Stewards/Elections 2024/Questions

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]
Helping where needed. Stewards are called upon to help the community by applying the consens whether it is a generalist or specialist approach. --Melos (talk) 15:46, 21 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]
I would say my unique contributions would be helpful in dealing with reports on crosswiki spam/vandalism, also not unique but will be able to be a voice of Indic languages wiki communities.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to be the right person for the right time. I will try to be a generalist, but being a task-dependent specialist. Let's say: a user requests bot access on a small wiki and I, being a bot developer, will know how to tell an LGTM or if something is wrong. If a user requests an edit to a gadget in the MediaWiki domain, I, as an IA, will know whether it is a valid request or whether there is malicious code that the community did not notice before approving the request. If a user requests a bureaucrat flag on a small wiki, with the experience I have on a small wiki, I will know whether that request should be fulfilled or if there are indications that this could cause harm to the health of the local community. And so on... ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my experience as an Ombud will be useful when evaluating potential abuse of access to temporary account IP addresses (an upcoming Steward responsibility). I expect that I will find some tasks that I will do regularly. However, to have some variety, I'll likely rotate through other Steward tasks over time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:31, 31 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]
The Bengali Wikipedia is my home wiki. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is the English Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is the German language Wikipedia (dewiki). --Johannnes89 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.--Turkmen ^talk 06:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the Italian Wikipedia as my home wiki, sometimes including projects where I am most involved. --Melos (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from the English Wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is Wikidata, though I have also spent a bunch of time on Meta and the English Wikipedia over the years. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is the Kannada Wikipedia.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from the Portuguese Wikipedia. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 00:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My home wiki is the English Wikipedia. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:26, 31 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]
Everything can be improved. The best suggestion for this is to ask those involved (and anyone really) what their thoughts are after the elections have completed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 22 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]
I am satisfied with current election process which is transparent according to me,~aanzx ^✉_© 12:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems appropriate to me. Perhaps the numbers can be updated, with a quorum greater than 30 per candidate, but it doesn't seem like a severe problem that requires urgent change. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 11:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process is lengthy, so I'd suggest shortening it if possible, particularly the length of time for questions – perhaps opening questions after nominations close or when voting opens or closing them a week before voting closes. However, that may not facilitate increasing participation (more candidates and voters), which I think is a bigger issue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 31 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]
As I did in the past with a focus on VRT queues --Melos (talk) 16:02, 21 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]
I intend to focus on global counter-vandalism, responding to the backlog at SRG, helping with the unblock queues, permissions requests and policy discussion/formation as they happen. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SRG and SRP pages I am more familiar with, so it would definitely be best place i could helpout.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but it is also important to point out that if there is a large backlog, it indicates that there may be a reason. (Un)block/(un)lock requests are usually complex and cannot be decided quickly, as may they require a discussion with several actors (other stewards, local communities, checkusers, ...) and a lot of consideration. I will work in these spaces, but in no way do I see it as something that must be cleaned up at any cost, as the cost of a wrong decision is remarkably high. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Steward activity on UTRS will likely mirror my English Wikipedia UTRS activity, which is usually a daily review of new open requests. I'll likely help out at SRG, especially if we can get it under control. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 31 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]
2FA active and not shared (protected) devices --Melos (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2FA active and only log into my Wikimedia account from trusted devices. I also use a unique password for Wikimedia. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2FA enabled (as all that can should). I work in cyber security for a job, and very careful with security and personal data Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2FA enabled on my account, as I am aware of securing accounts would always use trusted devices when logging in to any accounts i hold.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already have TOTP, as it is necessary since I am a CU/OS/IA. I would like to be able to use U2F/FIDO, because you can never have too much security, but the cost of the key is too expensive for now. Obviously, as usual, my password is as safe as it should be and I never use my account on devices other than those for my private use. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 01:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use a strong, unique password and have enabled 2FA. The connected email address (using a strong, unique password) is only used for Wikimedia-related accounts and communications. Also, I rarely log in to my account outside of my home and use a VPN if I do. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

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

I am a male, so he/him would be my preferred pronouns. But, you can use any pronouns you wish for me, so pronouns such as they/them would also work great. EPIC (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred pronouns are he/him/his. However, if someone is unaware and uses 'they' or any suitable pronoun in their language, that is acceptable to me. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 09:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred pronouns are he/him. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he/him or they/them. --Johannnes89 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He/Him and They/Them is good I think. --Turkmen ^talk 09:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He/him, they/them. --Melos (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it is something that is very important to some - it doesn't make a great deal of difference to me. he or they is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He/him, they/them works too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he/him. ~aanzx ^✉_© 12:40, 28 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-stewards^connect 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]
Active, to me, means being available. Whilst having experience on many Wikipedias means you have a wider range of knowledge, you also can have more responsibilities. I've been active almost completely continuously from signing up for an account in 2017. I think it's important that we keep separate wikis where we work primarily, and those we may do Steward actions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would define being "active cross-wiki" as being proactive in affairs that affect multiple projects, rather than focusing solely on one project. Cross-wiki patrolling and vandal fighting is the most prominent example of this, but cross-wiki activity would also involve other tasks too, such as globally renaming users. Until a global username policy is adopted, there will still be the need to ensure that the chosen user's new username is acceptable on other wikis. There was one incident on Commons where a renamed user had to be renamed again because local admins didn't want to unblock them until they had chosen a "neutral name". Admittedly, my experience with cross-wiki activity is not as high as some would prefer to see in a steward, but it's not zero and I do have the capacity to expand. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My crosswiki activity is less, as i use wikimedia when needed only, but would certainly can improve when i have additional role.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I likely don't fit a definition that is based on editing or counter-vandalism across multiple projects. However, as an Ombud (see my statement), I have interacted with community members and/or reviewed policies/norms across a number of projects, giving me a more global perspective than I would have from just editing on my home wiki. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m interpreting this question not as ‘what percentage of your edits are made outside of your home wiki,’ but rather ‘how comfortable are you editing outside of your home wiki.’ I occasionally participate in other wikis when I see the need, such as during Covid times when my bot updated statistics by country. I had to go from wiki to wiki, talking to members of each community to request authorization on nine different Wikipedias. Another instance was this week when an editor requested help to resolve a problem displaying text on mobile on Wikisource in Punjabi, a language in which I have zero proficiency. Despite this, I still felt comfortable going there and fixing the problem.

I understand that the job of a steward does not require me to edit all 900 Wikimedia projects. However, it does require me to step out of my comfort zone on my home wiki. I must have the courage to interact with other communities and in other languages to do what is in the best interest of this community and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:46, 31 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]
All the communication tools available, trying to be as transparent as possible with the community in compliance with the policies --Melos (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to collaborate/openly communicate with other stewards when collective opinions are needed and issues where I would have trouble assessing situation.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about collaboration. I'm currently a moderator on en.wiki Discord, but I'd also spend some time on IRC. Stewardship is no different from any role, in having to communicate with everyone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion, transparency, and reachability. Wikimedia projects are built on the foundation of discussion and consensus-building, and that wouldn't change as a steward. Stewards are editors too and may participate in discussions like anybody else, and they are expected to uphold consensus even if they disagree with it. This ties in with transparency: stewards should be open and willing to discuss and explain actions they take. Lastly, reachability is crucial: hiding from communication harms the potential for discussion and inhibits transparency. I am always willing to discuss my actions, whether made as an editor or a local admin; and I'm generally active every day to check for new messages. My philosophy is that positions like adminship or stewardship are one of trust and accountability, and unless prohibited from doing so for legal or privacy reasons, open dialogue is the key to maintaining that trust and accountability. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an issue is presented to me, my collaboration will be tailored according to the specific needs and my level of expertise on the subject. For instance, I can help identify a particular issue, brainstorm potential solutions, and participate in testing these solutions. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 22:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration is very important – this isn't specific to being a Steward. I'd like to join calls/discussions with the WMF when scheduling permits. I'd particularly like to take part in discussions about updating the CU, OS, and ANPD policies since, during my time as an Ombud, a number of issues have been identified with them. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:15, 3 February 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]
I don't have access to CU and OS tools on wikimedia, but have used those tools on other platform and i am familiar with policies regarding checkuser and oversight.~aanzx ^✉_© 12:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never held these roles, however, I do work in both Cyber Security and Application deployment. I'm pretty familiar with IP scopes and the like, and will, if promoted, be sure to both read up on the technical information, and confirm with colleagues who do have these roles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some experience with working with IP ranges as an enwiki administrator, so I have a little bit of background knowledge to help me get started with CU. As for OS, I have frequently reported OSable materials to enwiki oversighters, and use revdel as an interim measure to hide them from immediate view, so I also have some background. I have found asking other admins for help and advice to be quite useful in learning how to use many of the admin tools, and so I expect the same to apply here: asking other stewards for help and advice, and learning from experience. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:55, 30 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]
I think judgment is probably the more important driver of steward actions in these areas. Small wikis often don't have established processes for everything, and so it's important for a steward to be able to apply wiki concepts generally speaking to situations - including norms that prevent interference in the governance of small projects unless needed or as part of a global action. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If request are in purview of steward policy, i would have to be applying common sense and assuming good faith when handling reports/requests regarding small wiki.~aanzx ^✉_© 13:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@~aanzx:, can you give an example of when you would "applying common sense and assuming good faith when handling reports/requests regarding small wiki"? Leaderboard (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For applying common sense it doesn't need to be a small wiki but generally what comes to mind is on users from small wikis reports a LTA in such cases i would need apply both common sense & assume good faith handling such reports, and on request such on SRP while granting user a user right should apply common sense while giving rights to user who have more good faith edits but community is too small to add necessary consensus. ~aanzx ^✉_© 17:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also need to apply common sense on some instances where I may need to check validity of a votes on concesus provided.~aanzx ^✉_© 16:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense should ideally be used at all times. This doesn't really matter if there is a set rule in place or not. Even if a rule is in place, if it's obviously not suitable in a situation (in a way that almost everyone would agree), then it probably needs looking at. If there is no such policy/guideline in place, then common sense is our best measure off the bat. As a Steward acts as an administrator when they either don't exist or there are no suitable users to provide that task. As an administrator, we should all be using common sense and consensus to handle all requests. Of course, on a larger wiki, it would be suitable to gain a policy regarding the issue so that it can be handled quicker in future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the request and the context. In relation to minimum voting requirements, for example, I would say truly little. If the community only has five administrators, I will hardly comply with a bureaucrat's access request. But if a user requests that a gadget be included on a wiki without prior discussion, but if the same gadget is known, robust and already used on a myriad of other wikis (eg. HotCat), I would easily comply with the request. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 13:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exercising common sense is important regardless of the wiki or the role one plays. It is even more important when the wiki has little to no established policies. There are of course global/Steward policies to consider that limit what can be done as a Steward. Stewards act on community consensus under global policy and aren't a global arbitration/mediation committee. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sound judgement should be exercised everywhere. In the context of small wikis, common sense would involve taking into consideration what the task or request specifically was. Stewards are meant to uphold local community consensus, not override it; and stewards should defer to local processes if they exist. Where they do not exist, stewards may act as appropriate to do what is best for the project, but not to override local governance. However, stewards may act beyond this in emergency circumstances, such as a compromised admin account causing serious damage, in which case common sense would entail taking action immediately to protect the project from further harm. This interpretation is more the exception than the rule; stewards are servants (it's in the name), and should defer to local judgement in the majority of cases, even if consensus may not appear to be common sense to the steward, as there may be context they aren't aware of. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:58, 6 February 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]

Great question! I opened several accounts in the early days and lost the passwords (On Azwiki and Trwiki). I started my first edits on trwiki. But my edits there were not visible on the site because of the FlaggedRevs extension. Then I started making edits on Azwiki with my current account and saw the edits published on the site. After that I learned how to edit normally by looking at other articles and asking others. After being elected as an admin, I had set long-term blocks on IP addresses in the early days. But later I was informed about it and I can say that I didn't have many errors because I was careful with the admin tools. Or these mistakes were not very serious.

Also, my first and second steward candidacy in meta-wiki was a serious experience for me. In the first election, I was late, and in the second election, I answered the questions incompletely. The reason I answered the questions incompletely was that I thought I would gain experience after a while anyway. Now I think the opposite. Users should have information about the activities of the candidate through questions. I think that users can get to know the candidate better through these questions. Therefore, the questions are important and I will try to answer them all. I was also expecting a question about why I posted my candidacy statement unchanged this year. Unfortunately, this was not asked. I think I can answer that question here. My thoughts on my candidacy remain the same, and when I looked back at the statement, I really couldn't find anything else to change. And I still believe that I will contribute like in the early years.--Turkmen ^talk 07:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in my initial wikipedia years i use to be more committed beyond my capacity where i had made some mistakes & doing many things which i was not supposed to do such as requesting rename/vanishing of user accounts multiple times (although for which i thought i had valid reason for such requests, but lately past few years i have been patiently contributing to wikis and try not to repeat same mistakes.~aanzx ^✉_© 15:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an argument I had 14 years ago, in a dispute over the spelling of a scientific term in an article. At that time, I had little experience with the wiki and ended up defending a position without any basis in local policy. On the other hand, despite having undone a single edit, I knew how to try to discuss it with the other editors on the talk page and I knew how to recognize my mistake when I realized that I was wrong. Of course, I wouldn't make the same argument today because I know more than in the past, but the behavior I had when dealing with the situation is the same one I try to follow to this day. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good question - thanks for asking it. I have definitely made mistakes over the years, and I think the most important thing for me or anyone is to stay open to criticism and not take it personally. The situation that comes to mind, though, is my involvement on the more drama sides of the project. Years ago I spent a bit too much time in those sort of unproductive discussions. I don't think I was being particularly unhelpful or anything, but I had too much of a focus on back and forth internet arguing in a way that wasn't really helpful to the mission of Wikimedia or any of the projects. Over the last few years I've moved away from that and focused on more productive things - some content work, engaging in more productive dicussions and admin work, etc. That has also helped to keep wiki work as a hobby, healthily in balance with other parts of my life. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one time I undid an admin's block on enwiki without first consulting the blocking admin. I had consulted other admins who were supportive of the unblock, but realized afterwards that this wasn't proper process and that I should've contacted the blocking admin first to discuss the block. Moving forward, I have always kept the incident in mind when reviewing unblock requests, knowing that there is usually context from the blocking admin that I may not be aware of. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:02, 6 February 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

Sotiale (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)

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]
When dealing with LTA quite often, some cases might appear obvious to the reporting user while they are not to others. Knowing this I usually try to point to a sockpuppet investigation, LTA documentation page or other evidence in order to clearly express which LTA I'm talking about and how I know this. Nevertheless I sometimes find myself guilty of submitting SRG reports similar to your example. Of course sometimes one might intentionally choose not to publicly name the LTA per en:WP:DENY, but in this case any evidence related to the report should be submitted to stewards via IRC or other means of communication (or the account should be reported for xwiki vandalism instead of long-term abuse if both glock reasons are applicable).

I noticed that increasingly stewards are asking for more information in case of non-obvious SRG requests as proposed by @Teles in the recent discussions concerning the SRG backlog. That's what I would do as well in case I don't see a connection to a known LTA and can't decide how else to proceed.

But my initial step would be checking CentralAuth and the local user account at the project they got blocked: Is there information on their user page / user talk page (e.g. something like en:Template:Sockpuppet) providing more details regarding their block? Similarly I would check if the user page is linked from the administrator's noticeboard or similar pages in case there was a recent discussion/report leading to that block.

Secondly I would check the reported users xwiki contributions: If they are clearly vandalizing across all projects, I would lock the user as vandalism-only account / crosswiki abuse. If it's not obvious vandalism, I might still be able to identify patterns of known LTA, e.g. by checking the version history of the edited pages or looking at typical edit summaries.

If it's not obvious xwiki vandalism and I can't identify myself which LTA this is (keeping in mind of course, that the report might also be a mistake – something which happened to me as well last year [19]), I would ask the reporting user for more information. --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would start by seeing which LTA is being reported and look for CU or behavioural data that could confirm this (either from checks that were already done or run checks myself as appropriate, if evidence of disruption and abuse of multiple accounts exists). If I couldn't tell who the reported user was alleged to be, I would follow up on the request and ask for more specifics. Ultimately I would lean towards locking the account if it was engaging in lock or global block evasion, or was engaging in blatant disruptive editing across multiple projects, and showed no signs of being a legitimate good-faith user. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would check out his edits on different projects and the talk page as a first step. I would be sure if these edits are fully related to LTA. Because it is possible that the user is new and can make test edits. In the next step, I would check if she has sockpuppet. Because it is possible that anyone is a sockpuppet of LTA. If it is clearly LTA I would block it.--Turkmen ^talk 10:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If user's edits are nonconstructive/clearly vandalism and found evading global blocks would block such user, if i am unsure of crosswiki abuse and reported user have constructive edits on other wikis I would ask reporting user for more information.~aanzx ^✉_© 13:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do is to have further information from User65535 as there is no indication of who the LTA is. There might be other points/logs/elements to consider in addition to the sowiki log. --Melos (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, a preliminary analysis: A trick I always use is analyzing the pages that link to the account's user page on the wiki. Sometimes the blocking justification is generic, but it would be possible to find a check request confirmed by a local checkuser, for example. If this analysis has not yielded any results, the only thing to do is {{ping}} User65535 with {{more info}}. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 15:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I recognize the LTA or there is also obvious abuse on Commons or Wikidata, I would likely decline the request due to insufficient evidence/information provided by the requester. This type of contextless request with no evidence is part of why SRG is chronically backlogged. Declining poor requests should allow actionable requests to be processed more efficiently. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would first check the contributions on Sotiale Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata to see if I can recognize the LTA and if the edits are indeed problematic. If I can recognize the LTA myself, or if their cross-wiki contributions are all vandalism, I'll go ahead and glock, since I know the context. However, if I cannot identify that this is an LTA, and if the edits do not jump out to me as being blatantly problematic, I'll ask the reporter for more information. Because the reporter is a regular at SRG, it's appropriate to assume that there may be context that I'm simply not aware of; requesting additional information is not an indicator that I'm declining the request or that I distrust the reporter, but that I need more information in order to be confident that the decision to take action is the correct one. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with small wikis

What kind of relationship should a steward have with small wikis which lack (active) adminship? How interactive or not should they be with such small communities? In what way? (The question is open-ended so feel free to answer it as such.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards are not leaders of small wikis and should not be controlling or governing their communities. They are however allowed to take admin actions on these wikis, in cases when there are no (active) local administrators who are able to take those actions themselves, or in emergency situations (the latter mainly being for bigger wikis). For example, take a wiki such as like the English Wikibooks, a smaller wiki and a wiki where global sysops can also act. That wiki still has some active administrators who are able to take admin actions at most times when it's needed. If there is a vandal going full speed on such wikis, I think it's fine for a steward or GS to place a block to stop the flow, if no admins are around. But other admin actions, such as deletion, can preferably be left to the local sysops afterwards instead, when it regards a wiki with active local sysops. However, in wikis where there are no, or almost no, (active) local sysops, it is IMO fine for a steward or GS to take admin actions on them (whether it's blocking, deleting pages etc.). I myself am a sysop at a smaller wiki, the Swedish Wikibooks, but I have nothing against if a steward or global sysop takes admin actions on that wiki, as the local sysops (including myself) aren't present that often, and I mainly focus on maintenance work on there, rather than anti-vandalism/spam work (which is the area I tend to work most actively in otherwise). In short, stewards should be leaving as much room as possible for local communities to do routine tasks on their wiki, but are still allowed to help these communities grow and improve. EPIC (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (Last sentence added at 13:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The only role for stewards in the situation you describe is acting in the scope of a global sysop - performing routine and non-controversial deletions, counter-vandalism and other maintenance. Action beyond that could be a good thing for a steward to do (facilitating discussions, approaching local editors who may be interested in becoming temporary admins, etc.) but steward tools are not needed to perform those functions. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at SRP, I oftentimes see users from small wikis who are inexperienced in how to use the page or even how to start a request for adminship at their local community per MVR. That's something where stewards should assist in order to help small communities grow their local governance structures. There are other areas where stewards should support as well, especially regarding GS activities like anti-spam/-vandalism efforts, if there are no active local sysops. Of course stewards have no special authority at small wikis, but they should give friendly advice – just like any other experienced user – if they notice something worth giving feedback. To give an example: A while ago I noticed a newly elected admin (the first ever admin of that wiki) who was always blocking vandalising IPs indefinitely, not being aware of the differences between accounts & IPs. The project had not yet established their own blocking policy, so I recommended to take a look at en:WP:IPBLENGTH and consider shorter blocking periods for dynamically assigned IPs. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards do not have specific rights in projects. In this sense, the activity of stewards is not much different from GS. I think this action should not differ from the usual admin actions. This includes deletions, anti-vandalism actions, etc. includes.--Turkmen ^talk 13:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A steward should maintain a respectful and supportive relationship with small wikis that lack active adminship. Stewards are not meant to replace local administrators or bureaucrats but to assist them in cases of emergency or necessity. Therefore, stewards should not interfere with the local affairs of small wikis unless there is a clear need for their intervention, such as vandalism, spam, abuse, cross-wiki issues (regular GS works), or other cases where policy permits action.

Stewards should be familiar with the local policies and guidelines related to their duties if they exist. As experienced users, they can provide the local community with technical assistance and feedback to help grow their governance structure. For example, a few days ago, I offered help to 3/4 small wikis to create localized namespace prefixes. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 03:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As steward usergroup doesn't use there user rights on situations where it should be done by local admins, I would try to be helpful guiding them where could find help, for example if someone ask for help with local tasks i would suggest requesting such on GSR.~aanzx ^✉_© 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every community needs to have an sysop, no matter how small. A steward can take on small, uncontroversial tasks: a deletion, a protection, an edit, but not much more than that. Only a local administrator knows the demands of his community, knows the policies that must be followed, and knows how to navigate them. I could even try to be, in some way, interactive, but I would quickly invite the most active ones to take over the administration. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 15:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of handling Steward requests for small wikis, the use of Steward tools should be limited to that of a global sysop or global rollbacker. Stewards are not here to lead small wikis or interfere in their community consensus building. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of using the steward toolset, quite limited: stewards may only use their tools on those wikis to deal with vandalism, non-controversial maintenance, and requests with local community consensus to implement. However, stewards are like any other editor and can participate in such local wikis with their steward hat removed, i.e. like a regular non-admin, non-steward editor. Stewards can provide advice based on their own knowledge and expertise to help guide local wikis into developing their own policies, but such advice would not have any special status simply because it came from a steward. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

Stewards have a continually increasing responsibility for advocacy, and is slowly having more and more consultations with different WMF groups especially in relation to anti-abuse. What experience do you have that would assist in this field, if you would assist? -- Amanda (she/her) 02:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say anti-abuse and other forms of anti-vandalism/spam work is my main area of expertise, and it is what my main focus is placed on within the Wikimedia projects, both on my main wikis as well as my global work. Mainly, it is because I rarely do content work outside of svwiki due to language barriers and stuff (but even on my home wiki, I rarely make content work there either). Thus I've focused on other types of work, and have found spam/anti-abuse work to be the area I feel the most comfortable working in. So, it is the area in which I place most of my activity and have the most experience in, and I am of course open to assist within that area and consult with other members regarding matters within this field. I believe I can use my expertise within this area to benefit the community, and I have been involved in matters regarding anti-abuse multiple times, mainly through the local page on svwiki for administrative discussions (sv:WP:KAW). It is however still important for a steward to be flexible and being available to assist where needed, so experience within different areas of stewardry is also useful. As mentioned, I myself will go slow and steady to start and mainly work within simpler areas in the beginning, e.g. bashing spambots and light SRG work (and maybe some work at SRP in accordance with MVR, once I feel comfortable doing so), before throwing myself into other areas of stewardry. EPIC (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide assistance in the development and refinement of policies and guidelines aimed at preventing abuse, considerations of user conduct guidelines and maintaining community standards with in my knowledge.~aanzx ^✉_© 14:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frequently participating at global discussions and WMF consultations, e.g. last year regarding the ToU changes. Additionally I'm communicating about upcoming global changes within my community, e.g. about temporary accounts at our last dewiki WikiCon (together with DerHexer). I would be happy to join WMF – steward consultations, especially as anti-abuse activities are a main part of what I currently do as a (global) sysop as well. --Johannnes89 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area I was very active in as a steward previously - I attended in-person and virtual meetings on a variety of subjects related to anti-abuse, and worked well with the WMF liaisons to provide input, recommend avenues for community consultation and help to develop/implement necessary consequential policy changes as a result. I would continue that work if elected again. I have an extensive background in both steward work and using administrator and functionary access on Wikimedia projects, which will help me to contribute meaningfully to those discussions. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often make suggestions (policies, interface editing) on Azwiki. I also frequently contacted local users during vandalism, spam and LTA. I also participated in video meetings of local user groups. I once attended a video meeting of a global systems team. I love working with a team and I think this experience will help me after becoming a steward.--Turkmen ^talk 07:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator on several Wikimedia projects and an x-wiki patroller, I have extensive experience in dealing with vandalism, spam, harassment, and other forms of abuse. I have used available tools and policies to prevent these. A few weeks ago, we, the administrators of bnwiki arranged a virtual meeting to discuss how to improve anti-abuse mechanisms and policies on bnwiki. During the meeting, we agreed to propose some policy changes and to propose to the community the formation of a committee (similar to ArbCom) to investigate complex cases. Additionally, I have actively participated in various discussions related to anti-abuse on the administrators' noticeboard and local village pump. If elected, I would like to participate in WMF consultations with stewards, and I think these experiences will help me contribute to this field. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This area has received particular attention from me. It is a field in which one has to move delicately and which needs constant and sometimes immediate interaction. That said, if elected again, I can only provide my past experience. --Melos (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a lot of experience with consultations with other WMF groups, I certainly have a lot of experience dealing with abuse, not only as an enwiki admin, but also personally as well. I've had some communications with T&S regarding some of these issues. This is something I'm interested in learning more about and participating in. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability

Stewards have been losing members at heavy rates, similar to other privileged groups. What do you envision your role to be in sustainability of stewards as a whole if you were elected, besides remaining a steward? -- Amanda (she/her) 02:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Bolded modified at: -- Amanda (she/her) 03:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a steward I plan to sustain my activity to the fullest extent possible for me, and I will keep myself available when help is needed to assist the community in the best way I can. In the past I have had studies and other IRL stuff to focus on which has sometimes affected my activity on the Wikimedia projects, which is now finally cleared and I'm able to return to full activity again. I am available mostly between 8 AM and 4 PM CET, which are the times I am the most active, but I can assist at most times whether it is urgent or not, and usually quick to respond when needed, except during the early morning hours (1 AM - 7 AM CET). Of course I am also aware that being active is an essential part of being a steward, so if elected, I will ensure myself to keep up with the activity that this role requires, and imagining the year I would not be able to do so anymore, I would likely choose not to be continuing as a steward after the confirmations, as it wouldn't really serve the community to have me as a steward if I am not active. But, I see myself keeping my promise, and I am ready to take on the responsibilities of the role, and looking forward to potentially be serving the Wikimedia community as a steward, if elected.
Modified answer: I would like to contribute to the group sustainability of the steward team by being able to assist where needed, and working together with other stewards when tricky decisions and other forms of group work are to be implemented. Stewards have larger backlogs at times, such as SRG, which can be rapidly increasing and become quite full. I plan to assist with reducing these backlogs, to decrease the amount of workload for the steward team, while at the same time assisting the community. The #wikimedia-stewards^connect IRC channel can often be unwatched, especially in the middle of the day or in late night hours, which are the time periods I tend to be the most active but also seems to be an active period for many other users, as I often approach other active IRC users at these times. This would also be one of my main areas if elected, and I plan and hope to be of quick assistance for other users and the tasks they may need help with, whether they are urgent or not. As mentioned in my previous answer, I plan to keep myself active and available for steward tasks and communication with other stewards - it is essential for stewards to keep their activity as they need to be aware of current steward practices, and need to be collaborative, especially in situations when teamworking is needed and it is important for the stewards to keep together and work to implement solutions. That is why some stewards resign after confirmations, when they can no longer maintain with the activity required for the role, which also makes it important to elect new stewards to take their spots, to keep up the sustainability of the stewards. It is also useful for these newly elected stewards to gather experience within different areas of work, as they should be flexible and able to use their experience to contribute to the stewards' effectiveness - although they should not be going for everything at once and at start begin in the areas they feel comfortable with. EPIC (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EPIC: Just to be clear, as per my clarification above, I'm looking for how you would contribute to group sustainability, not your own sustainability. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: Excuses, my bad, and I should probably not have been answering questions at 3 AM. Striked the old answer and rewrote to better fit your question. EPIC (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are leading the Stewards' Clerk team, which is a great idea for sustainability. If elected, I would like to work with you to advance this program. The scope of work for Steward Clerks can be extended to areas with backlogs like SRG, which will reduce the pressure on the steward team. Secondly, serving as a clerk would also provide training for potential stewards, and the program would hopefully lead to qualified stewards in the future. Since the stewards are volunteers, some of the old ones will leave each year due to real-life needs, and some may not maintain a high activity level. The solution lies in increasing the number of stewards. Therefore, for sustainability, I would encourage potential candidates to run for election and help them gain experience in related fields. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 05:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As many global roles are volunteer roles some may are bound by offwiki life which we can't predict and avoid, I don't it has already happening but IMO overall these groups can sustained by regular chats such as office hours where users any of those roles can participate and converse between each other so that they don't feel left out as part of a group.~aanzx ^✉_© 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level, I've always approached and encouraged people to run for steward if they are interested or I think they would be a good fit, providing coaching and mentorship where appropriate and a gentle nudge where necessary, and would continue to do so. At a policy level, it's hard to know what would help. Unbundling is an idea that comes to mind - expanding the scope of global sysops to include global locks and blocks is one possible avenue, though ultimately there is value in retaining all of the steward rights bundled together (good to be able to CU before global blocking/locking, for example), and I don't think there would be strong community support for unbundling. Running two steward elections per year is also an option, as in 2011, but this is a lot of work and the steward election process is very extensive so I would be hesitant to recommend this. All this to say - it's a problem and not one that I have an easy answer for, I will continue my work to recruit new stewards where possible, and would encourage people to think about unbundling as a possible option if there are serious concerns with the number of stewards compared to the workload. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to have more stewards. For this, new suitable candidates should be encouraged. But at the moment it is being dealt with only individually. But this is a serious matter. I think it is possible to create a special group between experienced and new stewards. I think I will be active in SRG mainly related to my activities. However, I don't like to decide on one place and work there permanently. I would like my activity to be diverse. For example, I'm thinking of being active on the SRCU and SRP pages as well.--Turkmen ^talk 07:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the shrinking number of stewards as well. In order to encourage more users to successfully run for steward, we should first of all encourage more qualified users to gain experience in steward-related areas, e.g. by volunteering as global sysops or steward clerks. I've talked to several users about running for steward or global sysop (now or in the future), admittedly with limited success so far. One problem is the shrinking number of admins in many major projects which of course lowers the number of potential steward candidates (e.g. admin numbers at my homewiki dropped from 280 in 2010 to 167 as of today). This requires efforts by local communities in order to first of all strengthen their local government structures and thus providing more capacity for admins and other local functionaries to extend their work on a global level.

Besides increasing the number of new stewards, we must also support retention of existing stewards. Looking at Template:StewardsChart, many stewards seem to serve for 3-5 years. This is likely to a number of factors (e.g. changes in life circumstances which we cannot influence), but at least for some it's likely related to stress and/or a high workload while being a steward. The creation of steward clerks seems to be a great initiative in order to mitigate the workload. Regarding stress levels (or generally preventing stewards from burning out) I think communication is key, e.g. via the Wikimedia Stewards User Group. In my experience from other voluntary positions, stronger personal ties between volunteers usually increase volunteer retention. This is an area I would like to contribute if elected as steward. --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have done in the past I would like to encourage people to participate in global stuffs. This improves the experience of the people involved with effects on backlogs (i.e. more appropriate Steward requests) and it grows future candidates. --Melos (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say that a wiki's community is its most important asset and, in fact, the general emptying of members, including privileged ones, has been worrying. It is clearly necessary to do the obvious in the steward's group, as I will do: invite new members, support current members, and encourage them not to leave. But, as important or even more important, it is also necessary to work on the other end: encouraging readers to be editors, encouraging editors to be active in the community, encouraging active people to be sysops, and so on. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 16:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was encouraged to run for steward because of the dwindling number of available stewards, so I would agree that the best way to keep the steward group sustainable and alive is to keep an eye out for potentially good fits and encourage them to run. I was initially hesitant because the workload seemed daunting, but knowing that other people were also interested in running made it more reassuring knowing that it was a collaborative approach to help out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health and accessibility

What is your opinion regarding stress levels by the elections, considering they last nearly two months? Do you think there are any opportunities for improvement regarding mental health and accessibility aspects? - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, there will always be room for improvement in the future for the election process, and I have understanding that stages of it can be stressful for the candidates. I still think that even today, there have been implemented practices to make the process less stressful. The best example I can think of would probably be the two question rule. Steward candidates should not be overloaded with questions or be asked questions "just for the purpose of it", but rather be asked questions which are relevant for their candidacy. That is why the two questions per candidate rule is useful and helps to not leave them with way too many questions for them to answer, which in turn results in leaving them a bigger opportunity to answer their questions as thoroughly explained as possible, and helps to get better answers from the candidates, as more questions often results in less satisfying responses. EPIC (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question, mental health issues could be addressed by conversing with other users which should be encouraged and i would take wikibreak in case if it's stressful which could be encouraged, I don't have a answer for improving accessibility as two months is long as seen by limited number of people apply for steward role but in accessibility point of view it also gives reasonable time for anyone to respond or interact with steward applicants.~aanzx ^✉_© 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't feel much stress about this election, but I know that both the candidacy phase as well as the three weeks of voting can be a lot of pressure, while voters rightfully want to evaluate the steward candidates. I think the election committee is doing a good job to enforce the two question rule and Meta:Civility in order to reduce potential stressors. Looking at past elections, I've briefly thought about whether non-public elections via SecurePoll might be a good idea as some of the comments are certainly stressful. But given the importance of the steward role I think a public discussion is necessary, in case potential problems with a candidate arise while voting is already underway and only few people are aware of them. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The beneficial aspect of the lengthy election period is that it provides both the community and the candidates ample time for questions and answers, enabling the community to select the right candidate. However, it's also true that this extended candidacy and voting phase can induce stress for the candidates. For me, I haven't felt any pressure thus far. ElectCom is actively working to maintain the relevance of questions and enforce the two-question rule, which is somewhat helpful for the candidates to remain stress-free. Voters can express their concerns at any stage of voting, but any stressful comments in voting pages, such as complaints lacking evidence or irrelevant comments, should be addressed by striking or moving them (for a detailed discussion) elsewhere, in my opinion. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 20:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel stressed right now. I think the duration and questions here are normal. Questions are important for the community to choose the right candidate and get to know their contributions. The 2 question rule is fine, but I think you can also pre-select and confirm some questions by default to improve the quality of the questions even more.--Turkmen ^talk 06:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that stressful to me. It's a lengthy process, but those involved are always members with extensive experience within the Wikimedia movement (Q3568028), which naturally can be a little stressful. Given the importance of the stewardship position, the stress caused is proportional. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, to be honest. The steward election process is lengthy and can certainly be stressful, I remember my first run was. But I encountered far more stressful situations as a steward - people often respond to any admin/functionary/steward mistakes with attacks on your character and calls for resignation, I have been subject to extensive LTA harassment and death threats, and it can be challenging to find a good solution to some very complex technical or interpersonal situations. I think the steward group is generally good at providing support for members going through difficult experiences (not in a circling-the-wagons way, but just in responding with humanity) and the WMF has been particularly supportive in terms of addressing some problematic situations in the past (most notably taking ownership over a lot of WMF ban enforcement in a way that diverts a lot of abuse away from stewards). – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything insightful to say so early in the election. See above for some related thoughts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too stressed out about these elections. The steward elections should not be a walk in the park, so there should be some degree of stress for the candidates to answer questions and be involved. However, the elections are not meant to be a competition, so there really isn't any high degree of stress involved. Criticism can feel like a slap in the face, but as long as there is no incivility or personal attacks involved, the criticism is constructive, and if one understands that it shouldn't be taken personally, it's not stressful or strenuous. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral analysis

Now that temporary users are around the corner, I am wondering about the candidates readiness for it. (Temp users are estimated to happen in the last three months of this year) Do you solely use IP information or do you use behavioral analysis comparatively more ?--Snævar (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use WHOIS for IP adresses every now and then, e.g. when checking proxies, for which I also use the Toolforge proxy checker. Sometimes I also combine it with DUCK when identifying sockpuppets, for example, in more obvious cases when two IP adresses share the same ISP and behavorial patterns. So, I don't solely use either of them, but I use both IP info and behavioral similarities to abide by from time to time, either separately or combined. However, I would say I am quite ready for the introduction of temporary accounts; as an administrator on svwiki and Wikidata I will still have access to IP addresses in justified cases in accordance with the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and it probably won't affect my anti-abuse work too much. In many cases I don't really see that access to IP addresses matters that much, but there are of course multiple cases for stewards where IP access is useful, e.g. LTA work. EPIC (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm well aware of the upcoming changes regarding temporary accounts (I've actually given a presentation on this together with @DerHexer for the dewiki community [20]), though I honestly don't believe them to happen this year for content wikis, given that even the deployment to testwiki has been pushed back multiple times and there is still a large number of open Phabricator tasks [21]. As IP information will still be available to privileged users [22], I think we can deal with these changes. We'll see differences in reporting / discussing abuse by temporary accounts, as it's not allowed to publicly reveal their IP, but I'm optimistic that we can adapt to these changes quickly. Regarding your second question: No matter if it's a registered account, temporary account or an IP, it is always important to look not just at IP information but also use behavioural analysis. --Johannnes89 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of this initiative, but it seems like some of the final details are still up in the air. How I approach temporary accounts would also depend on what new tools are introduced (such as a planned expansion of global blocking to accounts) that may impact how temp accounts are handled. I always consider behavioural evidence when using the CheckUser tool, as any check needs to be justified by some possibility that multiple accounts are being abused, and I would continue to do so when temp accounts are implemented. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both behavioral analysis and IP info are necessary to detect LTA. To identify proxies and blocks on other wikis, I utilize tools like BullsEye. I give more importance to behavioral analysis in identifying LTA than IP information. I regularly follow the IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation page and its talk page, have reviewed the associated policy, and am aware of upcoming changes. Therefore, I believe I am prepared to accept this change and to adapt to future anti-abuse efforts. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rely mostly on behavior of a account/IP, I am aware of temporary accounts since it is not to be implemented soon, but at the time it is implemented across wikimedia there would keep in mind to look/be aware of any changes regarding temporary accounts such as Global_blocks#Deciding_on_Global_Blocks which marked as draft would watch out for that section.~aanzx ^✉_© 05:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this doesn’t significantly alter the existing procedures dealing with issues related to unregistered users, like vandalism. Given that IP addresses should still be visible to patrollers, who are at the forefront of these matters, I perceive minimal impact in this context. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect the introduction of temporary users to substantially change how the combination of behavioral and technical information is used since IP information will still be available to those who need it. As a non-CU, almost all blocks I make are based only on behavior. However, in other contexts (e.g., ACC), there is no behavior to consider, so only technical information can be used to make assessments. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I utilize both IP and behavioural analysis to identify LTAs and other problematic users. Behaviour is usually the more reliable indicator, as IPs can easily be changed; however, IP information can be used to supplement behavioural analysis. The introduction of temporary user accounts would not significantly impact this, as IPs are still visible to those who need access to it. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency de-sysop

Under which circumstances is necessary to emergency de-sysop an user? What is your understanding about this? --Stïnger （会話） 20:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Stewards should not de-sysop users without valid consensus of the local community, except under exceptional circumstances where an emergency de-sysop is justifiable to prevent further abuse. I will take an example scenario for a situation where an emergency de-sysop might be acceptable; For example, imagining a local sysop has been engaged in a conflict with another administrator on the same wiki, which has resulted in a wheel war leading to both administrators going rogue and misusing their administrative tools against each other or other users engaged in the dispute. If there has been attempts to resolve the issues, without any luck, and it leads to further abuse or damage, an emergency de-sysop might be justified. However, it should be remembered that disputes should be resolved by local discussion, first of all. Emergency de-sysops should only be used as a final resort, when there has been failures to use other methods of resolution. Stewards should not be acting as mediators or arbitrators, and should abide by community consensus. They are not the ones to primarily take actions in disputes - community consensus is the optimal solution. EPIC (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a user suddenly goes rogue and starts using their sysop rights to seriously harm a Wikimedia project—such as continuously deleting the main page, mass deleting established pages, blocking established users for no reason, or any other emergency situations—they can be emergency de-sysoped to prevent further harm (for example). Stewards always have to take action based on local community consensus. However, in an emergency, action can be taken without waiting for the local community to protect the Wikimedia projects from greater damage. In such cases the steward must notify the local community after taking the action. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the old account insecurity days I generally preferred locking a compromised admin account until the owner could be reached to desysopping, as it also prevented the person who had gained access to the account from further compromising the account (accessing advanced permissions elsewhere, changing settings/password/2FA/recovery email, etc). I would still take that approach in emergency situations where it appears that the account is compromised. Outside of that, most emergency desysops would be requested by a community or ArbCom and I would implement consensus according to the usual rules and procedures for doing so. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, I would only consider de-sysopping when there is a significant risk of damage to a wiki. In all cases, I would not proceed with a de-sysop without first trying to consult other stewards who are online at the time. If, by some unfortunate coincidence, I am the only one online, I would only consider de-sysopping if there are clear indications that the account has been seriously compromised (e.g., the main page has been deleted, mass defacement, etc.). After reaching other stewards, we would assess the urgency of the situation: Are there bureaucrats on the wiki? Are they active? What is the impact of the destructive action? Can it be easily reversed? And so on. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 00:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency de-sysop depends on Bureaucrat#Removing_access if a bureaucrat is active on a large wiki i would probably wait for it to be handled locally, would be more inclined handle such reports clearly on community consensus when reported by long terms users with good faith edits.~aanzx ^✉_© 05:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards cannot intervene in projects without the consent of local communities. Here only help is possible in the form of advice. Of course, direct intervention is possible if there is obvious vandalism or if the sysop's account has been hijacked.--Turkmen ^talk 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ajraddatz that in case of compromised account a global lock should be the preferred option, which is what en:WP:HACKED recommends as well. Other than that, emergency-desysops should usually be requested by ArbCom members or other local functionaries. As the potential damage of admins going rough has been reduced since the implementation of phab:T150826 (allowing blocked admins to block the admin who blocked them), there should usually be enough time to assess a situation (and if in doubt request clear community consensus) before taking action. --Johannnes89 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a compromised account it is preferable to lock the account instead of performing an emergency desysop. Communities that have policies/procedures for emergency desyops can request those using SRP as usual. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SRP is full of emergency de-sysop requests, but only a few were real emergencies. An admin who blocks everyone who disagrees with him is a clear abuse but "I was unfairly blocked by Y, please desysop Y" needs a community discussion on a different stage. --Melos (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Practically never, from my perspective. If a sysop's account was compromised, the emergency action for stewards to take is to lock the account, not de-sysop. If an account was compromised, it could do harm to any wiki, and could continue to cause harm even after being de-sysopped. An emergency de-sysop would be of limited utility, whereas a lock would stop the problem in its tracks. De-sysopping should only be done based on local decisions, such as an ArbCom requesting a de-sysop, and thus never in an emergency. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of CheckUser tools

As stewards, you have access to the checkuser tools on loginwiki, and at wikis where there are no locally active checkusers, or in emergency situations in other wikis. In what cases would you perform a check yourself, without any external request?--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only cases where CheckUser should be used as a steward without any external request are for checking LTAs, abusers, spambots etc. Aside from this, they should not be performing checks for controversial cases, unless it has been requested at SRCU with valid grounds for a check. Stewards need to take into account that CheckUser is not for fishing, and should only be used as a last resort when there are valid reasons to perform a check. It should mainly be used on smaller wikis or wikis without local checkusers, but CheckUser can be used in emergency situations at larger wikis, although it is often not preferred as some wikis, such as dewiki, have local CU policies which require additional logging for steward performed checks. EPIC (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: to prevent urgent threats to a wiki or its community, such as large-scale vandalism or spambot attacks, and to identify long-term and cross-wiki abusers who might be overlooked by local checkusers focused on a single project, the CU tool can be used without external request. However, CU tools can be used in wikis with local CUs only in emergency cases. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 02:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC) If there is no local CheckUser to prevent urgent threats to a wiki or its community, such as large-scale vandalism or spambot attacks, and to identify long-term and cross-wiki abusers, the CU tool can be used without an external request by following the global CU policy. However, in an emergency, if a local CU exists but is not active, I will contact other CUs before proceeding with the checks.[reply]

Note: In the previous response, I didn't convey my intended meaning clearly. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably not use checkuser without any external request, in case of situation where i need to use checkuser i would mostly contact other users through CheckUser-l for more input on how could handle such reports.~aanzx ^✉_© 06:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a checkuser, this is a familiar scenario for me. I only perform those checks on new accounts that clearly indicate they are attempting to bypass a block (such as recreating a recently deleted article, depending on the context of the deletion) but not to the point of direct blocking via duck test (Q1324171). For more established accounts, I only proceed after consulting with other checkusers. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to directly intervene in a local project when there is no external request and valid grounds for these requests are not presented. Especially if a local CheckUser exists in that project. CheckUser tools would be more suitable if used against LTA, spambots and other vandalism on small wikis.--Turkmen ^talk 20:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My use of CheckUser on my own initiative would be similar to as it is now - investigating abuse of multiple accounts where there is behavioural evidence sufficient to justify a check. In practice, I would very rarely +cu myself on a small project without a local request - loginwiki (or Meta) is often sufficient to handle routine LTA/cross-wiki abuse cases. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with spambots or known LTA it is oftentimes useful to perform CU at loginwiki in order to identify further sockpuppets and/or globally block the IP ranges used by the spambots/LTA. Other than that I would generally limit the use of CU to SRCU or similar requests. --Johannnes89 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the CheckUser policy via loginwikiCU, especially for spambots and crosswiki LTA --Melos (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In such a circumstance, a check would only be appropriate if there was behavioural evidence to suspect bad faith sockpuppetry across multiple wikis. In most other cases, stewards should defer to local CheckUsers, or only act upon a local request if there are no local CheckUsers to handle the task. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop socking

As stewards, you act as bureaucrats on projects where there are no local bureaucrats. What would you do if a user whom you made a sysop turns out to be a sockpuppet of a blocked user on that Wiki?--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it should be made clear; Has there been any CU evidence that the accounts are related, or do their edit patterns match? If yes, stewards still cannot revoke their adminship without consensus from the local community, except under some exceptional circumstances, such as the criteria for emergency de-sysops listed further above, or in cases of clear abuse. That is also why stewards should be careful with granting adminship on wikis with no local bureaucrats, and should abide by MVR when granting permissions on these wikis. There is a number of things that should be checked before granting adminship, for example, are they an experienced Wikimedian, are the support votes from legitimate accounts, has there been a discussion in the case of any oppose votes? etc. If yes, stewards can choose to grant permissions. EPIC (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s important to point out that if I granted sysop access to someone, it wasn’t me who "made" them a sysop, but rather their own community who elected them. My role is simply to verify the process and ensure it adhered to both global and local policies. If the user is unequivocally confirmed as a sockpuppet, the course of action is straightforward: de-sysop + lock. However, if there are only suspicions or the verification only indicates a certain degree of probability, it’s up to the community to decide what to do with the sysop. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 00:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this question would be very dependent on the case - degree of certainty that socking/block evasion was occuring, level of disruption, etc. Generally if a small-wiki sysop is socking I would discuss with other stewards to get a second opinion, and it would likely result in the removal of the sysop bit and blocks/global lock as appropriate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is identified as an LTA with previous locked accounts I will de-sysop and lock the current account with summary "lock evasion". An example of such an incident is here: CA, gbl right change log. If this is not the case (confirmed, but not an LTA) and not any emergency situation, I will notify the community and rely on the local consensus. Following MVR such events are less likely to occur, but cannot be avoided at all times, such as the example above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 01:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to ensure that rights issued/revoked are done through a clear community consensus & by keeping MVR, if sysop turns out to be after granting rights terms mentioned in Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access applies for removal of access.~aanzx ^✉_© 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the situation, local policies and timing. If the sockpuppet revelation occurs minutes after I just granted admin permissions per request at SRP, I might consider reversing my action in order to ask the local community if I should still proceed with granting adminship. On the contrary if an admin turns out to be a user who's first account got blocked for vandalism years ago and the new account has established an excellent track record over many years, there is nothing I would do except notifying the local community. And of course the reaction also depends on local policy, e.g. my homewiki explicitly allows indef. blocked users to try a clean start with a new account (unless they are globally / WMF banned or locally banned by our ArbCom), while other projects don't (e.g. en:WP:CLEANSTART#Criteria). --Johannnes89 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can see how much time has passed since the blocked user was blocked. Because I've seen users fix it over time. It is possible that his thoughts and actions may change in a beneficial direction after a certain interval. There is also a local community decision factor here. If that user has recently committed vandalism and the community is not aware of it, the community can be informed about it. Other interventions, I think, should be done after the decision of the community.--Turkmen ^talk 20:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards don't act in the same capacity as local bureaucrats. In this circumstance, if I were to perform a bureaucrat action on a wiki, it is generally in response to a community request. As such, if such a revelation came to light, the matter would need to go back to the local community for discussion, and if I needed to perform a de-sysop, it would again be due to local consensus agreeing with a de-sysop. The only time this would be overriden is if there is evident cross-wiki abuse, which is in the purview of stewards, and I would lock the account as appropriate. Assuming that the socking was merely a local affair, however, the local community in question would have to make the call, not stewards. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On-going vandalism

Simple, but the most important question to me. There are often ongoing xwiki vandalism cases. Since prompt response is required for such cases, I am wondering whether candidates can respond fast for Wikipedia ping, Discord ping, or whatever. Also, which one can you respond most quickly when I contacted for immediate help? --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 15:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can be active on IRC #wikimedia-stewards^connect which probably suitable place to report on going reports, I am active around 2:30am UTC to 4:30pm UTC ,also will react as soon as possible to talk page messages.~aanzx ^✉_© 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information about access time is also nice. Thanks. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and IRC pings are the ones I am able to respond the fastest to, as they are the notifications I most regularly check and am the most active on (might also be because when I see a red dot, I always get rid of it because I don't like seeing them). I also do check my mail inbox quite often, partially due to me regularly handling VRT tickets, so I am usually able to respond quickly that way too, but I don't always have access to my mail, so it's a tiny bit less for that one. So, usually I am quite easy to reach and quick to handle urgent situations, as I'm also often online at times when many of the stewards are not. EPIC (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer quickly in Wikipedia, IRC, and Discord if I am online. When someone pings me on IRC or sends a direct message on Discord, I receive notifications on my smartphone. Therefore, IRC and DMs on Discord are most useful for instant off-wiki communication for me. Additionally, also for the talk page messages, the email notification comes to my phone, allowing me to respond quickly in this case as well. My timezone is UTC+6, so I'm typically active when most stewards are inactive. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually respond quite quickly to onwiki pings and I'm available on Discord on well. My timezone is UTC+1. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discord is usually the fastest way to reach me, it'll ping me on my phone if I'm not on my computer. I am on IRC semi-frequently (when on my home computer) so if I'm on that's a good option too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I take a break from my wiki activities due to work. But I check notifications regularly. I have also actively used discord servers for a while. I plan to return to my account there in the near future.--Turkmen ^talk 20:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach me on irc or Discord (also active on my mobile device) --Melos (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always online via mobile and I always monitor my pings. I'm usually more reachable via Telegram too. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm generally available on Discord and on IRC, and can respond to urgent requests. There may be times during the day where I'm tied up with work or am otherwise unavailable, but for the most part, I'm online every day, generally throughout the day. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governance structure

To what extent do you believe that the Stewards should have direct authority over local projects with respect to the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct, and what role do local wikis have in interpreting the code for themselves? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will partially repeat what was said in #Relations with small wikis, and that is that stewards are allowed to help communities grow and improve, but should not be governing them. Of course I do however think that other communities should be informed of the instatement of the UCoC, considering it will be a global policy, and that its extent is already essential in multiple wikis. Some projects already have local equivalent guidelines to the UCoC (in my home wiki it is a policy (sv:Wikipedia:Etikett), but that might change now that the UCoC is instated). Also, most of what is written in the UCoC is also already quite essential to follow, not just on Wikimedia, but elsewhere too, such as showing respect/civility, and staying away from harassment. With the possible instatement of the Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee, they would also be helping out to ensure that the UCoC is being followed and enforced by local groups. So, there is not much for stewards to interfere. However, I do also believe that for example, the community can also help out in some ways, such as translating the UCoC into multiple languages, to ensure that it can be understood and followed. EPIC (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think steward user group should have authority on any wiki, mostly local wiki should be encouraged to follow guidelines, as for UCoC is concerned only steward are supposed to handle are foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#3.1.2_Enforcement_by_type_of_violationsoversight and crosswiki UCoC violations which I think that are not different from current steward responsibilities, and guidance regarding interpretation of code of conduct would/could be handled by UCoC Coordinating Committee.~aanzx ^✉_© 07:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already touched on this at #Small wikis and #Johannnes89: Stewards are neither arbitrators/mediators nor a governing authority of local projects. UCoC-implementation/-enforcement is a task of the local communities. In case of systemic failure to enforce the UCoC this may be raised at the UCoC Coordination Committee (or currently via request for comment). I can imagine that certain decisions by this committee will be carried out by stewards (just like stewards are responsible for implementing RfC decisions), but they don't have special authority over local projects regarding UCoC enforcement. --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My short answer is "none". As a long answer, I would say it largely depends on the possible "offense" being committed and how many different actors are involved. Perhaps, in certain cases, stewards may have a voice but, by no means, direct authority. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 12:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards don’t have any governing authorities over the governance body of the local wiki. The local community should handle the task of enforcing UCoC, and in case of a systemic failure, U4C should be the final destination. UCoC is a baseline instruction and local communities can opt-in for stricter rules (as the prefer) and enforcement guidelines, build enforcement structures within their local contexts, and local enforcing body that can document proper interpretation of the policy to the local community (considering this doesn’t get less strict than the baseline). However, U4C should be the final body to interpret UCoC and its enforcing guidelines if any questions arise. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that the UCOC Committee will take on the governance roles linked to the UCOC - stewards may be called on to implement some actions decided on by the Committee, but critically won't be taking those actions on their own discretion. We will see as the UCOC itself and the associated process continue to evolve, but my hope is that the governance role of stewards would not be expanded as a result of it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response to the Relations with small wikis question, it would again be limited: stewards are not local admins and should not exercise direct authority over local projects, even to enforce the UCoC. They may, of course, provide advice and feedback, but only with their steward hat off; in other words, it shouldn't get more weight just because they're a steward. Stewards can help uphold local consensus, but must still defer to local active admins if there are any. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting constructive users for a block?

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reported by a Steward to a local admin of the English Wiki (at least this is what he told me) after having made 3 edits with a sock puppet, all valid and undisputed (In my opinion WP:IAR, much more since I learned of the edit that caused IAR to be established). And I was eventually indeffed by that local admin just days after having reverted the edits of an anti-Kurdish editor in a joint operation with an other editor. The disruptive editor who was eventually blocked in that process and I was involved restoring and in sourcing the Kurdish content. He justified the indeff block with those reverting edits (in the the diff above), but this explanation was not accessible at the time of the block. No warning at the talk page about multiple accounts, no discussion, no CU evidence available. In my opinion this was assuming bad faith and then I also assumed bad faith, lied, was eventually unblocked and had a rather successful wikipedia career until I was wondering why I was originally blocked. He answered me a steward reported me and now I am indeffed again. If the steward is still active, I'd be glad if he/she could explain me why s/he reported me and if s/he'd act the same way again. Why is making constructive, undisputed edits worth a report for a block?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad for any reply helping me to understand what was wrong my edits, by non candidates also at my talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question, but i think this is off-topic question for this page as per Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards and is not in purview of steward user group, as non candidate point of view i think enough explanation has been given for justification of block above explanation and some discussions i checked given by you.~aanzx ^✉_© 07:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is a question on an action made by a steward not relevant? I'd like to understand which edit I did raised concerns. No edit I made on main space had to be reverted at the time. What explanation was given to me by a steward? Could you link to it ~aanzx?

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]
@Ajraddatz:, the user wonders what the difference between an RfC and the global ArbCom proposal would be once some of the reforms of the RfC process are done (which should be explicitly specified along a brief rationale for implementing it), as according to them, RfC also shares many of the disadvantages that you cite against implementing a global ArbCom (such as consideration for translation). The user also looks at RfC and thinks that having 3 - 4 of proposals every month is not a case of "the disputes are rare enough that there may not always be work to keep the group engaged". Leaderboard (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in the level of organization required (member selection/election, risk of inactivity, policies/procedures) for an ArbCom-like body compared with improvements to the current RfC process. While there are 3-4 proposals each month, only three that I can remember over the years have ever generated a serious response. Most are just complaints about a block or series of admin actions that do not meet the (albiet arbitrary) threshold to demand action from Meta. My view is that a committee isn't needed to reject 3-4 requests per month as out of scope. That said, this is just my view, and "the user" is very free to disagree with my opinion - to which, as I mentioned, being a steward has no bearing as this is not directly part of the steward toolset. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we should vote for you? Any specific speciality which makes you different from other candidates?--Wowlastic10 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I address this in my candidate statement and in answers to other questions here, but put concisely: I have a lot of relevant experience, I am available to help out, and am especially able to interface in the policy work that stewards do, such as interactions with the WMF and mediating/initiating community proposals related to new technical developments. But I also want to note that steward elections aren't a zero-sum process, multiple candidates can be elected, and the other candidates on the ballot this year are excellent. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajraddatz. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guycn2: Superpes15 just collapsed several of Hanay's questions which were of similar nature to yours. What makes you think it's still acceptable to spam the same political question unrelated to their work as a steward umptillion times over? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000: These are not political questions at all. I couldn't care less about the Stewards' personal political stances. What I do care about is their approach to their role at enforcing core Wikimedia policies and principles when local communities brutally breach them. Today it is the Arabic Wikipedia using their Site Notice platform to advance a unilateral position in a divisive political issue; tomorrow it may be a different wiki abusing various MediaWiki interface messages for personal advertising, and so on.

The question of whether or not Stewards should intervene in such cases is by all means related to their work as stewards. Attempting to silence this issue by "collapsing" it or by using disparaging terminology such as "spamming ... umptillion times over" is not contributory to a legitimate, constructive discussion about Stewards' role at enforcing global policies. Guycn2 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered your question below [23], but just want to point out that there is no global policy on project-wide protests and thus no basis for the stewards to intervene in local project matters (of course such policy could be established via requests for comment). Johannnes89 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I replied below. Guycn2 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this issue intersects with stewardship; this issue is one of content neutrality or percieved neutrality, and that doesn't really fall in the steward purvue. Personally, I would generally prefer that our projects remain politically neutral, regardless of this specific case at arwiki. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important for me to know what stewards think about such a case. I didn't say that it is within the authority of the stewards, but the Wikimedia Foundation, which is within its authority, did nothing. and let the Arabic Wikipedia damage the project. Every steward is an involved Wikipedian, and tomorrow can nominate himself to be on Wikimedia Foundation's board of directors. So it is important to know what he thinks. Hanay (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanay: First of all, not all stewards are male.

Second of all, forcing users to reveal their political stance on something is not within the spirit of Wikimedia, especially as this can have many real-life consequences. It has nothing to do with being a steward. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, how can I tell who is a man or who is a woman if they don't write it on their user page? And that's your problem with this sad story? Are you trying to make me smaller?

"is not within the spirit of Wikimedia"? And what they did in the Arabic Wikipedia is in the soul of Wikipedia? I am a single woman editor. Arabic Wikipedia has 1,227,346 articles, 2,545,094 registered users and 53,769 files and it is the 17th largest edition of Wikipedia by article count, and you have nothimg to say to them? Hanay (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Really, how can I tell who is a man or who is a woman if they don't write it on their user page? " – the solution is simple and that is to use gender-neutral terms instead of defaulting to male-specific pronouns. It's not hugely an issue for me, but it is for many others and without knowing, that should be respected. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, that is delving into politics which stewards aren't obliged to have a stance on. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 Hanay didn't ask the stewards their political opinions, who they are standing with. She asked them what they think about the Arabic Wikipedia editors abusing Wikipedia to spread propaganda. Idoc07 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
arwiki's actions were political and asking stewards what they think about this decision delves into politics. There's nothing else that needs to be said about it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ajraddatz! I am a Wikipedia user and mostly active in Chinese wikipeida (zh.wikipedia.org). Though that I am not even 14 years old, and don't have lots of experience on anti Vandalism or other community work, but I would still like to ask a couple question to you, and please answer me if you can:

fist of all, in many language versions of Wikipedia, losing lots of old users is a serious issue.How would you do to help to change the problem of losing new users and not enough people?

Secondly, how would you use you right to help the functioning and improve of Wikipedia if you get elected?

Thirdly, Wikipedians using VPN and Tor network for browsing safety is not a crime, but we still blocked them to edit. Except of giving everybody a IP_block_exempt, what should we do to get a balance between treating tor and VPN user fair and prevent people using those to Vandalizing?

Lastly, What can you do on solving argues on vandalism in political topic? People argue about those articles, and many political topic wikipeida pages had bias issues. Bias is not really a type of vandalism and the editor might don't mean to do it on purpose, but still, it is bad and made me and other people need to take long time to fix them. What can you help on that, or what should we do?FK8438 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albertoleoncio

Are you from Portugal or Brazil?--Fenikals (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Brazil. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan is to deal with LTAs, but you've only edited SRG once. I can look past a lack of xwiki given your clearly stated use case, but where are all these LTAs you know of that aren't getting locked? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This specific case at SRG was a little different because it was an LTA that was affecting pt.wikisource, but at pt.wiki (where I am a checkuser) lock requests are just forwarded directly to one of our team members who is also a steward. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 03:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertoleoncio. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How would you resolve an issue like this Requests for comment/Bureaucrat abuse of vote in Belarusian Classical Wikipedia? Best wishes,--W (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there!

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]

@EPIC:, briefly give some ways of "improve the current process of Requests for comment in a way that would attract a larger amount of participators". The user also wonders what the difference between an RfC and the global ArbCom proposal would be once these changes are implemented, as according to them, RfC also shares many of the disadvantages that you cite against implementing a global ArbCom. Leaderboard (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, clear criteria should be established for RfCs, including when they should and should not be opened. There should be clear evidence provided that there has been an attempt to locally resolve the issues, but has been a failure to do so. The RfC page should also be visibly linked to the community, both on a page such as the local village pump, to ensure participation from the involved parties/community, as well to the global community for recieving an external review from uninvolved users to get different perspectives on what has actually happened to cause the dispute.

Additionally, I can of course understand that Requests for comment and the idea of a global arbitration committee both have their advantages and disadvantages. But, it should be kept in mind that disputes should at first hand be resolved by discussion of the community, which is what Requests for comment is meant for, specifically in cases where there has been a failure to locally resolve the issues. The only cases where an arbitration committee should be actioning is as a last resort when there has been attempts to resolve the issue by discussions, but without any luck. However, the majority of disputes taken to RfC are closed either as resolved by the involved parties or as inactive. Considering this, there would not be many cases where a global ArbCom would prove their use or need, as cases where they would be actioning are so rarely occuring that instituting a global arbitration committee would not have much effect. Discussions regarding further actions, such as de-sysops, should be locally discussed and are outside the scope of RfC. In conclusion, a global ArbCom has its advantages and I have understanding of arguments in support of it. However, building a community consensus is still to be preferred and it is what the stewards should abide by in controversial cases. Now, I cannot really speak about committees from experience, as my home wiki (svwiki) does not have an arbitration committee and has not had one since 2007, but my impression is that dispute resolution has worked fine for svwiki even without a committee, and most of those cases has been taken to the local page for discussing such issues (sv:WP:KAW). EPIC (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently applied for OS (Oversight) permission on your home wiki svwp. You withdraw your application after a number of votes against you. The main reason for the votes against you where two. First if svwp should have users with OS permission at all, and the second was more personal against you. Could you reflect on the votes that was against you personally, and how that lack of trust would affect you as a Steward? -- Tegel _(Talk) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tegel. Here's the situation, from start to end. In the past couple of months, svwiki has had a rapidly increasing number of requests for oversight, as can be seen here. This resulted in the idea of appointing local oversighters, an idea which recieved support from multiple community members, who had expressed that quick assistance and knowledge of the Swedish language has been needed multiple times. Therefore, a while ago, me and an admin colleague at svwiki went for it, after encouragement from other community members. Had this not been supported, I never would have considered bringing myself to volunteer in the first place, and one of the main reasons for the candidacy was because the other colleague was nominated and per policy another candidate was needed.

In the beginning, both of us only got support votes (about 23-24 each). Later, the concerns about what happened the last time svwiki had local oversighters were addressed. For those who are not familiar with what happened, in 2017, the svwiki oversighters recieved a request from an article subject to remove their birth date from the article about them, which resulted in the oversighters suppressing large parts of the article history to hide this information. This was criticized by the local community, and a few months later one of the oversighters were not reelected in the annual reelections, automatically resulting in removal of the other local OS per policy as the local community was not able to find a user to take their spot.

After this, I decided to withdraw my candidacy, because of 1) the past OS incident and 2) even if the candidacy would have been successful, I would not have felt ready to serve as OS considering the past debate about oversight, and I wanted to respect some of the opinions of local community members. Now, the concerns which were raised more for me personally (about two I think) was mainly because they wanted someone more senior to run for the permissions. All of the votes I received, before withdrawing, were still in support of me as an administrator, and I have not received anything else which has indicated a lack of trust for me, neither as a Wikimedian nor as a Steward. Should there be anything I need to be aware of, my talk page is open and has always been, and any user is free to leave me feedback. I am very appreciative of it - it is what makes me aware of my mistakes and how I can improve myself. Regarding my usage of the CU/OS tools as a steward, I will also refer to my answer provided further above about how I would go on with using them if elected a steward (see #CheckUser and Oversight tool), as well as some of the other explanations given by me. So, hopefully they are satisfying, but don't hesitate to ask further questions if needed. EPIC (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EPIC. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89

@JJMC89: You have recently departed from OC group. Without revealing any sensitive information, can you tell if you have ideas to improve that group (and what are they)? Why are you leaving it? Thanks.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 22:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the OC because I needed a change. Working on Ombuds cases became less rewarding and more frustrating. The most frustrating aspects for me are solely within the WMF's control and substantially worsened during my tenure. (I will not discuss these here.) Below I'll cover a couple of items but leave others for a later write-up.
- The appointment process has led to Ombuds that don't understand (and don't learn) the relevant policies that are in the OC's scope and/or don't do any substantial work on cases. In my second term, when I was an advisor who should have been doing less work, I did more work compared to either of my other two terms. At the end of that term, I requested that certain members not be appointed again for various reasons, including not sharing the caseload. There should be a way to replace Ombds who do not share the caseload or whose presence on the committee is otherwise not beneficial before the end of their term. (I'm using "beneficial" here to avoid discussing something that shouldn't be public.) With multi-year terms being used since 2023, this can be even more of a problem.
- There is no onboarding for (new) Ombuds. I've suggested it previously, but, as of 2023, there still wasn't any. The text-only meeting at the beginning of each year, which mostly serves to "meet" other members, is insufficient. I think a voiced presentation would be ideal. I think this may have helped members who didn't share the caseload because they didn't fully understand how the committee works (internal procedures, etc.).
— JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JJMC89. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannnes89

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]
Hi I agree that the RfC process for resolving global disputes is not flawless. Most RfC listed at Requests for comment have low participation, oftentimes inexperienced users struggle with properly creating the RfC or following other requirements such as the notification of involved parties/communities per Requests for comment/Policy.

Generally speaking I believe that most issues should be resolved within local communities. Only if there is systematic failure of local community processes or in case of issues affecting a multitude of projects, an RfC (or any other proposed dispute solution process) is useful.

While I can understand the idea of using stewards as some kind of global ArbCom, that's not what they were elected for (and in some cases probably not what they are qualified for?).

If I understand wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter correctly, the Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee will be something like a global ArbCom in case of systemic failure by local groups to enforce the wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct, which should resolve some of the issues currently being discussed via RfC. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannnes89:, how about if it is assumed that suitably qualified users are selected for the "global ArbCom", with stewards given the power to implement the decision of the ArbCom? Leaderboard (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not explicitly stated in the U4C charter, I would assume that implementing the U4Cs decision would be delegated to the stewards (just like stewards are responsible for closing global RfC if steward actions or changes to global policies are required per Requests for comment/Policy#Closure of RFCs). I don't see major issues with that, although I want to point out again, that I strongly believe in the principle of decentralization: A conflict should be resolved at the most relevant local level possible and both global RfC or a future U4C should only by used in case of systematic failure of local self-governance. Johannnes89 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ajraddatz above. This is not really a Steward related issue but instead a question if projects should generally get involved in political matters. I've usually taken the position, that it's ok to get involved in political matters if these are closely related to our movement (e.g. advocating against laws limiting free speech, which is vital for the very existence of our projects [24][25][26]). But I understand the criticism that it's hard to draw a line which topics are closely related to our movement and which are not, so it might indeed be better to just always remain politically neutral.

Concerning the specific action of arwiki: I think the forced logout script was a really bad idea and was rightfully disabled following Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2023-12#Arabic Wikipedia protest forced logout script. The general questions concerning the arwiki protest should be discussed at Requests for comment/Violating the Neutral point of view in Arabic Wiki. Personally I don't believe this is a matter as closely related to the Wikimedia movement as the free speech protests mentioned above, but again it might be easier to just advocate for all projects to always remaining politically neutral if one disapproves of such a protest. --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. User is not eligible to vote. --Superpes15 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously performed a speedy close of several RfCs due to the creator not having 250 edits. Abusive admins are more likely to target new users than established community members who would actually have some recourse. What recourse is available to such low contribution count members? Binarycat32 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are likely referring too those identical RfC [27][28] (I'm not aware of any other RfC closures performed by me). I closed both of them per Requests for comment/Policy#Initiating an RFC. The RfC policy was established by a global RfC itself. If you think these rules are wrong, you would need to initiate another RfC. I don't see a major problem with these rules. If there is systematic administrator abuse, there are surely other community members meeting the 250 edits threshold who can set up the RfC (frwiki has thousands of active editors who are eligible as RfC initiators and editors from other projects can also start the RfC when observing any issues at other projects). --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannnes89. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered a similar question which should answer most of your question as well [29]. In addition I want to point out again, that it's not up to the stewards to intervene in such matter, as they have no governing authority over local projects and only act on community consensus. You would need to discuss this with the WMF or at the RfC linked in my other answer.

And like I said in the other answer: I've usually taken the position that WMF projects can express a political stance regarding matters closely related to our movement's mission (like the linked examples from enwiki, itwiki and dewiki), although I understand that it's probably better to stay neutral in all cases, in order to avoid controversial actions such as the one from arwiki. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannnes89: First of all, I would like to thank you for being the only candidate so far who bothered to give a response to this question rather than blindly dismissing it as "political".

As for WMF projects expressing political stances regarding matters that directly affect them, this is a whole different story and I agree that it should be allowed. The thing is, it's really not hard to determine whether a political stance is related to the movement's mission or not. For example, I recall that back in 2012 enwiki was darkened as a protest against a proposed U.S. federal bill that, if had passed into law, would have directly harmed the encyclopedia. There is little doubt that such a move should be allowed despite involving a somewhat political matter. On the other hand, what arwiki has done had absolutely nothing to do with advancing or protecting the project's mission. From the end of your response I infer that you share the view that arwiki's move was at least inappropriate (even if not prohibited), and I appreciate that.

I do have some misunderstandings about your apparent holding that the global community has no authority to override local community consensus when the latter seeks to modify the Site's interface to promote a political agenda unrelated to the matters of the project (and of course, I may have gotten your position wrong). You are obviously more familiar than me with Wikimedia's global rules and etiquette; is there really no regulation regarding the misuse of system messages such as MediaWiki:Sitenotice? Do the global rules allow local projects, through merely community consensus, to promote whichever ideology they desire using the Site's most prominent header? Guycn2 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find most global policies (either established by the global community or by the WMF) at Meta:Policies and guidelines and wmf:Policy:Main (or take a look at m:Category:Global policies and wmf:Category:Policies).

There is a policy for CentralNotice banners requiring discussion with the global community, e.g. regarding project-wide protest or advocacy initiatives -> CentralNotice/Usage guidelines#Approval. But that's because CentralNotice is a global tool while Sitenotice is a local tool -> generally local rules apply.

I'm not aware of any specific global policies concerning Sitenotice, not even local policies (e.g. en:WP:Software notices states „This help page is a how-to guide (...) It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting“).

There is a WMF policy covering the use of „Wikimedia website assets - such as banner space or a site black-out - to promote a policy or political cause“ -> Legal/Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline. But this policy only covers WMF staff members and is explicitly non-binding for community members.

There are some global policies which of course affect the content of local sitenotices, e.g. the content needs to be in line with the wmf:Universal Code of Conduct. And there is a cross-project policy Neutral point of view, but it is stating that this „policy exists on all languages of projects that have adopted it, but the details of the policy vary significantly between projects and between different languages in those projects“. Additionally the NPOV policy is only referring to encyclopedic articles, not to other Wikipedia content (such as sitenotices).

Of course the global community can create global rules regarding political protests or sitenotice usage in general via requests for comment. Similarly the global community can also discuss issues with the actions of a specific wiki via RfC (there currently is one regarding arwiki), especially if there are signs of systematic failure of local community procedures. If the global community finds consensus in either general RfC related sitenotices / political protests or a RfC specifically related to the arwiki sitcenotice, Stewards can implement such a consensus. But without consensus there is no basis for the stewards to act per stewards policy.

Regarding your statement „really not hard to determine whether a political stance is related to the movement's mission or not“: Personally I agree, that something like en:SOPA#Wikipedia blackout is much different from the arwiki sitenotice. But as far as I understood, the arwiki community argued that the Hamas-Israel war is affecting both readers and editors living in Gaza and therefore this is related to our movement. I'm no longer sure where I read that argument and if I understood it correctly (bear in mind that I don't speak the projects language and need to rely on translator tools), but such an argument makes it suddenly much more difficult to draw a clear line as to what is related to our movement's mission and what's not.

By the way: ukwiki had a sitenotice regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, linking to a page on how to help and get help during wartime for more than a year. Now I don't want to compare ukwiki and arwiki, because the style & language of those sitenotices differs a lot and the conflicts are also much different, but I guess they also applied the argument that many readers and editors are affected by the war which makes this an issue affecting ukwiki. In my perspective the ukwiki sitenotice illustrates how it's not just a question of „is it allowed to take a political position“ but also a question of the content chosen for such a sitenotice.

TLDR: I don't see how the arwiki sitenotice is violating local/global rules. It is up to the local/global community to create such local/global rules if they want to prohibit political protests in general or limit them to protests linked very closely to our movements mission. And it's up to the local/global community to create rules regarding style and wording of such protest sitenotices. As long as no such rules exist, there is no basis for the stewards to act. Johannnes89 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- I can see that the idea for a global (or at least, cross-wiki) Arbitration Committee has been entertained in the past, and even suggested in the UCoC Enforcement guidelines.
  My own perspective, as a predominantly enwiki-oriented user, is that an RFC—compared to an arbitration proceeding—is significantly less onerous than an ArbCom case. An RFC is, at its core, a single discussion page intended to solicit comments and feedback from other editors in order to find a consensus for a decision. Stewards simply uphold the consensus reached by the RFC. By comparison, ArbCom is typically an avenue of last resort, and involves multiple phases of requesting statements from involved parties, gathering evidence, proposing decisions, and then ultimately a panel of select users voting to implement binding decisions. This is already a tedious and unfun process on enwiki alone, and would be far more complex if it involved multiple projects and context beyond that of a single project. A global ArbCom would also be more biased towards the projects that the arbitrators primarily edited, and since ArbCom decisions are typically binding, this may cause increased tensions if smaller projects feel that larger projects are having indirect control over their affairs through a global ArbCom. The advantage of an RFC is that a more diverse variety of perspectives can be considered, something that could be missed by a small group with the authority to enact binding decisions. Lastly, stewards are not meant to override consensus, and so would be unsuited to sit on a global ArbCom, as ArbComs may need to make decisions that override community consensus (especially if they deal with evidence or information that cannot be made public). A different group of users would need to be elected to a global ArbCom, but this would again bias the global ArbCom in favour of whichever projects those users edited (as mentioned previously).
  The current RFC process may seem less structured than a formal ArbCom proceeding and may thus feel more confusing. However, the actual process of getting a consensus from a diverse range of editors rather than a small elect group is better for global decisions. If the user felt that RFC was too onerous, it may be better to find ways to improve RFC, rather than create a new process. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello K6ka. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 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]
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) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My viewpoint is that one of the best things about Wikipedia is that we can all have opinions and they should be respected. I think there's a couple of things here. RFCs and other such solutions can be quite daunting. Even opening a talk page message can be quite daunting to some users. Is creating an RfC too confusing? I don't think that having an ArbCom style case would be any less so. Personally, I'd see for the RfC process to be simpler/more automated, rather than create a global arbcom.

With an RfC, a dispute that can have a wider range of opinions is useful to gain a consensus. Changing that to one where a handful of users have more buy-in is more of a different proposition. Both have benefits. An ArbCom style process can be helpful where an RfC either doesn't get enough buy-in, or is derailed. However, for a global audience, I would much rather that we got a resolution from within the local community. I can understand the want for Stewards, or some other trusted editors to get involved with disputes, it should always be the last resort. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lee. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melos

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) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting, as always, opinions other than my own, I think that the current process does not seem onerous to me as it allows more views to be gathered from the Wikimedian community, which has several "sides". Stewards read the consensus and apply the community decisions, trying to do this in the best possible way. Melos (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hola. Creo que los cargos de Wikipedia en general, y los de Wikimedia en particular, no deberían usar pseudónimos. Creo firmemente que las actividades y escritos que tienen carácter público deberían firmarse con el nombre original, para que queden claras las responsabilidades, tanto en sus aspectos positivos como negativos. ¿Se podría implantar en Wikipedia la identificación de los cargos y evitar los pseudónimos?. Un cordial saludo: --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I think the anonymity of the nickname is important. While I have the utmost trust in the community, it cannot be ruled out that a stalker with real-life implications will come along at some point. It is another thing to provide the identity of functionaries to WMF. --Melos (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melos. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Last year, you ran for steward unsuccessfully. Your statement from last year is the exact same, word-for-word, as this year, except you removed that you were a VRT member. What has changed from last year to address the concerns people had about your candidacy? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Vermont! Nice to see you again. I didn't get selected last year mainly because I didn't answer the questions well. I still believe I can contribute, and that's why I'm running again. Turkmen ^talk 06:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is renaming as a Steward different from performing it as a global renamer, and how will the Steward tool make this job easier? —MdsShakil (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, the steward has account deletion, merging, hiding and suppress functions. Are you talking about their help during the rename? Did I understand you correctly?--Turkmen ^talk 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Something like that. As you mentioned in your statement, renaming as a Steward will be easy for you. Here, my question is to clarify the differences between renaming as a Steward and performing it as a global renamer, as well as how you will use the Steward user rights to make this job easier. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @MdsShakil Sorry there are too many comments here and I just saw your reply. I made this note in my statement for the reasons I enumerated in my first reply to you. As a result, there is no other difference in naming. I can help with these tools as per steward policy. Turkmen ^talk 09:17, 26 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]
Hi, the comment about me trying 5 times is incorrect. However, I have opened a discussion about it several times. The reasons for this were valid reasons related to the user's participation in voting with sockpuppet, insulting users, and fraud in voting. Also, in the later periods, his status was discussed and the Wikimedia Foundation warned him for disseminating personal information of users. Turkmen ^talk 09:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Turkmen:, how (if any) are you involved in the az.wiki conflict? Note that by "involved" this doesn't necessarily imply that you've made a mistake or are to be blamed; this is a broad and general question given that we've had multiple (not all well-formed) RfCs about that wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Struck as a violation of the 2 question limit. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on how Turkic Wikimedians are represented within the broader Wikimedia umbrella, and what role should the Stewards play in assisting smaller Turkic-language Wikimedia projects (such as the Uyghur and Kyrgyz Wikipedias) in providing a accessible and free knowledge? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turkmen, I would like to learn about your strategy and prior actions about dealing with articles violating WP:NPOV in various projects. For instance, here is a sentence from a potentially biased article on your home wiki, Azerbaijani Wikipedia: "Birinci Dünya Müharibəsi zamanı Osmanlı vətəndaşı olan ermənilər dövlətlərini yəni, Osmanlını arxadan vurmuşlar." English translation: "During the First World War, Armenians who were citizens of the Ottoman Empire stabbed their state, namely the Ottomans, in the back." Thank you and good luck! --TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a question for Turkmen, but just for the record: I removed the sentence you are quoting [30], it was inserted a couple of months ago (az:Special:Diff/6931517). Johannnes89 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turkmen. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 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]
Thank you for your question. Apologies for the delay in response; I was busy with some events (bnwiki's 20th-anniversary celebration, WMBD's AGM..).

I agree with the user that the current process for resolving global disputes, involving using an RFC or a global ban proposal, may be somewhat challenging, especially for new users. Not having enough participation also feels frustrating for them. My viewpoint on the user's thought is that a global ArbCom may not be a better alternative to the current process.

English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is based on a local context. However, this model may not work globally due to linguistic and cultural diversity, leading to contentious decisions. For the same reason, the committee may have faced complexity in making a decision. Considering these, the RFC method is somewhat advantageous because in this method, from users who understand the local language, culture, and situation to experienced users of other projects, everyone can participate and reach a consensus.

Also, the role of stewards differs from that of ArbCom, and dispute resolution was never part of stewards' duties, nor were they elected for this purpose.

Therefore, I think that the current process for resolving disputes, while not perfect, allows for more flexibility and adaptability to different situations. Improving the existing process, rather than creating a new one, may be a more feasible and effective way of dealing with such disputes, in my humble opinion. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yahya:, "dispute resolution was never part of stewards' duties, nor were they elected for this purpose" - assume that "dispute resolution" is (in a theoretical sense) included in the stewards toolkit. Would this affect your answer? Leaderboard (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Struck as a violation of the 2 questions limit. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: Please refrain from asking candidates questions that are virtually unanswerable. The candidate has already expressed their opinion that steward duties do not include dispute resolution, and it is unfair to expect them to write an answer based on an assumption they disagree with. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yahya. May I ask, what's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~aanzx

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.
- 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) 12:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a candidate A wants to become a global renamer I would look for language proficiency and crosswiki activity of the candidate.

If a candidate B wants to become a global interface editor I would assess on crosswiki userrights to suggest their technical expertise and reason provided to requesting rights.

If a candidate C wants to become a global sysop I would look for crosswiki experience in reverting vandalism and should be active member with advanced userrights in more communities.

If a candidate D wants to get GIPBE (global IP block exemption) I assess their reason for requesting, should probably have good standing.

Collapsed as a violation of the 2 questions limit. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@~aanzx: Consider a monolingual sysop from the English Wikipedia applying to be a global renamer. Would you simply oppose such candidates? Leaderboard (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah support for sure since enwiki has more number rename requests, would not be a opposition from me, in my answer above i meant by language knowledge and crosswiki activity I meant some languages doesn't have coverage for rename requests, even a small community can have renamer representing them, in my experience some small languages doesn't get equal enough support when they apply for that role. Also understandable for opposition from user commenting considering sensitivity of rename tool. ~aanzx ^✉_© 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

candidate B has 355 edits in 3 month and its clear from his public work that he is a very good programmer. Would you support this candidate? 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not clearly oppose, but to support them candidate B must provide clear reason how they are using interface admin role, if i find that request feasible to add support i would support as interface request are issued for temporarily and would look over their contribution after they obtained user rights.~aanzx ^✉_© 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't exactly explain why you wanted to be a steward in your nomination. Considering your limited x-wiki experience (being a sysop primarily only on Kannada projects), it's a big jump to skip from straight to no global perms (GR/GS/rename) straight to steward. How do you intend to use your steward tools and how will they benefit the Wikimedia community (or a smaller niche subset of wikis for that matter)? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question and reminder, I have updated statement page, I have been more active on kannada language projects which i am familiar with, but main i am applying is also to represent other Indic languages as I see limited representation from that set of languages in steward user group, there are already some users on both GS & renamers in who represent Indic languages, my application is a major skip from no global permission I am experienced in some steward tools and handling spam reports on off-wikimedia site this is reason why I chose apply for steward user group.~aanzx ^✉_© 01:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(not a question for administrative purposes) FWIW, fandom wikis and moderation on such wikis are usually irrelevant when it comes to WM roles. Just putting it in there before a potential train wreck. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know moderation on Wikimedia is lot different from other platforms, I just meant I have experience with tools such as checkuser and handling spam on Fandom since you mentioned that i could have tried applying for GS & GR before applying for steward role. ~aanzx ^✉_© 08:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed question. Inappropriate usage of questions space. For the ElectCom --Superpes15 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. During the Iron Swords War, on December 23, 2023, the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia was "darkened" and all articles were blocked for editing for 24 hours in support of the residents of Gaza and they called Israel to "stop the genocide in Gaza", and the site's logo was painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This is an action that, in the opinion of many, turned the Arab Wikipedia into a political one, and it is contrary to the spirit of the project. What do you think about this action of the Arabic Wikipedia? see The Arabic Wikipedia, blacked out for Gaza identification (Israel-Gaza war 23 Decmber 2023 Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello aanzx. May I ask, What's your position on the Arabic Wikipedia's recent decision to display misleading anti-Israel propaganda at the top of every wiki page (through a site notice), as well as its decision to change the Site logo to the Palestinian flag, all while not even softly condemning Hamas' October massacre? I believe, like many, that the strength of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects lays in their commitment to neutrality and impartiality. Not taking sides is a core Wikipedia principle that must be strictly enforced by every single WMF project, and the extent to which it should be respected must not be left within the discretion of individual local communities.

Many editors (and many WMF donors, too) were absolutely dismayed by the Arabic Wikipedia's unprecedented move, and we were just as dismayed by the Stewards' refusal to enforce one of Wikipedia's most essential backbones – that is neutrality on contentious topics. We believe that arwiki's decision to spread antisemitic agenda at the top of every wiki page is a blatant abuse of the Site Notice purpose, akin to, say, using it to endorse a specific candidate in an ongoing, contentious presidential election. We see the Stewards' unwillingness to intervene as a slap in the face to the thousands of Jewish people who contribute to WMF projects every day.

My question to you is straightforward: Do you believe local communities on WMF wikis should be free to use the interface page MediaWiki:Sitenotice or change their Site logo to promote controversial political agenda that undoubtedly offends many of its readers and editors? Any direct response, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Guycn2 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]