That's not what steelmanning is, though. People do this, and it is shitty, but it's not steelmanning.

Be that as it may, a search for 'steelmanning' on PhilPapers yields 0 results (other than a guy called Steelman), same at 3 different peer-reviewed journals on argumentation theory, Informal Logic, Argumentation, and Argumentation and Advocacy.

The context for appropriate answers in this sub is given by the rules (like in every sub), e.g.

Accurately portray the state of research and literature

/u/deadcelebrities main objection to the now-deleted comment about 'steelmanning' was that they haven't encountered it in their philosophy education, and in fact, it seems that this is not something that's discussed a lot in the typical sources. Given that steelmanning seems to be a term mostly used on reddit, on rationality wordpress sites, lesswrong, lifehack websites and in Sam Harris circles, I don't think it's really helpful or even possible to analyze it any further in the context of /r/askphilosophy. Simply because any such discussion is unlikely to 'accurately portray' the relevant literature. If I have overlooked good sources where this is discussed, feel free to correct me but otherwise, I don't think that's the right place to discuss every idea that some internet groups promote in an explanatory way.