Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Stewards/Elections 2025/Questions

< Stewards | Elections 2025
Notice

Voting is currently open for eligible voters until 27 February 2025, 14:00 (UTC).

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

edit

Emergency OS

edit

A user approaches you and requests suppression on a wiki with local oversighters. They state that they have not contacted the local oversighters beforehand as they claim it is an emergency. How would you respond to a request like this one, and in what circumstances would you process such a request without attempting to contact the local oversighters yourself? EPIC (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although stewards are able to use the oversight tool in emergencies, all efforts must be made to allow a local project to handle the urgent request — in this case, I would first attempt to contact the local oversighters of the project in question. If unable to do so, I would first alert other stewards to the situation for discussion (they may have a better understanding of the project and/or have opinions on emergency action), make the suppression, and then inform the local project's oversighters to my action. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the request is a real emergency, a steward can perform the oversight action. However, before doing so, I will attempt to contact the local OS team and consult with other stewards. If the request is not an emergency, I will forward it to the local OS team for handling. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd first check what the emergency is - if it does not appear to be one, I'll defer this to the local wiki. Assuming that it appears to be an emergency that requires immediate oversight, I would then attempt to check with the local OS team and see if they'll be around - if not, I'll do the oversight and let the OS team know so that they can check when they're able to. One thing worth noting is that if I'm "on the fence" as to whether I should oversight, I would do it - after all, unlike CheckUser, this can be easily reversed should it turn out that I was wrong. If necessary and practical, I'll also check with the other stewards. Leaderboard (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two factors to assess here: whether the nature of the content in question constitutes a real emergency and to what extent (as a slightly extreme example, doxxing information about an individual that could immediately put them at risk, compared to a libelous statement from an LTA), and also the numbers and activity of the local OS team. If the request was a real emergency that could not realistically be handled locally in a timely manner, I would proceed, suppress and notify the local OS team. If it is not an emergency I would forward it to the local OS team first and after some time follow up and discuss with the other stewards if it still needs to be handled. A notable exception where I would be fairly more liberal handling the request is the Ukrainian Wikipedia, where community consensus reflected in the local policy exists, that allows stewards to handle any request, emergency or not. In that case I would proceed with the request. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I'd discern whether the situation is so urgent that it requires an immediate response. I'd try to contact the local OS through various channels. If unsuccessful, I'd consult with other stewards, make suppresssion and inform the local OS. If the situation is not real emergency and can wait, I'd follow stewards policy by forwarding the request to the local OS team and allowing them time to respond. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would evaluate whether the request really constitutes an emergency, and relay it to local oversighters if that is not the case (aggressive doxxing would be an emergency, while a random email address with no context most probably would not). If it is, a quick attempt to contact the local team should still be made, as wikis with local oversighters usually try to have enough to cover most times of the day; in the meantime, after a brief discussion with other stewards, if there is no response, I (or a fellow steward) would proceed with the action, after which the local team should be informed. In extreme cases, like when many wikis with local oversighters are affected, it can also be reasonable to act first and discuss (with the individual wikis) later, since "better safe than sorry" is generally a justified attitude with oversight of personal information. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     19:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here it depends on the context and a balance must be struck between the protection of persons and the project standards. I would first look at what needs to be done and see if the local oversighters are active. Then I would decide further if the local oversighters are only active every 4-5 days and an fast supress is necessary, I would do it. if the local oversighters are active, an intervention by stewards would not be justified. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will ultimately depend on the severity and immediacy of the request. For most emergencies, I would make at least one quick attempt to contact local oversighters first (e.g., checking recent contributions of active oversighters, IRC channels) - if unavailable for a reasonable amount of time, I would proceed with the suppression. However, in truly severe cases (where emergency@ would likely need to be involved), I would suppress immediately while simultaneously notifying both local oversighters and other stewards, as potentially even minutes could be critical in preventing harm. In all cases, I would remain available for discussion and follow any existing local policies (e.g. I know dewiki requires you to publicly log suppressions). XXBlackburnXx (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, oversight actions should be performed by the local team as much as possible. The stewards’ ability to perform emergency suppressions should be used very carefully. When such a request is received, two factors need to be considered: the severity of the request (does the request constitute an actual emergency, which is likely defined as something that could immediately harm someone in real life…, to be judged on a case-by-case basis) and the availability of local oversighters. If it’s not an emergency, I would leave the request to the local OS team. Only if there is an actual emergency, and where the request would likely not be handled within a reasonable time (another judgement to be based on edit history, IRC, Discord of the local team…), I would proceed with the suppression. If there are indications that local suppressors could take the request up in a reasonable time, I’d first contact them (or ask the requesting user to contact them) and only proceed after some time (time span to be determined case by case again). Afterwards, I’d notify local community and the other stewards of the action (and likely also emergency@). --Daniuu (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homewiki

edit

Which wiki(s) is/are considered as your homewiki? --Stïnger （会話） 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Nonpublic information

edit

Have you read or signed the WMF Confidentiality Agreement for Nonpublic Information? Have you ever notified WMF of a violation of the agreement? Would you notify WMF when other users do so? e 11:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Question removed by the ElectCom, questioner is not an eligible voter. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C

edit

I am curious about thoughts on how the U4C and stewards should work together as the U4C is a new body. The stewards have final decision making authority, as a high level decision making body, for areas that are in their remit. But also from talking to some stewards throughout the process that led to the U4C it seemed like there were things they felt like they were asked to do and couldn't that maybe the U4C can. So I'm curious what you see as Stewards work, what is U4C work, where there is overlap, and how each group may need to assist the other. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the question. The remit for the U4C and stewards appear to be parallel in nature for the most part — stewards are primarily tasked with enacting community consensus in a range of actions (e.g. the granting/removal of permissions, the global locking of accounts, etc.), and to a lesser extent, (global) anti-abuse actions. The U4C however has the formal remit of ensuring a consistent implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct through hearing complaints, investigating their substance and providing remedies where appropriate (amongst other duties). I would imagine that committee members and stewards would need to work together on an ad-hoc basis during some investigation/enforcement actions, and would be keen to hear more as to how we could further support this important work. I am certainly aware of, from my previous terms as a steward, the pressure sometimes placed on the stewards to act as a "global arbitration committee" — I am glad of the existence of the U4C to help relieve this pressure somewhat. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards are users with full access to the wiki interface across all public Wikimedia wikis. They have the technical capability to manage all local and global user rights, modify the status and names of global accounts, and impose or lift global blocks. Their responsibilities include technical and high-level on-wiki tasks, such as handling emergencies, managing rights at both local and global levels, and combating cross-wiki vandalism. Meanwhile, the U4C is dedicated to ensuring the equitable and consistent implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct.
Stewards are not arbitrators or mediators, meaning they cannot directly resolve conflicts within a project. The primary method for addressing such issues has been through a RFC, which is often a lengthy and, in some cases, inefficient process. Many conflicts within community projects, particularly smaller ones, involve administrator abuse or behavioral issues. However, stewards cannot take direct action in these cases without an RFC.
With the introduction of the U4C, it is now possible to investigate instances of abuse more effectively. Stewards can take action based on U4C recommendations, where they can. Additionally, the U4C can leverage stewards' perspectives and comments during investigations, ensuring a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing these issues. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • U4C is a fairly new body as you said, and the potential best interactions/relationship still need to be determined as the body evolves and more cases come in; to that direction I would love to hear the perspectives of the already serving members as well. When it comes to my views on the matter:
Stewards are here to enact community consensus globally, as well as locally when there's no appropriate local body/person or required by the policy (for example, granting and revoking user rights, implementing certain other changes when required, and so on), as well as handle global anti-abuse (ie global (b)locks/LWCU) as well as assist local communities in that direction, for example with SRCU, or handling compromised or clearly rogue sysop accounts (the latter especially for most wikis were bureaucrats cannot carry out desysops) and so on.
U4C on the other hand is a body resposible for the "consistent and equal implementation of the UCoC", by handling relevant complaints, providing an interpretation if required, carrying out relevant investigations and providing resources to the community.
The remit of Stewards and U4C is substantially different. In fact U4C covers a previous large gap, as in the past stewards may had been asked to intervene, as local disputes involving behaviours that can be UCoC violations etc. The work of these two groups should in a way compliment eachother. There may of course be the need for stewards to assist with the enforcement of some U4C decisions when required (for example implementing a desysop decision) or in some complex cases assistance in the investigation may be required (A theoretical scenario is an individual engaging in sockpuppetry to commit a UCoC violation where other irrelevant users may also be involved).
I think that overall open communication channels and feedback will be required to ensure smooth collaboration when there's an intersection in remits. I personally think it's beneficial that a couple of stewards are members of the U4C so that both groups can have easier access to eachother's perspective. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards do not have authoritative control over projects but work to implement community consensus especially in cases where this isn't possible locally. They perform technical functions such as granting and revoking advanced (global/local) user rights, blocking global accounts and dealing with vandalism between wikis. On the other hand, the U4C enfoces the Universal Code of Conduct by ensuring that all projects uniformly implement it and deals with its violations .
These two bodies can complement each other by filling gaps in their sometimes overlapping competencies. For example, stewards can support the U4C by implementing some of their decisions such as revoking advanced rights (in the case of UCoC violations) or dealing with difficult and uncommon cases, for instance abuses in various projects involving multiple accounts. They can then use the technical knowledge of stewards and the procedural approach of U4C. Such mutual support and flow of information between these two groups is, in my opinion, much needed for both to function well. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pretty common question would be someone saying "Admin X blocked me unfairly, please unblock me" or a similar variant. In the past (as expected) stewards wouldn't be able to help (unless things such as wheel-warring happened), and the only options would be (i) RfC, which rarely tends to be of any use other than for issuing global bans, or (ii) WMF T&S (Trust and Safety) taking action where necessary. The U4C changes this - now stewards can refer the user to U4C and the user can raise a complaint with U4C if the alleged action violates the UC4C. This helps all sides - stewards don't have to consider requests they cannot fulfil, and the user does not feel like there's nothing they can do. On the other hand, the role of stewards hasn't changed otherwise - other than implementing U4C decisions, stewards continue to handle routine cross-wiki antivandalism, CheckUser/Oversight on wikis without one or in emergencies, handling right requests from wikis that don't have a bureaucrat, etc. Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since stewards are not not arbitrators or mediators according to the Stewards policy, they should not be responsible for high level decision making in global issues – which from my understanding is the reason for the U4C being created in the first place. So just as with global RFCs, where the function of the stewards is to assess and enact the consensus reached in the community discussion, "controversial" decisions should be taken by the U4C, and I don't think any "overloading" of the steward role with responsibilities related to such decisionmaking is appropriate. There could, however, be a designated member or group of people for communication between the bodies, like the steward observer at the ombuds, as stewards are generally users who have accumulated vast cross-wiki experience that could be beneficial to share between the teams. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     21:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 can I ask a clarifying question: do you think under the Enforcement Guidelines and Charter, the U4C could choose to hear an appeal from a globally locked account because the Stewards aren't a high level decision making body? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards act on behalf of the community and do not act independently. Except in clear cases. (U4C makes decisions Stewards only makes technical actions.)--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards should act as implementers of U4C decisions when technical action is required (like removing permissions or implementing blocks), similar to how they enact other forms of community consensus. While stewards focus on technical tasks like managing user rights, U4C investigates and adjudicates UCoC violations. When U4C rulings need technical implementation, stewards execute these decisions while U4C maintains decision-making authority. This thankfully benefits both groups: stewards can refer behavioral complaints to the U4C, relieving them of responsibilities beyond their remit, while the U4C can rely on stewards' technical contributions for enforcement. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stewards and U4C have different functions. Stewards are, quoting Stewards, a global group of users who have full access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, with the ability to grant all user rights (global and local). They are, as explicitly mentioned here also not arbitrators or mediators. On the other hand, the U4C is tasked with enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). They hear complaints related to the UCoC, investigate them, and provide resources and solutions for those conflicts (and could as such also take some workload from the stews). By definition, these two bodies are thus rather different. However, I would expect them to work together when they need a technical implementation of one of their resolutions. In addition, I see possibilities for synergy (joint discussions…) between both bodies. Since the U4C is still a relatively new body, this synergy still needs to grow organically (as with all new entities, like the steward observer on the Ombuds Commission). --Daniuu (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civility policy

edit

Do you agree Civility, is the fundamental and most important policy that should be prioritized in Wikimedia? Regardless of a user's past contributions, failing to adhere to this policy poses a significant issue? Thanks! aqurs ❄️ 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Civility is indeed a fundamental policy in the Wikimedia movement, and has been since its founding (later reaffirmed with its inclusion in the UCoC), and absolutely should be prioritized. Everyone makes mistakes (myself, of course, included), but serious and/or protracted violations of this policy, regardless of a user's past contributions, are a significant issue. Thank you for the question. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, civility is absolutely a fundamental and essential policy that should always be prioritized in Wikimedia. No matter how much someone has contributed in the past, it doesn’t give them the right to disregard this policy. Maintaining a safe and respectful environment requires adherence to this policy, regardless of a user’s past contributions. Our global community recognizes the importance of such principles, as reflected in the Universal Code of Conduct policy. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Civilty is a policy that reflects a core value of Wikimedia as whole, and I firmly believe everyone of us is required to adhere to it, regardless of their own contribution history, and regardless of the other users' involved contributions (or past mistakes). --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, civility is a core policy of Wikimedia as it fosters the respectful and collaborative environment necessary for productive contributions. Regardless of a user's past contributions, failing to adherence to this policy can hinder collaboration because maintaining an atmosphere of respect is fundamental to ensure Wikimedia remains a welcome platform. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's a pretty essential policy indeed - and there are enough examples of otherwise-contributing users that have fallen foul of the rule, and subsequently being punished accordingly. Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading "Wikimedia" as "Wikimedia community": sure. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This must definitely be complied with. Serious offences must not be tolerated, regardless of who they come from. Apart from the serious offences, however, it must also be noted that the Civility police that there are different cultures and not everything is clearly an offence everywhere and in every context, since not every word has world wide the same definition.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 07:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principles of civility are indeed essential for collaboration. The UCoC has further strengthened this. While everyone makes mistakes, sustained incivility creates an unwelcoming environment and undermines collaboration, regardless of q users' past contributions or their "experience level". - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Having a safe, respectful and welcoming environment to all editors is one of the most essential requirements for a prospering Wikimedia community and should be considered a top priority. --Daniuu (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Security

edit

Steward holds lots of high-risk privileges and has access to a lot of sensitive information. Can you briefly describe some of the ways you have taken to secure your account and ensure that sensitive information is not accidentally compromised? Stang 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Wikimedia account and linked email are secured with 2FA. I use a strong, unique password and only log in from my personal device, which is protected with a strong password and biometric security. I also make sure to use a trusted network whenever I login Wikimedia. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use two-step verification and a strong, complex password. I also avoid logging into my Wikimedia account from public devices, I only use trusted ones. As well, I don't log in from unsecured public WiFi networks. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am using a secure password which is not used on other platforms, and I have 2FA enabled (mandatory for stewards, but I had already enabled it as admin/oversighter). The email account tied to my Wikimedia account, which can be used for password resets but also occasionally receive wiki emails containing PII is also secured. I refrain from logging in from public wifis. Another consideration, which has been raised from time to time are the risk custom user scripts can pose, local or global; I use scripts that are from trusted users only, but I also feel that the mitigation of such risks, especially for accounts with advanced permissions/access to sensitive information deserves a broader discussion. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2FA + a strong password. Plus sensitive information should not be saved locally as far as possible - there are generally better alternatives available (eg using CheckUser Wiki instead of saving CU information on my device). Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use two-factor authentication and a password which hasn't been used anywhere else to secure my account and related email, and only login on devices which are not shared and encrypted at rest. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 06:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use a strong password and two-factor authentication (as already required). Not really a way I've deliberately "taken to secure [my] account", but I also only use my account from one (sometimes a second one) personal device. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use 2FA, YubiKey, good password, botpasswords without big permissions .--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use "safe mode" as a global preference with a few exceptions, hardware-based 2FA, full-disk encryption with reasonable defaults, an isolated email, along with other things I don't want to explain publicly. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2FA, strong and unique password. I never store sensitive information on my device (relying on the Foundation's infrastructure instead). Only scripts from trusted users are used. I refrain from editing from unsecured networks. --Daniuu (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case judgment question

edit

This made-up case is to know how you judge in a situation, and there is no right answer. I'm afraid that the answer might be difficult, but that's why no one is asking you for a perfect answer. This kind of situation where there is no right answer often happens to stewards. So it is to know your judgment and the process for this, and it does not require you to know the general practice of stewards. This is an adaptation of a case I experienced a few years ago.

  • [04:10 AM] <•Steward>: /me is lazy
  • [04:11 AM] <Sotiale>: @steward plz help
  • [04:11 AM] <•StewardBot> Attention requested by Sotiale ( .... )
  • [04:11 AM] <•Steward>: How can I help you? This seems very urgent.
  • [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: Admins on sotiale.wikipedia are sharing their accounts. I have proof of this!!
  • [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: They even have the IA flag. This will cause serious security problems. They changed MediaWiki:common.js a while ago!
  • [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: They are a group of users and recently flagged 3 new admins using socks!!
  • [04:13 AM] <Sotiale>: You must help me immediately. And you must not reveal this to anyone. They will try to block me!
  • [04:14 AM] <Sotiale>: [Uploaded] [File:A photo that looks like something bad is happening.jpg // There are 3 people in this photo, one of whom is logged into his Wikipedia account. The person logged in is an admin on sotiale.wikipedia, but it's not clear what he's doing on the computer screen.]
  • [04:15 AM] <Sotiale>: You need to lock their accounts now and checkuser between the 2 accounts(2 non-admin people appearing on the image) and the admin. And please take any additional action you can.
  • There are 11 admins on sotialewiki and 1 b'crat.
  • Sotiale appears to be a user who has been contributing there for over 3 years.
  • There is no user there with privacy tools(CU/OS).
  • Since the language of this wiki is the one of the fairies, there are no GRs, GSs, or stewards who speak this language.
  • There was no global RFC related to this wiki.

Please reply as to what action you would take in response to this IRC conversation as a steward. I would also appreciate it if you could explain the reason. --Sotiale (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It’s a bit strange that Sotiale wants to protect their privacy but shares all this information in the public IRC channel (as per the bot’s response).
From my perspective, there isn’t enough evidence to take any action at this point. Several serious allegations have been made, including changes to common.js, account sharing, and sockpuppetry in the RFA process. However, the only evidence provided is a picture showing three people, with one logged into their account. This does not substantiate any of the claims made.
I will ask Sotiale privately to provide additional specific details, such as diffs, logs, or other verifiable evidence to support the allegations.
I will also review the MediaWiki common.js edit to determine whether it is valid or not. If there is anything wrong with it, I will inform the interface administrator without disclosing Sotiale’s identity and will monitor the situation closely. Additionally, I will alert other stewards about the issue. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I'd remind the user that IRC is public and ask them not to post photos that could identify individuals publicly (it could well be the case that Sotiale didn't know this, and thought that #stewards is an IRC channel where only stewards can view, as evidenced by the fact that Sotiale would see an empty window when they log in to IRC if they haven't visited that channel before). Then, I'll take a look at commons.js to see what exactly they changed - if it does appear to be malicious, there is a case for emergency desysop but it would be very unlikely for me to take that route without having other stewards review this case. Assuming that is not the case, there is little to suggest that emergency action is needed, and hence I will then privately contact the user and ask share whatever evidence they can provide, and take it from there using the regular process (which can involve checking relevant local users, such as the bureaucrat, if needed). At this stage it could well be that the user's allegations are completely true, but it is also important to ensure that indeed is the case - we've seen how often allegations are such that they look completely different when investigated further (eg due to a language barrier). Leaderboard (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the attached information and the image by Sotiale, the situation is not fully clear. I would have to verify if there is a serious violation by the sysop. Thus, I would check with certainty the edit history of MediaWiki:Common.js to see if there is actually something going on there that could be damaging to this wiki, as well as the sysop's logs: what actions they have taken, and assess whether this is indeed an emergency situation. If so, I would check if the bureaucrat is maybe not currently active. If this is a wiki where the 'crats can revoke admin rights and they can do it immediately, I would pass it on to them. If it's not possible or I know they won't do it immediately (which is likely due to, for example, the early hour) then I would de-sysop (in the meantime consulting with other stewards). I would then inform that bureaucrat of the situation, so that it would be the local community that will take further action. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 14:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As often with cases such as this, the involvement/awareness and discussion of action with other stewards is important, and I would of course do that before considering any action. I would review the changes to MediaWiki:Common.js for malicious code (and if present, revert the change as this would almost certainly rise to the level of 'emergency action' given the severe damage malicious code in MW:Common.js can cause). The other requested actions by Sotiale would need internal discussion, notwithstanding any evident temporary (and appropriately notified) emergency actions which may need to be done (up to & including de-sysop) to protect the projects. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few different claims to address here, that require different approach. The user doesn't seem to have shared the usernames of the admin/IA in question, so I would ask them to do so, after reminding them that #wikimedia-stewards is a public channel. Regarding the MediaWiki:common.js edits, it's important to check if there were any edits, and if yes, if they added malicious/questionable code, which is a security issue, it was vandalized, or if there was another edit that may just be questionable due to possibly being against community consensus. The first two need to be reverted and it would warrant an emergency removal of advanced permissions, but I would also discuss with other stewards a lock as it could be an indication of being compromised. If the edit was against the community consensus, it's something that should normally be discussed by the community (but see more on that below). Given that I am not TOO familiar with common.js and generally IA issues, I would ask for a second opinion if it wasn't fully clear to me, one way or another. I would also open a discussion with stewards to assess the possible account sharing
  • Regarding the RfA sockpuppetry claim, I would ask the user that they share evidence including diffs to support the claim, as well as clarify which accounts are possible socks, preferably sent via Special:Contact/Stewards if they wish to avoid on-wiki claims. Now the issue is that such claims should normally be handled by the community, but stewards can assist if asked, for example with providing technical evidence sockpuppetry occured, if requested, needed and possible. How exactly to address them still generally remains a local community issue and the local procedures should generally be followed.
Now, something that caught my attention is "Sotiale's" fear of being blocked in sotiale wikipedia if anyone finds out they requested assistance for this matter - and assumably if bringing any of these claims up locally. It can be a general fear with no specific background, but it can also be due to systemic abuse of power in sotialewiki; I would ask sotiale to elaborate on why they feel they would be blocked (for example if other users who raised questions about certain admins in an appropriate manner got blocked etc) and skim through the block logs. It would need to be clarified if there are systemic issues that could be within the scope of U4C and advise sotiale accordingly. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no sufficient evidence for the sockpuppetry allegation (which is a common accusation in small wiki/community disputes), so the only reason for action could be an edit to the Common.js, in case it exhibits signs of malicious intentions. I am much less experienced with programming than many other stewards, so unless it is completely obvious, I would try to let such doubts be resolved by those if possible, but clear bad-faith IA actions would be grounds for an emergency removal of all elevated-risk permissions from the account in question. Any less clear-cut matters have in the past usually been resolved (or at least attempted to be) through the RFC process, which does seem suboptimal given the non-public nature of presented evidence, so the U4C might be the right way to proceed nowadays, which is what I would suggest to the user. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     11:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point the user to the appropriate places U4C, RFC etc. I would also explain to him that it is not helpful to accuse publicly with alleged photos and depending on the authenticity, if he has no evidence that really proves it. The people could really know each other and work together, or help each other, and having someone you know explain something to you in your own presence would not be a security risk and would also be permitted.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 21:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first step is to review the MediaWiki:Common.js changes for malicious code. If found, I will remove it immediately and then consult with other stewards about further protective measures, potentially including removal of advanced privileges with subsequent notice. While a personal photo alone isn't substantive evidence for the account sharing and advanced rights misuse claims, these allegations could warrant internal discussion to determine appropriate next steps. If a global RFC or the U4C is the appropriate venue, I'll explain that to them (privately), while also advising them of the inadvisable sharing of potentially sensitive photos in a public IRC channel. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing to do when confronted with a situation like this is to take a few moments to properly analyze what Sotiale is asking. They are asserting that administrators on sotialewiki are sharing accounts, committed socking during RfAs, changed the MediaWiki:Common.js of sotialewiki, are forming a cabal, and are blocking people with whom they don’t agree. These are some potentially serious accusations, if and only if they turn out to be true.
When getting a request like this, the asserted claims should first be verified. Now follows a stage of information gathering: first, I would check the Commons.js file for any edits and whether malicious code has been inserted into that file. That is, from the posted messages, the only concrete evidence to go by. Apart from checking the Commons.js, I would also quickly check whether there have been recent administrator appointments at Sotialewiki.
Since there is very little other evidence to go by, I would kindly direct Sotiale to a private correspondence, kindly pointing out that posting pictures that could identify someone in a public channel is not a good idea. In private, I would ask for additional information: diffs (for the socking, possible admin abuse…), logs, why the picture posted would prove the socking allegation (cause yeah, someone sitting on a pc while being logged in to a Wikimedia project with other people in the room does not prove much)… If there would have been GSs/stews who speak the language (and who are not part of the dispute at hand), I would have considered asking for their input as well (without mentioning Sotiale’s name).
Based on the information of the public post & private post, the seriousness of the accusations should become clear. Please note that in this assessment, one should be careful not to get mixed up in some local conflict. If it turns out that something is wrong with the Commons.js, I would revert (or discuss with other stewards if I would have any doubts). In addition, effective bad-faith adjustments to the Common.js (or any other pages that require IA access) could be a ground for an immediate removal, which I will always discuss with other stewards. If there would be actual serious indications for admin abuse (of the kind that could for example be grounds for an emergency removal), I’d discuss these with other stewards first before taking any action. For the rest, I would kindly refer Sotiale to the appropriate dispute resolution bodies: local channels if possible (this is sometimes challenging on smaller wikis & there is a reason Sotiale fears getting blocked if they speak up publicly, which is to be clarified), RFC, and U4C nowadays. --Daniuu (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election process

edit

Do you think the steward election and/or confirmation processes could be improved and, if so, how? --Ferien (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's fine for the most part and better than how the U4C elections were. Though the process is rather drawn-out (nearly two months in total) and the yearly format is inflexible for those who may want to join later on. Leaderboard (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having seen a number of different methods of conducting elections (mostly recently, the new admin elections process on en.wiki), I think it is fair to say each has its own pros and cons — the steward election process as it stands works well for the most part — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe our current system functions well, as it has been a reliable method over the years. That said, I do support the ongoing discussion about including global sysops in criterion 3. Additionally, I agree with few past year candidates' suggestions to increase the minimum vote requirement. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the elections system is well-established and generally functional, and the rules are generally well-enforced. One problem that has been mentioned from other candidates as well as in the past is that the whole process is way too long; an idea would be to either reduce the candidacies period (since one has probably decided to run a bit before anyways) or reduce/drop the one free week between the nominations deadline and the beginning of voting. It could also be an idea to announce the candidacies submission start date at the front page current news section a bit earlier so that everyone is aware. Regarding confirmations process I think it's as it should be, BUT maybe it would be better to have a separate questions section - with a limit - as in the past some discussions were hard to read/follow. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the discussion to amend the adminship requirement to cover global sysops, I don't see big issues with the election process; the minimum vote requirement is certainly outdated but that does not seem to have any real impact. I do not feel like the process is too long, but I believe if we are talking about reducing the duration, it should be the voting period that is affected, not the submission period (but I have no strong opinions and this would need to be discussed in an RFC). As for confirmations, I have had slight concerns in the past about the fact that the stewards are ultimately responsible for their outcome; however, this has worked well with the concerns that were expressed towards individual members as far as I have witnessed it. Still, more direct consequences of the community's "votes" would be worth some consideration (like a minimal support ratio before leaving the decision to the stewards). ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     22:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current process is doing very well. It certainly has its pros and cons, but it's a well-established process, and the candidates in this election are strong overall (except myself, of course). The confirmation process also works well, offering valuable feedback. There has been some discussion about making global sysops eligible in the criteria as well, which I agree with. And, to be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on the duration - I think it's fine as it is. – XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay in answering but I was on vacation :) I think the election process works well. However, I think it is unnecessary to have a week's break between the end of candidate nominations and the start of voting. I also agree with what was proposed in the discussion: including global sysops in criteria 3. It was also proposed there to raise the minimum vote requirements, which I also support. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 16:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current process seems to be working well. Off course, other systems could also be considered, each with its own pros and cons. We could decide to change some of the requirements (which might include extending the current admin experience to global sysops as well, if this is done carefully). These changes would need to be discussed during a global request for comment. So yeah, to summarize, things are working fine with the current procedure. --Daniuu (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For each candidate

edit

1234qwer1234qwer4

edit

This is a follow-up to your answer at § Homewiki. Does your response mean that you will only refrain from changing permissions as a steward on the English Wikipedia? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question; in regards to the wikis where I am "an active member of the local community", as used in Stewards#Policies, I would consider such wikis to be enwiki and commonswiki (considering I am a sysop on the latter), and probably ruwiki as well to be safe (even though I might not be as active there nowadays, I had been an active community member there for over five years). Should I become more actively involved in some other wiki specifically, I would consider it covered by the quoted phrase as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AramilFeraxa

edit

Daniuu

edit

What are your reflections upon leaving the Ombuds Commission? To be clear, I am writing about reflections on the institution. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ombuds Commission acts as the body that investigates infringements of the Checkuser, Oversight, Privacy, and Access to Nonpublic Information policies. The Commission does this on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Right now, the Commission is, in my opinion, adequately executing that function. Moreover, the Commission is also perfectly placed to identify issues with the four policies and to flag them to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), where needed with additional recommendations. However, as with all institutions, there are always some questions and room for improvement to be taken into consideration. Since the Commission’s effectiveness depends both on the organizing structures behind the Commission and its members.
Let’s first reflect upon some organizational aspects of the Commission, particularly related to the Commission’s communication. The Ombuds Commission investigates some of the most sensitive areas of Wikimedia Project, with very evident associated privacy concerns. While this confidentiality is on one hand imposed for logical reasons (to protect editors’ privacy), it sometimes also hinders the communication to involved parties. This has sometimes hindered the Commission’s ability to respond to cases in a quicker fashion, or to provide more information. Looking at this, I also feel that the Commission is sometimes held back by external delays (unfortunately, I cannot provide more details or example of recent cases where this could have been a factor), which cannot be easily mitigated by the Commission. This sometimes also impact our throughput times, a historical point of criticism. In general, I think the OC is well aware of these issues and is working on steps to improve on these issues.
This brings me to the human aspect of the OC. In the past, we received quite some feedback on having inactive members, which led to significant backlogs in the past. I am quite happy that the OC has been able to clear these (a lot of thanks to all current and former ombuds who made that possible!). The OC as an institution and WMF have also taken this feedback up as well, since it is an inherent risk of a commission staffed with volunteers, even though all OC members are very motivated to fulfill their duties. Apart from this, some of the OC’s resolutions in the past have been deemed too harsh by some members of the community. The OC has extensively reflected and has also taken steps in the past years hereon.
An evident question is whether we need an OC and whether it should be staffed with volunteers. I wholeheartedly believe we do! First, the OC is made up of trusted members of the Wikimedia community. Having a volunteer-run body ensures that the members have more feeling with the tools and how they’re used in practice. In addition, these volunteers are close to the communities they represent, making it easier to identify issues with the policies or their interpretation. Speaking about that, the OC always seats volunteers with different backgrounds, making sure cases are thoroughly analyzed from multiple viewpoints. In addition, this diversity amongst volunteer members is crucial to maintain the OC’s reflective powers and to ensure a fair and qualitative handling of cases. Furthermore, it is crucial to ensure OC members know the issues functionaries face while performing their duties. One might evidently ask whether volunteers should be tasked with investigating these issues, as some of the cases before the OC can get pretty technical. Fortunately, the OC is composed of experienced volunteers, who have comprehensive knowledge on the relevant policies (this is crucial for a functioning OC). On top of that, the OC has good resources to discuss their considerations, doubts, findings… to mitigate said issue in the cases where it pops up. Having these experienced volunteers on board also guarantees a critical mind, which is crucial for OC’s functioning.
To summarize, I reflected above on some of the OC’s organizational, human, and conceptual aspects. I highlighted some concerns and thoughts on its operation. I hope this text is clear to you and answers your question. Feel free to ask for further clarifications if you would like them! Kind regards, Daniuu (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KonstantinaG07

edit

In your request, you state that you mainly intend on working to counter vandalism/spam. Given you aren't a global sysop (which isn't an issue and perfectly fine IMO), do you think there may be an initial barrier? If so, how do you intend on tackling any potential barriers? --SHB (t • c) 12:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for the question. While having been a GS in the past can be a plus, I don't believe not having been would be a significant barrier if you're already familiar with the policy and cross-wiki work. For some facets of anti-abuse work in general (like spambots, specific LTAs or xwiki vandals involving global (b)locks) it may not make a huge difference, already having experience from the overall xwiki work and making requests in the relevant pages; for others though (like handling deletions and local blocks in GS wikis or other similar requests) it can make a difference as you are assuming the role of GS for the first time and it's definitely something I need to keep in mind if elected. I think the main way to tackle this is by 1) recognizing it 2) taking it slow while onboarding, and not hesitating to ask for a second opinion from other GS/Stewards if in doubt or in complicated/unclear cases and 3) being receptive to advice/feedback from more experienced GS/Stewards or the community (which applies generally to all your work as editor/sysop/steward). I do feel though that being an admin in a multilingual project helps handling the barrier of different languages one can face as new Global Sysop / Steward.
I think though that this applies for all tasks one may have not handled before being elected as steward, like acting as a bureaucrat for wikis with no local bureaucrat, oversight requests, etc. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for answering (it's exactly what I expect). :-) --SHB (t • c) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard

edit

Do you intend to strictly follow the minimum voting requirements? JJPMaster (she/they) 21:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, and that's simply because stewards have been applying it that way from my experience. There may be some unwritten aspects to this rule that I'll only know as a steward, though. Leaderboard (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i found one question from last year is very constructive, so don't mind me coping it. "Do you define being active cross-wiki and do you think that it's important for stewardship and your current activity level fits that criteria?" Looking for reply, thanks! aqurs ❄️ 15:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 question had "How" in the beginning of your question, so I'll answer assuming that's the case. With that said,
  • To be active cross-wiki can mean multiple things - it can involve reverting vandalism, solving technical issues, helping with filters, maintaining bots etc.
  • It depends. For a candidate that wants to become a steward primarily to revert vandalism and block/lock accounts (i.e, what I call as the anti-vandalism track), it is reasonable to expect such a person to have significant cross-wiki experience, since that is something that's easily accessible without specialised rights (using tools such as TwinkleGlobal for instance), and global rollback and global sysops are rights that are primarily meant for such users. However, this is stewardship, not "global sysop pro". For other situations, while cross-wiki experience is a nice thing to have, it is not a deal-breaker and I do not see it as a requirement for a prospective steward. The reasons are that (i) a lot of things that a steward does can be learned "on-the-job", (ii) a user with CU/OS/technical (or other) experience on a single wiki can provide assistance and perspectives that are just as valuable as a cross-wiki specialist and (iii) it is easy to run into cases when a user wants to do/improve something that is best done being a steward, such as working on AAR and even routine-looking tasks such as adjusting filters for anti-vandalism (while abuse filter manager exists, it's only meant for technical maintenance). Broadly speaking, when looking at a prospective steward, instead of asking the question "what does this user not have", I'll ask "what can this user do" instead.
  • Yes and no. I am not a cross-wiki anti-vandalism specialist, but I do have significant cross-wiki experience otherwise over the years, and continue to do so especially from maintaining Global reminder bot (a lot of which is passive monitoring). This requires good understanding of crosswiki policies, since some wikis have rules that ask for a certain number of test edits, for instance, or require me to contact someone after X months.
Leaderboard (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MdsShakil

edit

You're not a meta administrator (which is completely fine). Are you familiar with the Meta-Steward relationship, especially the rules regarding admin-actions on this wiki? Can you tell me how you will personally deal with that? --TenWhile6 22:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with this policy. It allows stewards to perform certain administrative tasks on Meta-Wiki. I will not perform any regular administrative tasks on Meta-Wiki unless it is an emergency. From the authorized actions, I will limit myself to editing the spam blacklist, the title blacklist pages, and applying exceptions on global blocks. —MdsShakil (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer! TenWhile6 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime

edit

What have you learned and reflected on since your resignation in 2023? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since my resignation in 2023, I've reflected a lot on the situation as a whole, and how it affected me — this culminated in an apology to the English Wikipedia community where I went into detail on the lessons learnt. These included things like; how apparent involvement (i.e., an administrator appearing to be involved) can undermine the neutrality of role we've been entrusted with, the fact that situations where I feel a need to emphatically defend myself are often those where I should take extra care and time to reflect, and that I do not need to "operate alone" in these situations (i.e., that I can and should ask for advice and rely on my colleagues).
Thank you for the question — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Du bist im Moment Globaler Administrator, aber wenn ich deine Aktivität so anschaue (File:Crosswiki LogactionsTheresNoTime for Steward e..png) finde ich hier wenig aktive Verwendung. Wie schaut würde es mit Steward rechten ausschauen? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added DeepL translation to English for transparency. For the ElectCom, EPIC (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently a global sysop, but looking at your activity (File:Crosswiki LogactionsTheresNoTime for Steward e..png) I find little active use here. What would this look like with steward rights? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obwohl ich regelmäßig nachschaue, ob neue Anträge zu GS/R hinzugefügt wurden, lag mein Hauptaugenmerk als Steward in der Vergangenheit hier im MetaWiki. Wenn ich gewählt werde, wird sich an diesem Schwerpunkt wahrscheinlich nicht viel ändern - allerdings wird die Rückkehr in eine Rolle, in der ich früher gut gearbeitet habe und die mir Spaß gemacht hat, wahrscheinlich wieder zu einer höheren Aktivität führen. Danke — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English translation of the answer
Although I regularly check to see if new requests have been added to GS/R, my main focus as a steward in the past has been here on MetaWiki. If I'm elected, that focus probably won't change much really — though, being back in a role I've previously done well in and enjoyed doing is likely to result in higher activity again. Thank you. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is taken as a personal question, but may I ask why you sometimes share an IP Address with Tamzin, who was a former administrator on this website? Thank you. --Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBayer

edit

XXBlackburnXx

edit

~aanzx

edit
  • Last year you unsuccessfully ran for steward, where the main concerns brought up were views on spam, cross-wiki experience and poor answers to questions, and later that same year you also had an unsuccessful U4C candidacy. What do you believe has changed since then? EPIC (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: I take language barriers into consideration, and you may answer this question in Kannada or any language you wish, though please try to also provide an English translation if possible. EPIC (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing has changed, but I was really disappointed with stewards actions which I noticed that was discouraging towards editors of smaller community there are many reasons as you already know, anyway I have chosen withdraw from applying to steward group as I may not have grasp of this usergroup though i thought I had sense of how this usergroup works but clearly not.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your statement, you simply say "I will address questions which raised to opposing my candidacy last year" but then don't go to say one bit how you miserably failed both SE2024 (at 16.38%) and U4C Special Election 2024 (at 47.41%). Why do you think that's sufficient enough for someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year, and how do you think controversial actions are supposed to be addressed. --SHB (t • c) 10:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also like EPIC, feel free to answer in whatever language of your choice. --SHB (t • c) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SHB2000, "I will address questions which raised to opposing my candidacy last year" i really had to go away so i couldn't complete statement so reverted my edits to Stewards/Elections 2025 and Stewards/Elections 2025/Questions page so that I could respond to when I get back.

    someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year

  • can you explain about it a bit more.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take long to figure out what the main reasons for people opposing you at Stewards/Elections 2024/Votes/~aanzx#No. --SHB (t • c) 12:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it doesn't take long to read that page, you could have let me what controversial on that page, anyway I felt volunteering is a lost cause So I decided to withdraw, But I would truly like to know what are controversial things you like to be answered by me, if you really wanted ask 10or more questions you should really ask me in User talk page, instead of asking here.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you've withdrawn, but why should I ask on your user talk page? This is (or was, at least) regarding your controversies on your steward nomination? I am definitely not the only one wondering what has changed. As for "you could have let me what controversial on that page", any basic responsibility with holding advanced rights is the ability to recognise if you've messed up – your inability to do even that is very telling. --SHB (t • c) 13:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SHB2000
    Before I withdrew you asked question "someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year" I would like to what that would be you like to know answer, would it be responsible for you to ask specific, instead me replying to some random question to don't want answer for, if you have any specific questions you could just ask, instead you point me to page which has questions.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 13:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2025/Questions&oldid=28226171"