Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Stewards/Elections 2024/Questions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards | Elections 2024
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by MJL (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 25 January 2024 (→Turkmen: word fix). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Warning

The 2024 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate (in total; ie. all questions a candidate needs to answer are counted), and keep them as concise and relevant as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

For all candidates

Uniqueness

The union of the abilities of all stewards is very large, while the intersection is practically the null set. Considering that you all are versatile and would be able to perform most of the work required, what do you think you can offer as a steward that would help the Wikimedia community the most? As part of your answer briefly comment on whether you think you'll be a generalist or a specialist if you do get elected. Leaderboard (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great question! As said in my statement, my focus will mainly be placed on counter-vandalism work, LTAs and spambots. So, if elected, I would likely be a generalist, but I will of course also gain experience with other areas of stewardry, to be able to help the community within them as well. In short, I will be a flexible steward and spread out my workload and work within other areas, and will also engage in community discussions. But I will still have my main areas, which will be the areas I would place most of my steward activity in. EPIC (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit (21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)): I also want to add to my answer that if elected a steward, I will begin slow and steady with the less complex areas, before expanding my areas of work. EPIC (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the question. My approach as a steward would be generalist. I think a steward should be flexible and adaptable, rather than focusing on specific areas. I have the skills and experience to do that. Of course, I also have my own areas of interest. As I stated before, I mainly interested in counter-vandalism, global range blocks, and global locks, among others. However, I am also eager to learn and explore new things as a steward. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My editing on Wikimedia has a tendency of spreading. While my primary focus has been on anti-vandalism work, over time I have expanded my scope to include a variety of other tasks, being a generalist in those areas. As a steward, I intend to specialize in anti-vandalism work, but also be flexible and take on different tasks, and be a generalist as needed to handle other queries. I think it's important for stewards to have at least a general concept of how to do their tasks, even if they're not completely proficient in it; they should at least know enough to do the job, and enough to learn from experience and become better at it. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more of a generalist type, but my main focus as a steward would be SRG, as I consider myself very experienced with most xwiki LTA and anti-vandalism/-spam activities. Thus helping reduce the SRG backlog and responding to (potentially urgent) SRG requests more quickly is probably how I could help the Wikimedia community the most. --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering my current activity, I mostly deal with LTA, spam and counter vandalism. But I love change and getting involved in different things. For this reason, of course, I think that I will benefit the community by spreading to other areas and gaining experience. As a result, I think I will be more of a generalist. Turkmen talk 06:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's wise to have the ability to "turn a hand" at any administrative task. My skillset lends well into not being drawn into conflict, and being a mediator of issues. Very few editors will gain access to a role such as Stewardship and know everything they are required to do, but having the temperament and energy to apply themselves is important. Reading and applying local x-wiki consensus and providing additional resources to help with oversighting/intervention requests would be where I could help most. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As during my previous tenure, I'm more of a generalist, though I think my particular area of "unique" contribution comes in the policy area. I love working with others to form new policies and processes where possible, helping to lead efforts such as the creation of the global renamers user group and some of the other technical details of SUL finalization. Most of what I would bring to the role is significant experience using the steward tools to deal with counter-vandalism and long-term abuse, and a focus on positive and collaborative interactions with community members and other stewards. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home wiki

Which wiki(s) do you consider to be your home wiki(s)? --Ferien (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My home wiki is the Swedish Wikipedia. It's the wiki I first registered in, as well as the wiki where I have participated the most in local discussions and made most of my content work. I have not made much content work/written articles outside of the Swedish Wikipedia, and thus another reason why it would be classed as my home. EPIC (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election process

Do you think the steward election and/or confirmation processes could be improved and, if so, how? --Ferien (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, this is a difficult one. I don't really have too much to complain about regarding the election process of stewards. It's fair and I think it has worked well. The support ratio of 80% is reasonable and fair, but I think that the minimum requirement of supporting votes in the steward elections is a bit out of date and should be increased. Currently the requirement sits at 30 support votes - I don't think a steward candidate nowadays would succeed with only 30 support votes, considering the amount of users participating in the votings have increased by a landslide. Regarding the confirmations I don't have any objections to the current system either, but there will of course be room for improvement in the future. EPIC (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing electoral system functions effectively, and I believe no systemic changes are necessary. The current approach is highly participatory, capturing the attention of Wikimedians globally. Therefore, I have no complaints about the procedure and confirmation process. However, I do agree that the minimum vote requirement to be elected, currently set at thirty, should be increased. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything could be improved in some way, shape, or form. I think the stewards election process as it stands is fairly good. I think the minimum number of votes could safely be raised to a higher number, as voter turnout in previous elections has generally numbered in the hundreds, so 30 is a pretty low bar to set. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what's been said before: I think the general election process is quite good, even though voter turnout could be higher in order to better represent the global community (the last UCOC vote had 3000+ participants [1] while the last steward election had 300+ [2]). I also agree that by today's standards a steward candidate receiving just 30 support votes while still having 80% support ratio should probably not be elected, but that's unlikely to happen anyway, so raising the minimum number of support votes seems mostly like a formality without real effect. --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current election process is close to perfect and fair. I don't think any changes or additions are necessary. But I agree with the 30 votes above. I think the minimum vote requirement can be increased in the current situation.--Turkmen talk 06:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each election or confirmation brought suggestions for improvement. The current election and confirmation methods are tried and tested but appropriate new criteria are welcome after a good discussion with the community. --Melos (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the biggest issue with the steward election process is the timing - once per year and being an event that spans nearly two months from candidate submissions to the final confirmation of existing stewards. I don't think that significant changes should be made to the election process itself, being one of those processes that nobody is particularly happy with but also balances a bunch of considerations (need for adequate time to provide input, submit candidacies, discuss the comments on existing stewards, etc.) But I think there would be some room to devolve some components of the steward role, such as global locks/blocks, to a group like global sysops so as to allow a broader set of users to contribute without needing to go through such an intense election process. That said, the community also hasn't been open to significant devolution in the past... so we're probably stuck with the current system, imperfect as it may be :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of intent

Stewards perform many duties, some of which have sizable backlogs (e.g. Steward requests/Global, UTRS global appeals, VRT lock appeals). Do you intend to work on any of these backlogged areas if elected? — xaosflux Talk 20:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As stated in my statement - yes, I plan to keep an eye on the steward backlogs and spread out my activity into multiple areas of stewardry to get a variety and gain experience within each one of them, mainly the Steward requests backlogs, while still having my personal main areas. I will of course place most of my workload into the main areas of mine, but also try to benefit the community in the best way possible by being able to assist within different scopes. So, if elected, you will likely see also me in places such as SRG, SRP and SRGP. EPIC (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a steward clerk, I already have experience working to reduce the backlog related to proxy blocks, as mentioned in my statement. I believe this experience will also be useful in contributing to other VRT queues and UTRS. So, it goes without saying that I will have more involvement in these areas if elected as a steward. Moreover, I will keep an eye on all backlogged areas, including SRG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was encouraged to run for steward by another steward, who mentioned that steward numbers were dwindling and they could use more help. SRG in particular is always long with requests stretching back weeks, and could really do with some additional hands on deck. Per my answer to the question on uniqueness, I also foresee myself becoming a generalist in other backlogged venues to help out where I can. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to help especially reducing the backlog at SRG as mentioned in my statement. I could also imagine supporting with VRT lock appeals as well as with global block appeals or basically any other area where help is needed. I'm already frequently responding to users asking for help at Talk:SRG or at their metawiki user talk page using Template:Unblock when they encounter a global block and don't understand what's happening / why they are affected by a block (in many cases its because of Apple iCloud Private Relay). --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main activity is against crosswiki vandalism, LTA and spam. For this reason, I think I will be more active in SRG. That is, you will probably see me often on pages related to the topic.--Turkmen talk 09:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love a good backlog to work through. I can see myself being active at both SRG and UTRS. Specifically with unblocks, we need to be specific and transparent as to what is happening. Global blocks (and local ones for that matter) can be a very confusing process to go through, and that goes double for new users. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account security

Steward accounts can be dangerous in the wrong hands. How have you ensured that your account and the private data it can access will stay secure? Taavi (talk!) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made multiple security measures to increase the security of my account. I have enabled two-factor authentication, which is a requirement for stewards, and I also have a lengthy and strong password on my account, basically one of those passwords with no meaning, and no connection to me. Also, I avoid using my account on public or unsecure networks to prevent password fishing, and my rule of thumb is to almost only use my account on networks that I trust, such as my home network. EPIC (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding to the answer that I use different passwords for each of my accounts on other websites, and I do not use the username "EPIC" anywhere outside of the Wikimedia scope either. Adding in that I rarely use networks which are not from the Swedish ISPs Bredband2 or Telenor, or other ISPs which I trust. EPIC (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Wikimedia account is protected by 2FA, as it is a requirement set by WMF for IAs. Additionally, my linked email account has 2FA enabled. I use strong and unique passwords for each of my accounts to prevent easy compromise. I only log into my account from my own devices and trusted networks, avoiding public or shared computers. Whenever I download any private data of other users, such as screenshots or pdf files from VRT, I make sure to delete them as soon as I finish my work. Thank you. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a long, random password set on my account, along with 2FA enabled. The email address linked to my account is also protected with a secure password and 2FA. The devices I use to log in to my main account are locked with passwords and have disk encryption. I have an alt account without high-level permissions that I use on my phone and on less secure networks. I always lock my devices when not in use, never leave them unattended in public, and meticulously check my bags and pockets to make sure they haven't been lost or stolen. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Wikimedia account as well as my linked email account are protected by 2FA (in fact I use 2FA wherever possible). I'm using a randomly created, strong password which I don't use anywhere else. I only log in to my own devices which are protected by similarly strong passwords. --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only access Wikimedia projects on my work and home devices. I currently have 2FA enabled on my account and email. I also use a password on my account that is far from me.--Turkmen talk 09:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

What are your preferred pronouns? —MdsShakil (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki activity

How do you define being active cross-wiki and do you think that your current activity level fits that criteria? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends, I would say. I do not at all think or expect that stewards need to be constantly active cross-wiki, however I think they would at least need some global experience, considering the cross-wikiness of the stewards' work. Compared to local sysops, their workload is a bit different, which I think new stewards should be aware of beforehand, something which can be easily demonstrated by having a track record of global work, e.g. cross-wiki patrolling or SRG/GSR reports. I would say my current activity would be sufficient, I'm often around doing cross-wiki work and I have requested steward actions/administrative actions multiple times, mostly via #wikimedia-stewardsconnect on IRC, and also at SRG, GSR and RfH. EPIC (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being active cross-wiki involves addressing global issues such as cross-wiki vandalism and handling long-term abusers (LTAs). Stewards also perform sysop actions in the absence of a local sysop, and a solid understanding of global abuse patterns is essential. For this reason, cross-wiki experience is crucial for them. While cross-wiki activeness is not universally required after the election, most tasks can be executed from the meta wiki. Personally, I believe my current activity level, which includes manual patrolling of small wikis, using tools like SWViewer, consistent reporting to GSR, SRG, and occasionally via IRC, aligns well with the criteria for being active cross-wiki. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 17:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my point of view, crosswiki activity first of all means gaining a global perspective: What different challenges do other wikis face? What are „local customs“ at other wikis outside my home wiki? Are there local rules I didn't knew previously? This could be achieved through xwiki content work (e.g. translating articles to different language versions if one speaks multiple languages) or by participating at global conversations concerning our movement.
But most cases of crosswiki activity are likely fighting xwiki spam/vandalism – which is also what my own xwiki activities look like. On a lower level, this means routinely checking GUC / CentralAuth for potential xwiki problems, when blocking a spambot/vandal at ones home wiki. For me personally this also means keeping an eye on the relevant noticeboards (e.g. SRG, GSR, WM:SBL) and frequently using SWViewer or Huggle for monitoring xwiki recent changes. I think my xwiki activity is quite high [3][4]. I'm frequently reverting xwiki spam/vandalism across all Wikimedia projects when discovering it via xwiki tools like SWViewer or local noticeboards (e.g. de:WP:VM at my homewiki). I'm also frequently submitting SRG requests [5] or responding to GSR requests [6]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think EPIC too. I also don't expect or think that stewards should be permanently active on crosswiki. Their workload is different when looking at their sub-rights(GS, GR etc.). I used to use IRC and Huggle to track changes. Currently, I mainly work with SWViewer.--Turkmen talk 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Turkmen Is it enough to do an action every few weeks or month that requires "steward"? 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I answered this below.--Turkmen talk 09:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to think of my activity as either global (focused on actions that extend beyond my home wiki/language, such as cross-wiki counter-vandalism or policy work on Meta) or local (actions on my home wiki or within my home language group). I think that maintaining a balance of both is very important for a steward - it's absolutely essential that a steward understands how different communities organize and do business, but it's also important that stewards retain some local roots and understand the impact that steward actions can have on local communities and their governance processes/autonomy. My current activity level fits that balance. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion in addition to the mathematical criteria what is important is interaction with the various communities, knowing their customs and being ready when needed, and at the moment I can guarantee a sufficient level of presence. --Melos (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborate

How would you collaborate effectively with other stewards, community members, and WMF staff to address complex issues and implement solutions? Hide on Rosé t 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also a great question! I like teamworking, so to solve more complex problems, the best thing to do would be to be collaborative, getting involved in discussions, gather opinions and in the end find a fair solution. However, an important thing to remember is that stewards should not override consensus, and community consensus is also to be followed and implented by the stewards, and should be abided by when they make decisions - that also applies to the WMF. So, the community should have the main say, and stewards also need to consider what the rest of the community and the policies (both local and global) have to say about the matter. EPIC (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned in my statement I would like to join the Wikimedia Stewards User Group to support steward coordination. The monthly calls with WMF representatives ensure stewards can voice their (and their different communities') perspectives. Regarding collaboration with other community members I think it's first of all important for stewards to be responsive: Answering questions regarding their actions relatively quickly should be a given. Additionally I think stewards should ideally participate in global/local discussions concerning important issues of our movement, which is what I'm frequently doing as well. Lastly I'm regularly available at the enwiki & dewiki discord servers if someone want's a quick chat with me. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will depend on the type of issue. For complex matters where doubts exist, and disclosure isn't possible publicly, I will engage with other stewards through internal communication channels such as the Stewards-l mailing list or steward.wikimedia.org site. Stewards, not being arbitrators or mediators, must rely on community consensus to address intricate issues involving community questions. Whether dealing with community or WMF issues, discussion remains the optimal solution, a practice I follow both locally and globally. Drawing on my experience in collaborative work, including organizing events and editathons, as well as seeking input from other admins on complex administrative actions, I will apply this expertise to such cases. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a collaborative approach is essential to steward work. There are a lot of mailing list discussions to address situations that cannot be debated publicly, and it's critical during those discussions that the stewards participating are all there to work towards a solution, without anyone bludgeoning the discussion or taking up too much space. During my previous term I also worked to improve collaboration between the WMF and stewards, helping to found the Wikimedia Stewards User Group and participating in many WMF-steward calls and discussions. This sort of collaboration is essential to improving our tools and ensuring community involvement in and oversight of Foundation activities, where possible. In terms of what I would do to collaborate with others, I think they key thing is to be open to other people's thoughts and to take up an appropriate amount of space in discussions, two things that I always strive to do. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collaboration is important for both learning and fair decision-making. I have personally emailed and consulted with users on many occasions on many issues. I have also been in constant consultation with the local community during operations on local wikis. I have also been actively using Discord servers for some time.--Turkmen talk 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser and Oversight tool

For candidates with no experience with the CheckUser and Oversight tools before, how would you go about learning how to use them? I believe this is a difficult task that requires some technical knowledge about IP addresses, CIDR, user-agents, etc (for CheckUser). Hide on Rosé t 16:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I currently do not have CheckUser or Oversight access on any wiki, but I have previously used both on an own MediaWiki host, and I know how they work and how/when they should be used. Important to know when using the tools is to abide by the relevant policies, mainly the CheckUser and Oversight policies, but also the Access to nonpublic personal data, privacy and steward policies, as well as the local policies for the tools if there are any. Especially CheckUser is a little more complicated, but it is something quite frequently used by the stewards (as all stewards get CheckUser access on loginwiki), so eventually, as a steward, you will get a good hang of that feature in the end. I will of course not use any of them on my home wiki as it should be avoided, and to prevent possible COIs, and thus will mainly use them on wikis without CU/OS where I am not active. My home wiki (svwiki) has local checkusers who can take care of that feature, but as we no longer have any local oversighters following an incident in 2017 with the local OS on svwiki, that feature has been taken over by the stewards. But, in the case I would approach something on my home wiki that falls under the Oversight policy, I will let another steward handle that. Most of them are quickly available for OS requests, I have requested oversight on my home wiki via IRC a few times and the stewards have been fast to take action. For wikis that have local oversighters, it would depend on how many oversighters there are and how much of an emergency it would be, for me to be able to take action. Take fiwiki as an example, a wiki with two oversighters, which is the minimum. Unless it's late at night or a real emergency, an admin would probably notice and use normal RevDel in the meanwhile as fiwiki has active admins, and then wait further for an oversighter to respond and take action. It did happen once many years ago that a steward used oversight on my home wiki back when we actually had local oversighters, when quick action was needed, and it was late at night and none of them were available [7]. In such scenario, I might use oversight on a wiki with local oversighters, but for CheckUser I will leave it to the local checkusers (if there are any) when it regards something which is not pure abuse or an LTA, or use it on loginwiki if it regards cross-wiki abuse/LTA. EPIC (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't held CU / OS permissions yet, but I'm nevertheless familiar with the technical aspects of both tools as well as the relevant global & local policies [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The CU tool has been demonstrated to me at our dewiki admin convention – of course without revealing anyones personal data (the checkuser used redacted screenshots of a test check of his personal test account). I'm frequently filing CU requests at dewiki [15], sometimes at other wikis as well [16][17] while dealing with sockpuppet abuse and of course regularly request oversight when encountering non-public personal information or ANON violations. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no experience with the CheckUser and Oversight tools on Wikimedia wikis, but I am eager to learn. I have installed the CheckUser extension on my personal MediaWiki site, where I tested the tools on dummy accounts. As a Steward Clerk and a member of the ACC team, I have worked with confidential information such as users' IP addresses and email addresses, where I observed and dealt with range and proxy block related issues. Therefore, I possess enough technical knowledge about IP addresses, CIDR, etc. I have always adhered to the Access to nonpublic personal data policy and the Privacy policy while working in these two teams. I am familiar with the other relevant policies (Stewards, Stewards policy, CheckUser policy, Oversight policy). Additionally, I am aware of where steward action can and cannot be taken. I have experience filling CU requests on my home wiki (Example: 1, 2) while dealing with sock-puppetry. Since there is no local Oversighter on bnwiki, I have filled oversight request to the stewards and local oversighters on Wikidata and Commons wikis before. Above all, I will ask for help from other stewards in case of any doubt or difficulty. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 20:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I have never used these tools even though I applied. However, I am familiar with the policies (Stewards policy/CheckUser policy/Oversight policy/Privacy policy/ANPDP) on this and know how important the personal privacy of users is. I think not locally at first, but I can learn more advanced using this right inside login.wikimedia. According to the relevant policies.--Turkmen talk 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Turkmen:, I don't understand what you mean by "To be honest, I have never used these tools even though I applied" - it doesn't appear to me that you have CheckUser or Oversight. Can you clarify on this? You may respond to this question in any language, provided you give an English translation which may be imperfect. I'm looking at the quality and depth of your answers, not communication skills. Leaderboard (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leaderboard I have often applied to checkuser for Azerbaijani Wikipedia via meta. I have also hidden offensive and defamatory information with sysop tools. But I never had direct access to checkuser and oversight rights. When I said "To be honest, I have never used these tools even though I applied", I meant them. I re-checked the answer I wrote and I may not have detailed it. Thank you for your attention. Turkmen talk 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small wikis

How flexible do you believe stewards should be in applying common sense to small wikis with no well-established policies and limited community engagement, considering potential unique needs and challenges of these communities while maintaining overall project integrity? --94rain Talk 03:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your question! Regardless of whether a wiki has policies or not, I think common sense should be applied to all wikis in situations it is appropriate to do so, while still abiding by policies and practices on wikis that have them. For wikis that do not, it is still useful in certain occasions to think about some practices on other wikis which I think are essential to follow on every wiki, for example AGF and IAR. Otherwise, we have useful global policies for some of the most basic and obvious practices which are already translated into multiple languages and in most cases don't need further explanation locally, such as UCOC and the Privacy policy. A steward's tasks on any of these wikis should however still go under the global Stewards policy and require consensus in non-obvious cases. EPIC (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition: I do not expect steward candidates to know every practice, policy and guideline everywhere, but I expect that they should be aware of what is written in the stone overall for most wikis, which is why global experience is necessary for them in certain cases. Stewards are still allowed to disregard these local policies in emergency situations. EPIC (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards are neither arbitrators/mediators nor a governing authority of small wikis. They act on community consensus per Stewards policy and are supposed to implement consensus, unless there are serious concerns that this violates WMF policy / legal requirements or that the consensus is not valid for other reasons (e.g. if a RfA with low participation is clearly influenced by sockpuppet abuse). That is to say: Even if I believe that something should be done a certain way per „common sense“, I still have to implement consensus – even if that decision is different to what I think is common sense. Of course there are some areas where common sense might apply, e.g. when judging whether a community is large enough to grant permanent administrator permissions per MVR. But most global policies regarding steward actions (especially regarding tools like CU/OS) don't allow „common sense“ exceptions in order to prevent potential abuse. --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the English Wikipedia: "Common sense is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, ...... in a manner that is shared by nearly all people." Stewards act as administrators where there are no local administrators. Therefore, they should use their practical judgment when acting as admins—whether combating vandalism, addressing potential libelous information, or performing maintenance work. According to the policy, stewards can take steward actions only when no local user can perform the same action or in accordance with other global policies and guidelines (like CU, OS, MVR, as stated above). This implies they must always rely on local consensus, and the scope for using common sense and personal judgment is limited.—Yahya (talk • contribs.) 13:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is wrong to directly intervene in the project without a valid consensus of the local community. Stewards can only fight vandalism, spam and LTA on non-sysop wikis and remove potentially defamatory information (Privacy policy). Only in such moments can they act with their own decisions. Other issues should be resolved within the Stewards policy. I agree with Johannnes89's first sentence: "Stewards are neither arbitrators/mediators nor a governing authority of small wikis".--Turkmen talk 09:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Learning from mistakes

Stewards sometimes have to deal with difficult cases and that is why community requires experience for becoming one. It is expected that candidates have passed through relevant cases that made them learn something new or revisit old beliefs. Do you have any example of a difficult situation that you have faced that made you grow as a wikimedian? Could you tell an example of something that you once did with less experience, but, today, you would do differently? There is no need to provide links or expose names.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, and thanks for the question! Yes, I've made mistakes, but luckily none of them have been very severe, and I have of course learned from them to this day. The ones I remember the most and have learned the most from were back in 2019, the year I joined Wikimedia. The first one I can remember is that three months after I joined, I got an offer for adminship on my homewiki, the Swedish Wikipedia, which I made the mistake of accepting without having my time of experience in mind. Since I had registered so soon, it resulted in multiple users in the voting to address concerns about possible self-made vandalism, since I had learned things so fast and my home wiki has had experience with similar situations some years prior, as well as some other issues/rookie mistakes I had done. I felt ashamed and withdrew, but took the community's concerns. Six months later in April of 2020 I got a new offer for adminship, which I was a little hesitant about, but chose to accept and I was elected in the end. In those six months I had made other mistakes too, such as reporting newly registered inappropriate usernames to the administrator noticeboard, but it's also something I have learned from and wouldn't do today. And of course, there are more recent mistakes from my side as well, such as sometimes not have kept the language barriers in mind when declining rename requests on the global renamer queue, and as mentioned in my statement, at some moments in the past hadn't really abided by en:WP:NOROLLBACK. But in short, making mistakes is human and I learn from the mistakes I make, which is also why I appreciate feedback and acknowledgement of my mistakes, as it is something that makes me aware of them and take it into account to improve myself as a Wikimedian. So, other users should of course make me aware of something they think I should be aware of. EPIC (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something I would definitely do differently is my first ever Wikipedia edit which was vandalism back when I was a teenager at middle school [18] ;) I really learned something from that, because my edit was reverted quickly by an admin who then proceeded to welcome me – instead of blocking my account as „vandalism only“ which is what some „law and order“ admins within my community would probably do. Our guidelines for dealing with such test edits actually recommend waiting at least for the second edit (except if the first one is a serious offense) before blocking, which is a principle I greatly respect due to my own experience twelve years ago.
Another mistake I once made (back when I was newly elected as dewiki admin) was proposing a block and then blocking the user myself after another admin closed the noticeboard discussion without a block. I thought the other admin intended to block the user and forgot to do so (and just blocked the users' sockpuppet). But in fact the other admin intended to give the user a second chance. I would have known that if I asked the other admin instead of taking action myself. There was enough reason to block the user, but my block was formally inadmissible as I mistakenly overruled the closing admin. I therefore unblocked the user when this was pointed out to me on my user talk page. Today I would definitely make sure to act in consensus with other admins (or if elected with other stewards) – especially not implementing my own proposal unless it received approval or clearly no objection. --Johannnes89 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first gained access to the internet when I moved to the city area for studies (my birthplace still lacks broadband, and mobile internet is very limited). Within a few days of using a smartphone, I discovered the pencil icon above while reading Wikipedia, and that's when I opened an account and made my first edit. Unfortunately, that edit turned out to be vandalism (coincidentally matching with Johannes89 :P). Before that day, I was unaware that anyone could edit Wikipedia. Within seconds, someone reverted it and warned me on my talk page. This swift action surprised me a lot and, at the same time, made me curious about how Wikipedia works. It encouraged me to edit more on Wikipedia. Actually, that act of vandalism made me a Wikimedian.
In a deletion discussion a few years ago, I suspected the author of the article (I do not want to disclose the name) to be a paid editor due to the promotional tone of the article. As a result, the discussion became quite heated, and another veteran user personally attacked me. Consequently, I announced my retirement. However, my fellow Wikimedians from my home community decided not to let me go and brought me back by convincing me on messenger. But calling 'paid editor' without evidence and deciding to retire hastily (without trying to resolve the issue) were both my mistakes.
Besides, I got into edit wars with a vandal and received a warning on the Meta Wiki a few years ago. Also, after obtaining global renamer rights, I renamed a couple of spamublock-blocked accounts in the beginning, which was not correct. These are the incidents that I can remember right now. I think I've probably never made a notable mistake using the admin tool because I was familiar enough with it before I became an admin of the Wikimedia wiki. Mistakes happen, but I've always strived to learn and improve. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case judgment question

I originally framed the question as a hypothetical IRC situation, but this seemed too difficult, so I changed it to something more practical.

Global lock for Sotiale

Status:    In progress

LTA. -- User65535 (talk) 00:00, 00 January 2024 (UTC)

  • [CentralAuth] (Sounds like someone you know? no.)
    • Username: Sotiale
    • Registered: 01:28, 19 December 2023 (37 days ago)
    • Total edit count: 193
    • Number of attached accounts: 12
  • sotiale.wikipedia.org Blocked indefinitely; Reason: Vandalism 124 autoconfirmed
  • commons.wikimedia.org - 21
  • www.wikidata.org - 33
  • meta.wikimedia.org - 0
  • login.wikimedia.org - 0
  • [omitted in the rest; No other blocking logs]
  • User65535 is a user who frequently posts to SRG.

I would appreciate your detailed response as to how you will proceed with this SRG request. --Sotiale (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To begin with, I would check CentralAuth to see what contributions "Sotiale" has made to the wikis where they have edited. I would need to find out, first thing's first; What was the supposed "vandalism" on sotiale.wikipedia that got them blocked? On the other wikis which they have made contributions to, I would also need to see whether they have been constructive on these wikis. If yes, it could just be a local issue for sotiale.wikipedia, and if so, I don't see any sufficient rationale to lock the account, except if I would get more information on who the supposed LTA would be, and if this user matches their pattern or in another way has been proven to be a sockpuppet of this LTA. If the answer is no, and it's a case where the user has made abusive edits at these wikis but hasn't been noticed by the local administrators of these projects, I would consider locking the account with the rationale "Cross-wiki abuse". But, like mentioned, it could have been an incorrect block rationale for the block on sotiale.wikipedia, or might have just been a constructive user gone rogue. In either cases, it's a local issue and not a case for the stewards, except if there are any other valid exceptions, such as those raised above. The amount of SRG reports a user has made doesn't matter by itself, quantity ≠ experience. They might have been mistaken or precipitant - it might not be how they think. EPIC (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is no CU evidence mentioned in the block log, there are a few things to check before making a decision. First, I'll check the edits of the Sotiale Wiki to identify an LTA pattern. For example, I have seen some LTAs before who create accounts just for self-promotion. In such cases, it can easily be identified by looking at the edits. If this is not the case and the edits are another type of vandalism, then this account is probably not an LTA. In this case, I will check the edits of other wikis; if they are also vandalism, then I would lock the account as cross-wiki abuse. If edits to other wikis are constructive, no steward action can be taken in this case. There is a chance that User65535 may have made a mistake while reporting or forgot to mention the specific reason or they may not know what LTA is. Since User65535 frequently posts on SRG, I will remind them and advise them to make the next reports correctly. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For each candidate

Ajraddatz

  • Where are you from and why you would not like to be admin also in Wikipedia?--Fenikals (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm from Canada! I've contributed to the English Wikipedia in the past, first with some counter-vandalism and later with more content/community work, but I never really found a niche that I enjoyed there. There are so many people and bots involved in counter-vandalism that you need to fight to find things to do, and I write a lot in my day job which makes me want to do a bit less of that as a hobby. I also quite simply don't/haven't have the time to commit to the (essentially) full-time hours required to pass an RfA there in addition to my other wiki responsibilities. I don't want to spread myself too thin, and one way I keep from doing that is by restricting the main focus of my on-wiki activity to one or two places - mainly global/Meta work and Wikidata. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user thinks that the current process for resolving global disputes (i.e, using a RFC or a global ban proposal) can be considered as too onerous or confusing, and wonders whether a "global ArbCom (arbitration committee)" managed by stewards or suitably qualified users would be better, roughly modelled on that of the English Wikipedia. Give your viewpoint on this user's thought. Leaderboard (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question. I should start off by saying that for most of this sort of global policy/process, my opinion as a steward would not be any more valuable than any other user - while stewards have a role when mandated by the global community to intervene on projects where local governance has failed, for the purposes of participation in these RfCs the technical access does not make a difference. There are some times when stewards can influence the development of policy, particularly related to WMF-initiated technical initiatives (like global renamers), and in those cases, my main role has been facilitation - ensuring that appropriate community discussions occur and welcome a broad range of perspectives from impacted stakeholders.
    Returning to the specific example, my own thought is that the English Wikipedia model can be a bit too process-driven, though after my terms on the Ombuds Commission I have come to appreciate some elements of the enwiki process - particularly the level of engagement of the members of ArbCom. There is certainly a gap in resolving global disputes, with the RfC process often failing to adequately present the perspectives of both sides and it being difficult to establish whether a consensus exists for some action and what that action would be. But it would also be difficult to set up an ArbCom-like body to decide on those cases - there would need to be consideration for translation, the disputes are rare enough that there may not always be work to keep the group engaged (and it could see activity concerns like with the Ombuds Commission), and any sort of top-down control over other projects has tended to be rejected by the global community in the past. I think it might be more practical to focus on reforms of the existing RfC system, establishing things like a screening system to confirm that local processes cannot address the issue, establishing clearer criteria for intervention, etc. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC

First off, it is a bit unclear to me what has actually happened, as I do not speak Belarusian. If I understand the situation correctly, you opened a request for adminship on the Classical Belarusian Wikipedia, which was later closed by the local bureaucrat in a closure accordingly being against the local rules, something that was denied by the local bureaucrat.
Issues like this should be resolved locally to begin with, if possible. It seems like this was tried without luck, and thus taken to RfC. The first thing I notice with this RfC is the lack of participation, and the amount of time passed since the start of the RfC. Except for you and the local bureaucrat, there were no comments from other users. Now, looking further into what happened, as far as I can understand it, the reason for the bureaucrat closure was because according to them and the local rule for votings (if my translator is correct), there has to be at least five voters who have clearly expressed their opinion with valid supporting arguments by their side for there to be a consensus. This, along with some local issues and insecurities involving local sysops, seemed to have been the reason why the voting was closed.
Like mentioned, there is not much participation in the RfC, and thus not much for the stewards to abide by. Stewards are not a global ArbCom nor mediators, and cannot act out of consensus. The community makes the consensus, the stewards are the implementers. Issues like this are after all best resolved by the local community, and should be attempted to be locally resolved to begin with, before an RfC is opened. So, in short, I would have wanted to see some more participation from other users, mainly community members of be-taraskwiki to get their view on the matter, for me to have been able to close the discussion as resolved. As the discussion is almost six months old now, it is also unclear whether this reflects current community views, and thus the best thing to do would be to gain new consensus on the matter. Thus, the RfC is unactionable.
Hopefully my answer satisfied you. Cheers! EPIC (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user thinks that the current process for resolving global disputes (i.e, using a RFC or a global ban proposal) can be considered as too onerous or confusing, and wonders whether a "global ArbCom (arbitration committee)" managed by stewards or suitably qualified users would be better, roughly modelled on that of the English Wikipedia. Give your viewpoint on this user's thought. Leaderboard (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, and thank you for your question! I can of course understand the reasoning behind that point of view, and the current process for disputes taken to Requests for comment is not all that great at times. Similar to the RfC linked in the question above, many RfCs do not get a lot of participation or involvement, and most of the time leaves the stewards with an unactionable discussion, without any consensus for them to close the discussion as resolved.
Still, I think the idea of a global Arbitration Committee would be inconvenient. First of all, such a committee would require a diversity of users from different projects and knowledge of different languages. Many of the projects with local disputes taken to RfC for discussion are in languages which are outside of the language barriers for many of the stewards. Those cases would require someone with an understanding of that language to read through local discussions to figure out what actually has happened to cause the whole problem. For that, it would be such a large committee that the idea would not work out.
Secondly, as mentioned, stewards are not arbitrators and it's not what they were meant to be from the beginning either. They cannot globally ban users, perform de-sysops, grant rights etc., how or when they want to. They were, and still are, supposed to rely on community consensus and global policies. Wikimedia is built on consensus, and should remain so. I have some understanding of wikis such as the English Wikipedia having arbitration committees, as they are local and handle disputes within their own community. But for stewards, a global role, I find it difficult to build up a fair committee system to function globally.
What would instead be better is to improve the current process of Requests for comment in a way that would attract a larger amount of participators, as well as establishing clear criteria for when an RfC should/should not be opened. After all, most local disputes are best resolved locally, and a process such as RfC should be a resort in cases when there has been a failure to locally resolve the issues. EPIC (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannnes89

K6ka

  • You haven't really explained how you intend to use steward tools. Normally, I would expect someone who were to fight x-wiki vandalism/spam to first obtain GR and GS flags, but you have neither (of course, there is no hard and fast rule about this); in addition, much of your activity is centred on the English Wikipedia. Could you elaborate what you intend to do as a steward and why you chose steward directly instead of obtaining GR+GS flags first? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good question! I was encouraged to run by another steward, as they were looking for more helping hands and felt that my enwiki admin experience was adequate as an asset. Along with cross-wiki vandalism fighting, I also intend to help with the backlog at SRG, which is full of requests for global blocks and locks. A fair number of enwiki LTAs do spread their activity onto other wikis and are typically locked on sight. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user thinks that the current process for resolving global disputes (i.e, using a RFC or a global ban proposal) can be considered as too onerous or confusing, and wonders whether a "global ArbCom (arbitration committee)" managed by stewards or suitably qualified users would be better, roughly modelled on that of the English Wikipedia. Give your viewpoint on this user's thought. Leaderboard (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski

  • Your x-wiki activity is almost entirely limited to the English Wikipedia and your statement does not specify what areas are you intending to work in as a steward (I guess it does, but it's really vague). Could you elaborate on that? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right, and I can understand why someone with a history on only a specific part of the Wikimedia (in my case the English language Wikipedia) might cause some issues for someone looking for advanced perms effecting most x-wikis. However, having advanced permissions on the most read version can't hurt as experience. My thoughts of the Steward role is not to get involved with altercations; but rather to provide support for smaller projects, and I think most importantly, knowing when the situation is right not to use the tools. If I were to be given the role, I would use my judgement and temperament to help out where required, but I suspect most likely responding to the Steward's queue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The typical use case for the steward role involves dealing with various forms of abuse (e.g. vandalism, spam, sockpuppetry, OS issues). Can you describe what experience you have in these areas? Spicy (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, Spicy, nice to see you. In terms of abuse, I think most long-standing users have experienced at least a little, and I am no exception. I have never held the Oversight permission, however, I have contacted the team for oversighting content; as well as revision deleting (or, prior to my RfA, asking for a revdel) content that is gross, identifying, or otherwise dangerous. Spam, vandalism and personal attacks are things that I experience most days. I think that finding a balance between "fighting" both vandals and those not on Wikipedia to build a series of encyclopaedias and being and remaining a friendly, approachable and sensible user is paramount to what we do. Preventing the encyclopaedia from harm, but also allowing users to have a way to be redeemable is something I try to be on the correct side of at all times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melos

Turkmen

  • Suppose you are a non-steward looking around SRGP, and you see four users each wanting to get different rights. Briefly explain what traits (i.e, technical ability, communication skills, sysop and crosswiki experience etc) you'd be looking for each candidate (if any) before deciding whether to support, oppose or be neutral on each candidate. If you believe the given role is not dependent on community support, state so explicitly. You are allowed to respond to this question in any language, provided you provide a English translation (which need not be perfect).
    • Candidate A wants to become a global renamer.
    • Candidate B wants to become a global interface editor.
    • Candidate C wants to become a global sysop.
    • Candidate D wants to get GIPBE (global IP block exemption)
Leaderboard (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, For global renamers, what languages he knows and communication skills are more important. I would also pay attention to the trust shown to him in his home project. Of course, the global interface editor should have good technical skills. Also corsswiki experience is important here. For the global sysop, I think many of the points you mentioned can be applied. That is, technical skills, corsswiki experience, communication skills and technical skills. The right to GIPBE can be granted at many points. No special skills are needed for this. I would mainly be interested in where the user lives and why they want this right. Also, the activity in the local project can make my job easier. Turkmen talk 06:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have skimmed through their activities.

You give all their tasks to global sysop, global rollbacker, crosswiki vandalism. I can't really find any activities here that would be permanent. There are always single actions. But I can't really see any permanent activity. I realise that nobody can't always be active in every project, but permissions are there to be used actively. I can't see that here. Permissions are not a status symbol. What kind of work are you doing that can't be done with single requests on SRM/SRG/... can be done?. What do you say to this?-- 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello, my activity in the project can change depending on the season and my work. My activity can be more active in different periods and vice versa. But as we said, the project is voluntary. I also think that the pages that we are constantly in the project are also different. For example, I rarely see you on SWViewer. But I use it often. During renaming, I am active on the renaming page in the local wiki and on Special:GlobalRenameQueue.--Turkmen talk 10:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Turkmen"But I can't really see any permanent activity." So the answer to that is that you are using a tool more actively than I am? OK, no comment.
      So you mean that you need steward rights with all possible functions for a SWviewer and renaming, which is possible through rollback and global renamer as well? 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand your style. I wouldn't say I work more or less than you. I just said I didn't see you there. We worked together there in my early days. But I haven't seen you there in the last 1 year and I have been using that app all the time. Maybe you work somewhere else. I think I answered your question about my activity. My activity can increase or decrease depending on my work. No need to upload a file or prove anything. Others can check it if they want. Turkmen talk 21:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to respond in Azerbaijani if there is any missing context you need to provide to this question.
    Last year, you recieved this oppose comment from one of your colleagues at your home wiki. While there is clearly some bad blood there, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to it. What would you say to more general allegations of hat collecting? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya

  • A user thinks that the current process for resolving global disputes (i.e, using a RFC or a global ban proposal) can be considered as too onerous or confusing, and wonders whether a "global ArbCom (arbitration committee)" managed by stewards or suitably qualified users would be better, roughly modelled on that of the English Wikipedia. Give your viewpoint on this user's thought. Leaderboard (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2024/Questions&oldid=26137542"