2010 steward elections Options

[Juliancolton]

Preparations are now underway for the 2010 steward elections; see the Meta page. Discuss!

[Somey]

Preparations are now underway for the 2010 steward elections; see the Meta page. Discuss!

Well, currently there are no candidates, so if this situation holds, then I suppose we can hope for a positive result.

I should also point out that at the moment, there are exactly 32 active stewards - so if they add more, they're going to seriously mess up the bracketing for the annual tournament.

[GlassBeadGame]

Preparations are now underway for the 2010 steward elections; see the Meta page. Discuss!

Its a good thing its only a video game. All this government would make actual writing impossible.

[Eva Destruction]

Preparations are now underway for the 2010 steward elections; see the Meta page. Discuss!

Oppose them all. Anyone who would actually want a pointless waste-of-energy job like this is clearly not someone I'd trust to take rational decisions. At least "Wikipedia admin" has a theoretical purpose, even if it's woefully misused. Why the hell would anyone want to spend their spare time "dealing with the technical implementation of community consensus, dealing with emergencies, and intervening against crosswiki vandalism"?

[Somey]

Why the hell would anyone want to spend their spare time "dealing with the technical implementation of community consensus, dealing with emergencies, and intervening against crosswiki vandalism"?

For the lulz?

Anyway, let's not just immediately assume that this election is going to be a farce. I think we should wait until there are a few candidates, maybe some discussion entries, things like that - then we can assume it's going to be a farce.

I suspect Mr. Colton wanted to draw our attention to this farce election because, in recent months, we've pointed out that a number of meta admins are underage, and that this is not a particularly good thing. The stewards are the ones who would, in theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights. (Am I reasonably close to the mark, Mr. Colton?)

[Juliancolton]

I suspect Mr. Colton wanted to draw our attention to this farce election because, in recent months, we've pointed out that a number of meta admins are underage, and that this is not a particularly good thing. The stewards are the ones who would, in theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights. (Am I reasonably close to the mark, Mr. Colton?)

Fancy a crisp?

[The Joy]

Don't worry. They just hold the throne until the Return of the Godking!

[Jon Awbrey]

Isn't it about time we gave Alaska back to the Russians?

Jon

[Trick cyclist]

The stewards are the ones who would, in theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights.

Stewards undoubtedly, in practice as well as theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights. But I assume they have no authority to do this. I haven't spent much time looking round Meta but they dont seem to have an ArbCom. I assume that to desysop an admin would thus require some sort of community discussion and vote. Is there any more reason to require Meta admins to be over 18 than admins on a project?

[thekohser]

Isn't it about time we gave Alaska back to the Russians?

Jon

I see what you did there. Good one, Jonny.

[GlassBeadGame]

Isn't it about time we gave Alaska back to the Russians?

Jon

I see what you did there. Good one, Jonny.

Having first drawn a blank I revisited Jon's comment after Greg figured it out. Yes, good one, SF indeed.

[MZMcBride]

The stewards are the ones who would, in theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights.

Stewards undoubtedly, in practice as well as theory, have the power to revoke those users' admin rights. But I assume they have no authority to do this. I haven't spent much time looking round Meta but they dont seem to have an ArbCom. I assume that to desysop an admin would thus require some sort of community discussion and vote. Is there any more reason to require Meta admins to be over 18 than admins on a project?

The meme is that "stewards don't decide." They can only implement the decision of a legitimate local Arbitration Committee or a legitimate local vote.

All stewards, having access to Oversight and CheckUser among other things, are required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation and be over the age of majority.

[Juliancolton]

Incidentally, there are already a handful of nominations, but most are malformed and created by newbies.

[cyofee]

Incidentally, there are already a handful of nominations, but most are malformed and created by newbies.

Including WR's favorite Razorlame!

[Jon Awbrey]

Incidentally, there are already a handful of nominations, but most are malformed and created by newbies.

It's because of all the PCBs in the Watering Hole.

Jon

[thekohser]

Looks like I'm both eligible to run for Steward, as well as vote in the process!

Now, how do I declare my candidacy? It seems they left that part out.

[Jaranda]

So far it's pure jokes, razorflame, wow? He's really 19????

[Alex]

So far it's pure jokes, razorflame, wow? He's really 19????

Jaranda, let's not forget your own disasterous run in 2007 before calling others pure jokes.

Incidentally, there are already a handful of nominations, but most are malformed and created by newbies.

Yes, I'd oppose everyone there.

Looks like I'm both eligible to run for Steward, as well as vote in the process!

Now, how do I declare my candidacy? It seems they left that part out.

Please don't waste time.

[A Horse With No Name]

Isn't it about time we gave Alaska back to the Russians?

Jon

Poor Russia - it can see Sarah Palin from its window.