 2014 (BST)
Dusti and I discussed this and he decided when he gets back; he will change to the statement I used. This is an election type thing. There is no consesus here to promote as is the point of a reconfirmation here. I don't get the fuss; Kudu does not use the rights actively at all (3 steward actions this year) thus removing him is not going to invoke hell. It just carries out the consensus. Dusti's original close was discretion based; of which he has a major COI as we all do. John (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2014 (BST)
Also I feel I made this case clear that it will be an election as all future users will go through and stewards will decide if there is consensus for supporting the candidate. As such; there is no consensus supporting thus as would happen in an election and VoC, removal follows. John (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (BST)
Notwithstanding my original feelings and my statement made when closed, as this became a steward discussion, John did not voice his opinion during the time of the Confirmation. He is now making his stance and his feelings known, and like the rest of the community, he is entitled to a !vote. As such, with his opinion being weighed among the rest of the community, there is now a consensus that Kudu's confirmation was unsuccessful and as such his steward flag has been removed. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:22, 4 September 2014 (BST)
I'll accept the result of this discussion, but I take issue with the rationale behind the conclusion. As Dusti pointed out, John did not voice his opinion during the time of the confirmation in the form of a clear support or oppose, and he still hasn't. He merely theorized as to the result that should be implied by a finding of lack of consensus. That may or may not be correct, but if it's taken as such, it should be identified clearly as the reason for stripping me of my steward flag, and not some !vote that was never clearly stated. Kudu ~I/O~ 02:46, 4 September 2014 (BST)

Joe G