Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Stewards/elections 2010/Questions

< Stewards | elections 2010
العربية: المصوتون المؤهلون (انظر إرشادات التقدم) يمكنهم توجيه أسئلة لكل المرشحون على هذه الصفحة. من فضلك لا توجه أكثر من سؤالين متعلقين لكل مرشح، واجعلهما أقصر ما يمكن. المرشحون، من فضلك أجب باختصار وبساطة.
Čeština: Uživatelé s volebním právem (viz požadavky na voliče) mohou pokládat otázky všem kandidátům na této stránce. Prosím, nepokládajte více než dvě věcné otázky každému z kandidátů a snažte se o co největší stručnost. Kandidáti se prosí, aby odpověděli co nejrychleji a nejsrozumitelněji to bude možné.
Deutsch: Wahlberechtigte Benutzer (siehe Richtlinien) dürfen allen Kandidaten auf dieser Seite Fragen stellen. Bitte stell nicht mehr als zwei Fragen pro Kandidat und halte sie so kurz wie möglich. Die Kandidaten sollen so kurz und einfach wie möglich antworten.
Ελληνικά: Οι έγκυροι ψηφοφόροι (δείτε:οδηγίες) μπορούν να κάνουν ερωτήσεις σε όλους του υποψήφιους σε αυτή την σελίδα. Παρακαλώ να μην κάνετε πάνω από δύο σχετικές ερωτήσεις ανά υποψήφιο, και κάντε τες όσο σύντομες γίνεται. Οι υποψήφιοι απαντήστε όσο πιο σύντομα και απλά μπορείτε.
English: Eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate, and keep them as short as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.
Español : Aquellos usuarios que tengan derecho al voto (vea guía de solicitud) pueden hacer preguntas a los candidatos en esta página. Por favor no hagas más de dos preguntas por cada candidato y mantenlas tan cortas como sea posible. Candidatos: por favor contestad tan resumida y símplemente como os sea posible.
Suomi: Äänioikeutetut käyttäjät (katso ohjeet) voivat esittää tällä sivulla kysymyksiä kaikille ehdokkaille. Teethän korkeintaan kaksi oleellista kysymystä ehdokasta kohti ja pidäthän ne mahdollisimman lyhyinä. Ehdokkaita pyydetään vastaamaan kysymyksiin mahdollisimman lyhyesti ja yksinkertaisesti.
עברית: מצביעים העומדים בתנאים (ראו הנחיות) יכולים להציג שאלות לכל המועמדים בדף זה. בבקשה, הציגו עד שתי שאלות קצרות לכל מועמד. מועמדים, בבקשה ענו בקצרה ובפשטות.
Hrvatski: Suradnici koji imaju pravo glasovati (vidite upute za prijavu) mogu postaviti umjesno pitanje svakom kandidatu na ovoj stranici. Suradnici, molimo da ne pitate više od dva pitanja po kandidatu i neka budu što kraća. Kandidati, molimo vas da odgovorite što je kraće i jednostavnije moguće.
Italiano: Gli aventi diritto al voto (vedi le linee guida in proposito) possono porre su questa pagina delle domande ai candidati. Per cortesia non fate più di due domande per ciascun candidato, cercando per quanto possibile di mantenerle brevi. L'invito ai candidati è di rispondere altrettanto brevemente.
日本語： 投票権のある方 (参加ガイドをご覧ください) はこのページでどの候補者にも質問することができます。候補者1人につき1つ、端的に質問をするよう心がけてください。候補者のみなさんは、できるだけ簡潔に回答してください。
Македонски: Корисниците со право на глас (видете напатствија за пријава) на оваа страница можат да им поставуваат прашања на сите кандидати. Не поставувајте повеќе од 2 релевантни прашања по кандидат, и гледајте да бидете што пократки. Кандидатите се молат да одговараат на прашањата што е можно пократко и поедноставно.
Nederlands: Stemgerechtigden (zie de instructies) kunnen op deze pagina aan alle kandidaten vragen stellen. Stel alstublieft niet meer dan twee relevante vragen per kandidaat en hou de vragen zo kort als mogelijk. Kandidaten, antwoord alstublieft zo kort en duidelijk mogelijk.
Norsk bokmål: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.
Norsk: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.
Português : Os utilizadores com direito ao voto (veja o guia de candidaturas) podem fazer perguntas a todos os candidatos nesta página. Por favor, não coloque mais de 2 questões pertinentes por candidato, e mantenha-as o mais curtas possível. Candidatos, por favor respondam o mais simples e resumido quanto possível.
Русский: Имеющие право голоса (см. application guidelines/ru) могут задавать вопросы всем кандидатам на этой странице. Пожалуйста, пишите не более двух уместных вопросов каждому кандидату и формулируйте их по возможности кратко. Кандидаты, пожалуйста, отвечайте по возможности быстро и просто.
中文： 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁向任何一位候選人發問問題，但請勿向任何一位候選人發問多於兩條問題，亦請維持問題的簡潔度。候選人，則請您簡潔且扼要地回應這些問題。
中文（简体）： 合资格投票者(见申请指引)可于此页向任何一位候选人发问问题，但请勿向任何一位候选人发问多于两条问题，亦请维持问题的简洁度。候选人，则请您简洁且扼要地回应这些问题。
中文（繁體）: 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁向任何一位候選人發問問題，但請勿向任何一位候選人發問多於兩條問題，亦請維持問題的簡潔度。候選人，則請您簡潔且扼要地回應這些問題。

Removed sections for users that have been disqualified:

24 biggest fan · ashena iran · Bletilla · Bruno Borges Alves · cozzycovers · Cutno · Doberek · dunya Freelancer · Garkeith · Gawrki · Germannoiseunion · hopytgr · Jwelchering · Lgxxl · mcannac · nicola.tesla.rowe · pelister · Paul2387 · Princenoire · Rhserra · Seth Nimbosa · Sinternational · Strawberries248 TRSK · thecurran · wishfulanthony · Zizo1990 · سمرقندی · Eseki

Per candidate

edit

Annabel

edit
  • Can I ask why you had a wikibreak starting September 2009? No need to reveal anything private of course - I am just wondering in a general sense what happened, and how your situation has changed since 4 months ago.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just had too few spare time to continue my work here in a qualitative good way. My situation has changed as I also moved to another place for which I had a lot to do. So the next months, there will be more spare time. ;-) Annabel 08:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said you are fr-3 but you presentation in 11 languages isn't in french. Why ?--Tpa2067 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were elected Ms. WikiPedia, what would you do to make the world a better place?
    • My device is to opt for quality and not for quantity. I always start from what's already present. So, if I would pass the elections, I would not basically change that much from the beginning. I prefer to work on the background, and work systematically and progressively to ameliorate things. For example on wikipedia NL, I worked on the template for chemical compounds and then I tried to fill in all properties, as opposed to creating new articles. On wiktionary NL, I began working on categorising all templates, began working on standardising all pages (through my bot), started to add the syllables systematically, etc. All these subprojects require months of work, and improve the quality without creating a lot of new entries. This is my style of working which I will also use for stewards related tasks. Annabel 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham

edit
  • This is not a critical question (and I may have asked it before, come to think of it). Why do you make a point of signing and referring to yourself as Avi, when your username is Avraham? I'd understand if it were simply part of your signature and used colloquially by others, but you've even made sure to note "Avi" in the subsection for your candidacy. If only for my own curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing more about your persistence in advertising this nickname (if that's what it is). Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With most people (online or in real-life) I refer to myself as "Avi", and I am most comfortable with that nickname, which is why I sign with it. Had I joined the wikimedia projects slightly earlier, I would have used "Avi" as my username, but it was taken in July 2005—thus the username "Avraham". However, as I am just as often referred to as Avi as Avraham, I have it in the parenthesis for ease in identification. -- Avi 06:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ran last year Stewards/elections_2009/votes#Avraham, Stewards/elections_2009/Questions#Avraham, and you had 150 positive votes including strong support from me and many other senior Wikimedians, but you just missed the cutoff. I know that since last year you have taken on additional responsibilities on en:wp. Please tell us about the many other things you have done to broaden your experience and exposure to multiple wikis. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I touched on this in my statement, but I am happy to expand on how I have broadened my experience. I have been more active outside of EnWiki through:
      • Answering OTRS tickets that affect multiple wikis including, for example, the Commons, HeWiki, DeWiki, and FrWiki, and carrying on discusisons/explanations on those wikis.
      • Adding content and template work to multiple wikis.
      • Working with editors whose homes are on other wikis when they need SUL support on EnWiki.
      • Regularly monitoring #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-stewards and being available to help with cross-vandalism checks.
      • Regularly monitoring #cvn-sw and reverting small wiki vandalism when I am quick enough :)
      • Enhancing articles on smaller wikis by supplying them with free-use images from the commons when they share an article for which images exist.
      • Being an active participant in Checkuser-l especially with regards to cross-wiki vandalism checks.
      • Being very active on the Commons, especially dealing with difficult undeletion requests that affect multiple wikis.
      • Providing most of the Hebrew translations for this year's steward election statements and confirmations, and much of the policy pages as well.
    • -- Avi 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you elected as steward - what you draw most attention (SRP, fighting with cross-wiki vandals/spammers, SUL work, etc)? Regards, – Innv | d | s: 04:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have experience in all those areas and so I would monitor all the areas and help where needed. This is what I do now on the English wikipedia, where I monitor the appropriate pages for name changes, permission requests, checkuser requests, and the appropriate IRC channels or e-mail lists for oversight and cross-wiki vandalism. -- Avi 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst

edit
  • More than 90% of your edits are concentrated in Commons, Enwiki and Enwikisource. Since stewards are generally involved in crosswiki activities, do you intend to change this if you become a steward? Pmlineditor ∞ 09:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until now I have contributed where I could add best value. Stepping up to be a steward will require a broader input, in a broader space. That said, it is not a steward's task to be involved in a specific wiki's policy making or activities. The role is to implement their decisions where they don't have their own bureaucrats to implement them. I have good anti-spam and anti-vandalism skills, and believe that these skills can be utilised widely. While I have no outside language fluency, the availability of translation tools, and coordination of tasks shares the burden of heavy work. billinghurst 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee Mike, I sometimes I feel that one wanders to wherever is the suspicious activity of the day. Spam management has almost become a way of life; with years as RootsWeb's listmaster and postmaster, and now shifting my janitorial skills to the wikimedia family, one just gets the right broom for the job, without overtly choosing. It helps to be AGF with a sideplate of skeptism <vbg>.
I manage spam in a variety of ways.
  • specifically monitoring channels that look for suspicious activity (presence in IRC, demonstrated use of available tools)
  • watching for specific spam targets and favourites (reversion and patrol history)
  • being available to fellow administrators and editors who identify something requiring investigation (user talk pages and admin page)
  • undertaking checkuser functions and exploring wider looking for similar misbehaviour (CU log; mailing list activity - undertaken bulk at enWS since being given that broom)
  • patrolling edits, and performing welcomes and reverting bad edits. Generally a gentle prod of undesirable behaviour enables reform if possible (contributions history)
  • partaking in surveillance and two-way conversations with others (CUs, crosswiki admins), enabling gentle pre-emptive edits against (range of forums where participated)
  • editing various Mediawiki files that assist in prevention of spam/vandalism (MW edit log)
  • monitoring abuse filters with occasional tweaks (evidence here is difficult, though very effective)
Hmm, it does actually add up. Some stats here [1] [2] billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I asked only because you've never requested blacklisting on WM:SBL, which would seem to be a likely event when one is working on such tasks. But there are of course other tasks to be done, and you've identified quite a few of them  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And one can nag ask stewards or alert fellow checkusers by other means. billinghurst sDrewth

Bletilla

edit
  • Sadly per the steward requirements you do need to have a global account to qualify since the group itself is a global group. If you would like I know I or others would be happy to help you unify the accounts that belong to you. James (T|C) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your pointing out. I think I have unified my accounts on some projects except Enlish and Russian Wikipedias that somebody had already created their accounts. --Bletilla 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have been blocked on ruwiki. Was it block evasion? Can you comment on that? Or was that not you (you don't have a global account yet, so we can't be certain)? --FiliP ██ 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without any doubt I will vote for any experienced Japanese Wikimedian because I think that involvement of your community in global matters is terribly low. At the other side, I would like to hear your opinion about troubles which Aphaia had at her home wiki. --Millosh 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your will. Whilst I forgot troubles which Aphaia had at ja.wiki, she was justly blocked for her actions in my opinion. I must always keep them in my mind because of troubles by "an important person" at ja.wiki.--Bletilla 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blatant question: how are you confident in your English competence? I'd appreciate your involvement in Wikimedia translation, but feeling sorry to say, your translations, specially from English into Japanese ones, they are frequently difficult to grasp and sometimes need to re-create. --Aphaia 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst your question is natural to ask me because of that of mine, I do not understand why you ask me it here, but I have to answer you it. Because I tend to write and/or speak easy contents to understand more difficult, my translations from English into Japanese are often difficult for readers to grasp in my opinion. I am less competent than you and I am not professional to translate. I only ask you to take a long-term view of my efforts. --Bletilla 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don't decide" is the most important task for me because it is in the first line of the Stewards policy. It is also important for free edits and knowledge-base in my opinion. I would like to do various jobs, but, to begin with, I would act in the most necessary job for the projects. --Bletilla 08:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carkuni

edit
  • Without any doubt I will vote for any experienced Japanese Wikimedian because I think that involvement of your community in global matters is terribly low. At the other side, I would like to hear your opinion about troubles which Aphaia had at her home wiki. --Millosh 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know her trouble from a block discussion and a hear of other Wikimedian (The important person is included in other Wikimedian). I think important recovery from trouble and accountability. That the accountability is very difficult, because may not have you understand it. But, do one's accountability. I want to be active with more scrupulous attention. Thank you very much for your question. --Carkuni 13:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruptcopper

edit
I hear what you are saying MF-W I had my own mediawiki although the wiki wasnt connected to any of the wiki's as we would know here I will not be advertising it on here as that would be not right and against policy but I had access to all of the basic administrator tools such as the deletion tool, blocking and so on. I therefore would use that knowledge gained from using those tools and implement them here. I hope this has answered your question if it hasn't then feel free to say and I will try and give a clearer answer. Corruptcopper 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was exactly what I wanted to know. --MF-W 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damërung

edit
  • Do you think it is good not to be a sysop on a project as a steward? And do you have any experience with the sysop/crat/os/cu tool or any other relevant experience? -Barras talk 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don´t think it´s good neither bad to be an admin on a project in order to become a steward. As I discussed with one of my adoptees in the english wikipedia, I just decline that option long ago and I decided to stay as a normal editor. Quoting Jimmy Wales "Becoming a sysop is not a big deal" and I think the same way. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dferg

edit

What experience do you have dealing with cross-wiki spam or vandalism? Do you have any tips or advice for a recently joined SWMT member? Do you have some for a long term member or steward as well? --Erwin 10:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erwin, thank you for your questions. I will try to answer them bellow:
  1. Aswering your first question: as I previously said in my statement I am an active member of the SWMT & the spam blacklist from quite some time now. I've dealth with various aspects of cross-wiki disruption as a member of those groups (e.g.: from simple local vandalism [3] to mass vandalbot attacks - see spambots that I've tracked here). Due to my active collaboration on those areas I was given access to the global rollback tool. Additionally, it has been sometimes granted to me temporary adminship on projects with no sysops to clean deletion backlogs of clearcut vandalism or spam (of the type: asdf, test edits with the toolbar, etc).
  2. Concerning the second question: working with small wikis is not easy at all. I think that the better advice I can give them is to be always calm and respectful to the local communities. Working with small wikis is sensitive, because they are working hard to get their project up. When a diff pops-up on the channel and you are about checking it, you should act always with the utmost care; sometimes things are not what they seem to be and what it seems to be a vandalism could not be one, or could be a simple mistake from a new member of that community. You should always assume good faith and when in doubt and ask for other opinions or advice before acting in one sense or on another one.
  3. Answering your third question: well, senior members have more experience however the advice given in my previous answer can be used for this reply too. Being respectful, assuming good faith and try to help out is the clue to work on small wikis.
Hope that this answers your questions. Best regards, — Dferg (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


EivindJ

edit
  • I notice that a good portion of your edits is on the Norweigan Wikipedia and Norweigan Wiktionary. Do you believe that you have enough crosswiki vandalism experience to be able to use the tools granted by the steward bit to their fullest potential? You also don't have any CheckUser or Oversighter experience. Do you know the policies related to each and do you think that you will be able to correctly use the CheckUser and Oversighter tools? Thanks, Razorflame 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Razorflame. As the reason to why I started to edit Wikipedia was to do editorial stuff like writing articles, it fell quite natural to contribute to the Norwegian wikis first. After a while I found interest in several other wikis as well, such as English Wiktionary, Afrikaans Wikipedia etc. I might not have too much experience, but I know what this is about, and I'm sure that with some time, I will be able to use the tools to their fullest potential.
I know the policies related to the Checkuser and Oversight tools, though I have never used them. I am not worried that I won't be able to use them, as I intend to approach them with humbleness. I hope mye reply is sufficient! --EivindJ 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Eivind - glad to see you're back on wiki. I know you as a very capable editor and (former) administrator from Norwegian wikipedia, and you have an impressive crosswiki editcount as well as a former involvement in SWMT - thus I'm inclined to support your candidacy. I'm a little bit concerned about your level of activity though - while wikibreaks are ok (I'm having a lot of them myself....) we really need active stewards. Are you by submitting this candidacy committing yourself to spending a significant amount of time onwiki the coming year? Best regards, Finn Rindahl 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Finn, and thanks for your support (: Though I do not intend to live completely onwiki the coming years, I'm fully aware that I ought to spend quite some time doing steward tasks. I will, as far as I can, help out with the time I have.
I've been taking quite a lot of exams during my wikibreak, and luckily I'm done with that now. This will, of course, give me some more spare-time on hand ... --EivindJ 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your statement you mention you don't have thorough knowledge of everything the stewards do and I appreciate your honesty there. Nevertheless, could you give your view on a steward's most important tasks? Which part of a steward's job do you expect yourself to be active in? --Erwin 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erwin, and thanks for both your question and your note at my talk page. I look at the stewards as the most competent helpers, both technically and idealistically (with that meaning, they are among those who are most familiar with our high ideals). Not only do they help fight cross-wiki vandalism, using different tools like checkuser, global blocking etc., but they also help people with questions regarding Wikimedia projects, even though it doesn't really require their tools. I expect myself to be most active doing the needed tasks, like checkuser, permission requests, bots and similar tasks. --EivindJ 08:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike, and thanks for your question. Simply because I gave my rights away when I decided to wiki-break. When I now decided to both return as an editor and standing for stewardship, I didn't want to immediately ask for my rights back, as I don't want anyone to believe that I simply want to be admin at no.wiki to be chosen as a steward. What no.wiki needs are admins they trust, so I'll ask for my rights again after the votes are over. --EivindJ 08:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am furthering Mike's question above. One of the largest concerns it seems with this Steward Election is activity. You stated that you voluntarily gave up your sysop access on your home wiki because you decided to take a wikibreak. Have your circumstances changed now to where you dont feel that you are going to need to take a wikibreak? How long was your last one? Why not just place a notice on your account stating there would be a brief period of inactivity (i.e. I am taking a small break)? Dusti 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on a wiki-break anymore, though I'm going to wait with asking for getting my sysop rights back, until this election is over. My last break was for some months / half a year, mostly due to exams. Now, the reason to why there's no note stating that? Well, my wiki-break is over ;) --EivindJ 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate a bit on the rationals behind giving up the sysop tools in the Norwegian wiki? Do you did it because you felt that you won't need them during the break and/or to make a clean cut from your editing activity and/or you felt that an admin must be active to meet the responsibilities inherent to the tools given by the community? Thanks --KrebMarkt 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I didn't just need to take a break to get more time for my exams. I think I also needed the break for the sake of taking a break – to make sure that I controlled my own activity at Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia controlling me. The sysop tools are only necessary for those who are active. If you decided to take a break from being a carpenter in real life, wouldn't you find it ok that one of your friends could use your tools in the meantime? I therefore thought it would benefit no.wiki that I gave my sysop tools to someone more active. As you might understand, I look at both sysop and steward rights as tools, not as "magic wands" for me to play with ... and what use do tools have, if they aren't used? I hope my reply is sufficient ... (: --EivindJ 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evalowyn

edit
Probably, you have meant this? --Microcell 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Many thanks for correction! Regards, – Innv | d | s: 10:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we dont have that many "controversial" conflicts in SV. I usally say what I think and sometimes people listen ;) I know what to say and what to not say. I don't base my decisions (blocking, deleting etc) on my personal opinions. I always try to follow the guidlines. Evalowyn 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

edit
Well, The internets is serious biziness. Plus i like to screw with vandals. That's the main reason actually. Fail 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, i've been uploading pictures of narcotics that have been seized by the US Customs Border on Commons and i've also been uploading select pictures from my own library. Now i concentrate mostly on Wikimania 2011's bid for Montréal and on its website at [www.wikimania.qc.ca]. Sure my editcount is low, but experience is always a plus. I'm just a independent user, not affiliated with any organizations, i just provide my opinion wether it be trollish or not. Fail 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you affiliated with 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or the Internet collective group known as "Anonymous"? And if so, do they plan to manipulate you for thier own purposes?--Cutno 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked & protested with "Anonymous" on some subjects, i entend to keep the absolute strict neutrality when it comes to Wikipedia. I am familiar with 4chan's /b/ board and its numerous clones such as 888chan's /i/ board. I am familiar with their language, culture and inner jokes. I have a bot that scans these pages for anything that is wikipedia related. On the subject on Encyclopedia Dramatica, i'm a former contributor, so i know how they work, i rarely contact them anymore. If they go out of line, i'm there to stop them in the tracks. Fail 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am targeting no one specifically, i just intend to be a serious and non inclinated steward. If someone or a group tries to influence me, i'll expose them under the nature of Wikimedia and abiding under the steward guidelines. Fail 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur

edit
Thanks for the question. To be honest no, I don't. While my language skills are not perfect I feel they have served me fairly well xwiki as a global rollbacker and I feel they would do so as a Steward. I can write in French and Latin at a basic to intermediate level and I can read French at an intermediate level (Latin is more basic). I've also found that my Latin and French ability allows me to comprehend most of what is written in the romance languages (though not write as much). Arabic or Asian languages are of course harder though I've found that knowing what to look for is actually more important for vandalism fighting then anything else (Penis all over the page or replacing a large page with 2 words ending with !!! for example). Let me know if you need anything else. James (T|C) 11:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question, you are right of course I have always tended to focus on more, for lack of a better word, administrative functions and as I said in my statement I especially focus on targeting abuse, spam and vandalism across the projects (hence CU and global rollback). I do other work as requested and as I find it, this generally includes more "wiki gnome" actions such as reference fixes, image additions or small grammar/spelling changes. I also tend to work on fixing templates especially on SimpleWiki. I love the Foundation projects and everything they do and want to support them as much as I can, sadly I have found myself to frequently be unimpressed by my own writing skills (as Mentifisto will tell you my spelling and grammar can leave much to be desired, likely my dyslexia). That being said I still want to support the project as much as possible and have found that the best way to do that (other then donations which I do when possible) is to try and work my hardest to try and keep the projects running as smoothly as possible. My focus with that has been on abuse and vandalism but I also try my hardest to help both new and old users when they are having problems to try and encourage people to continue to contribute and support our important and valuable projects. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question or feel free to contact me privately if you would like to discuss it more.James (T C) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy

edit
  • Do you think that with Stewards having access to the CU email list that it is better that a Steward is a CU on their home wiki so there is no conflict (and does your own CU access make you a more qualified candidate than if you lacked it)? Do you think Stewards without CU permission on their home wiki should have access to sensitive data pertaining to their home wiki? Ottava Rima 18:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not impossible for a steward to use the information they gain from their access to the checkuser mailing list for "political" leverage, it would not be easy to do this, since stewards can (normally) access only what data is passed to (or at) them by local checkusers. In any case, stewards are largely the only ones tasked with coordinating a response to sensitive crosswiki issues. Hence, it is imperative that they have access to the data that they need in order to make a reasoned decision. So yes, I think that stewards should have access to data from all projects, including their home projects. In my opinion, the potential conflict of interest induced by having access to the checkuser mailing list is insignificant, and is far outweighed by the benefit of having access to a holistic view of crosswiki issues. Also, stewards are elected via a vote from members of all wikis administered by the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus, they are implicitly given the trust of all these projects, including their home project, so they are not being elected in complete indifference to the wishes of their home project.
To answer your other question, I think that having experience with the checkuser tool prior to being elected as a steward is definitely a plus. Drawing conclusions from the results of checkuser queries is not always easy, and using the tool is basically the only way to learn how to use it well. </shameless self-promotion> J.delanoygabsadds 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your viewpoint regarding on-wiki Conflict of Interest such as an administrator granting rights to a user that they have collaborated with? Do you believe this is appropriate, or does it vary by the specific situation? IShadowed 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would not take actions involving the user rights of people that I know. However, since most steward actions with regard to user rights are merely flipping a switch in accordance with a local project's wishes, I don't think that it is necessarily an issue in and of itself.
I try to make sure that Wikimedia projects are as good as they can be. I try to help anyone I can in any way I can. That's pretty much it. J.delanoygabsadds 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I never have been. I try to avoid situations where people could accuse me of having a conflict of interest. J.delanoygabsadds 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your opinion - what is the main role of stewards in the community of Wikimedia? Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Stewards are responsible to formulate and/or coordinate responses to issues which affect multiple projects. Stewards are also responsible to assist projects with administrative tasks (sysop/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversight/etc.) when projects lack local users who hold the necessary permissions, or in the case of an extreme emergency when no local users with the necessary permissions can be contacted. J.delanoygabsadds 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please explain how come [4], a place to arbitrate issues regarding Macedonia the country, became the place where many Albanian contributors are reported and then continuously blocked from the English Wikipedia project (and I talk for personal experience)? The Albanian contributors have been reported for things that have nothing to do with ARBMAC. Is there anything that you would change in ARBMAC policies? ----Sulmues 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and I only extremely rarely enforce arbitration decisions on that project. In any case, from what I can tell, that case was opened as a result of a dispute over articles related to the real-world dispute surrounding name of the Republic of Macedonia. However, the case's scope was broadened to include "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.". At [1], the case states that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." Since the area of conflict was defined as I stated above, that is why the case is referenced and used in disputes related to Albania.
    As to what I would change in ARBMAC policies, first, stewards do not regulate or oversee content or content disputes. Second, the case you mentioned only applies to the English Wikipedia. Stewards are less likely to take action on that project than any other for several reasons, some of which are more obvious than others. Anyways, I really do not see how my opinion on that has anything to do with my behavior or suitability as a steward. Content issues (beyond things like blatant libel) are almost completely decided solely by each project's local community. Stewards are not allowed to act against a local project's wishes, and if elected, I will not under any circumstances even attempt to use my steward bit for "political" leverage. J.delanoygabsadds 01:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification.--Sulmues 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jyothis

edit
  • What is the stewards functions most interesting for you? Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 12:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User rights management, crosswiki abuse/counter vandalism and Checkuser. First two, I have a fair amount of experience and the third would be something new to work on. I will also be focusing on developing more tools to deal with counter vandalism - currently working on a new IRC bot that will help us provide an across the board view of activities in wikimedia projects. These are the ones I am very familar with and I wouldnt hesitate to take up more responsibilities as required. Thanks for asking. --Jyothis 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krinkle

edit
  • ...

Makimonaco

edit
  • Dear Makimonaco, in your election statement, you refer to several 'active accounts'. However, you only seem to be active since 13. Januar 2010 on these accounts (although one account has some edits in 2009), and one account has zero edits (Commons). This gives me the impression that your experience with the Wikimedia-projects is limited. Can you please eleborate on why you apply for the position as Steward, and what you will do as a Steward? Thanks in advance. Fruggo 11:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fruggo. Actutally, all my accounts were "ungrouped" until the 13th of January. Since it was a requirement to have all my accounts grouped prior to running for steward I did so and that seems to have "reset@ the creation date of all accounts and in one of them (EN) I realised that my data was lost or vandalised. --Makimonaco 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Makimonaco[reply]
Hello Innv. You are right. Actualy I have been helping people I work with to modify articles and create some others (mainly religion and renewable energies) but never really took any interest in doing so myself for myself untill little time ago. Regarding why I want to work as steward is because I have often felt, with this same people I work with, that Stewards are not always fair to writers. Maybe not because of their attitude (not always anyway) but also because of workload and I think that I can make a difference. Thanks. --Makimonaco 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Makimonaco.[reply]
Stewards are not always fair to writers. Can you please state where and when Steward actions have been unfair to people writing articles on any Wikimedia project? --M/ 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Courts are always right because they represent Justice. Stewards are, bottomline, right because they somehow represent "Wikijustice" but if they were always right there would be no need for mediation and the result of mediations would always be on the Steward's side... which is not always the case. In some cases Stewards may hold their personal beliefs or convictions above what a writter is writing about or correcting althou they should always maintain full objectivity.This is more true in some language wiki's than others and more in some subjects than in others. Maybe a cultural thing. --Makimonaco 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have mixed up stewards and arbitrators. Actually Arbitration Committee represents some kind of Wikijustice, and stewards actually do not decide, they just deal with many requests from local communities of different projects — NickK 22:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is that one of Stewards' tasks is to technically implement community consensus and, in some extent, to intervene in crosswiki vandalist plus emergency interventions which can basically be anything. To deal and understand this you need an open mind be open to discussion. --Makimonaco 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi maybe you remember me, I'm Taichi, a sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. I will ask in English because I believe that my question must be know for all. You mentioned about "Wikijustice", so ¿What means this? This message was wrote in my discussion page in capital letter with vehemence without good faith. Clearly your experience in Spanish Wikipedia is null in all the aspects: politics, community, etiquette, no personal attacks, etc. Your low profile in Spanish Wikipedia is very conflictive: bad behavior against sysops and also a recent local block. --Taichi - (あ！) 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melos

edit

Mentifisto

edit
  • How would you handle a steward request made by a user with whom you have strong feelings or emotions for or against them (meaning you know them and you either love their edits, or hate their guts)? Razorflame 04:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not deal with the request. Stewards should be impartial and requests dealt with correctly, according to consensus - at most I would consult with other stewards, but ideally conflicts of interest should be avoided whenever possible (apologies for the delay). -- Mentifisto 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your opinion - what is the role of stewards in the community of Wikimedia? Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In my view, stewards are there to cover the gaps in emergency situations, where local users aren't responding in the face of rampant (probably cross-wiki) vandalism, as well as helping currently small wikis grow by making admins (when that is agreed upon) when local bureaucrats don't yet exist. -- Mentifisto 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, which error? 'Native' may be perceived differently by different people... I do actually prefer to communicate in English, and I do read more in this language, so I'm far from infallible in mt. Babel boxes are inherently inconsistent (I was wondering why some people used en-5 when the template only had up to 4) but I did list what I thought would be technically correct. -- Mentifisto 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"mt", without a number next to it, denotes native proficiency. In your case, "mt-2", or something similar, is more correct. I'm not accusing you of deceit; I'm just saying that the way you've ordered it will lead to misconception. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore this. Off-wiki communication has put my concerns to rest. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like to know what the "off-wiki" communication was. I came here with exactly the same impression as Anonymous Dissident, and felt duped when I saw not a single Maltese edit, and I don't understand why you didn't correct the entry to prevent such misunderstandings. I will have to vote "No". I'm amenable to change that; please inform me at en:User talk:SebastianHelm. SebastianHelm 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you feel I duped you - I can assure you that wasn't my intention. AnonDiss thought my language skills themselves weren't up to par, because of a misunderstanding earlier when I translated something. I'm not sure what there is to change, since 'mt' is technically correct... I just enjoyed editing the wikis I did more (partially because they're bigger, and I enjoy keeping myself continually busy), nevertheless I frequent Meta and Commons, where sometimes I deal with languages other than English. Although I did translate my statement into the two languages (and do have some mt edits/tagged pages deleted, however very much minor and mostly due to SWMT) I admit I haven't edited much 'externally', because I haven't expanded there yet. -- Mentifisto 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I now feel that the word "duped" was a bit too strong; actually the way I felt was exactly as AnonDiss described. When you write that "'mt' is technically correct", are you saying it's your native language? If that is so, and since you need to have some interest in small wikis as a steward, I really don't understand why you didn't contribute to the 'mt' wikis in a way that's commensurate with your language skills. I do appreciate that you wrote the Maltese and Italian translations, but that alone leaves some room for doubt. BTW, I noticed that you wrote "ho iniziato il monitoraggio dei wiki piccoli" - have you indeed initiated the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, or is my Italian just not good enough? SebastianHelm 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred to edit the wikis I did... everyone is a volunteer here, so I think it's acceptable if they'd rather not participate in a specific form of activity. That said, it wouldn't be impossible for me to do so in the future if I see something that interests me. In regards to the translation, I meant to say "I initiated the monitoring of small wikis" (since in fact I didn't include 'squadra', which would imply founding it) - that said, my Italian is only intermediate as I stated, which is why I asked a native speaker afterwards. -- Mentifisto 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, everyone is a volunteer here, and I am grateful for your commitment; that is certainly acceptable, no matter how much you do. If, as it looks like, you get appointed, then I will stand behind you and support you. For a vote, however, I'm looking for a bit more than just acceptable behavior. I would wish that someone who wants to care for small wikis has more than just a superficial interest in at least one small wiki. Regarding "iniziare": I was aware that the word "team" wasn't translated; I just translated the statement word for word into English, and in English "initiating the monitoring" would mean that nobody has done it until you came along. But I just realized that "iniziare" can be synonymous to "cominciare", so the statement may not mean the same as my English translation. SebastianHelm 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and appreciate your concern in regards to small wikis. I'll take it into consideration. :-) -- Mentifisto 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy

edit
Thanks for your question. For me, the most interesting function is definitely the ability to block vandals and to delete pages they've created on every wiki. Then, the global block would also be useful for me when a disruptive user vandalizes cross-wiki, as some vandals do quite often. The ability to hide offensive usernames is also a handy tool for removing these names from history of pages. --Mercy 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is essential for a steward to know several languages. The more languages stewards know (at least at a basic level) the more they are capable of understanding local policies on different wikis. As far as vandal-fighting is concerned, knowledge of a language of a particular wiki might become helpful for making a decision whether a user is a good-faith contributor or a vandal. --Mercy 16:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't really been watching this poll, mainly because the topic of telepathy is a "terra incognita" for me. The only thing I can say about the result is that I respect the consensus of the community. Best regards, --Mercy 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for a Sterward there musn't be a "terra incognita". So you agree that some administrators, just block users in order to disclose them from matter-of-case disscusion if the community allready decided about the end-content? Didn't you worry about polarization and forming of groups of users, they just should group toegether and force the end-content by polling against each other? --Vbhubeny 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This hardly seem relevant for Mercy becoming a Steward or not, please keep content issues at cswiki at that project. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwilso24

edit
I am someone who always strives to give back to whatever community they are involved with, and the Wikimedia community is no different. I believe I bring many qualities to the table which will help me in this position, including the ability to consider positions without bias and to build consensus. My goal is to be an active Steward, helping the community as needed, included through helping combat cross-wiki vandalism or vandalism on sites without a large active user base and no active administrators. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)…[reply]
A steward's role is to be an impartial and transparent promoter of consensus building, tasked with the implementation of the collective will of the entire Wikimedia community. A steward aids the community through emergency response and through more direct involvement in smaller projects. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true to this point I do not have an extensive cross-wiki history, this is a trend which will not continue. Stewardship is not a prize and not an award but is something that must be taken very seriously, and in my opinion should only be granted to worthy candidates. I am here because I believe I fall into this category. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from the #For all candidates section) What experience do you have dealing with cross-wiki spam or vandalism? Do you have any tips or advice for a recently joined SWMT member? Do you have some for a long term member or steward as well? What do you consider to be the most important part of a steward's job? Please answer separately for the work to be done and the manner of doing it. --Erwin 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While to date the majority of my dealings with spam or vandalism has been on the English Wikipedia for the most part I do have some experience cross-wiki, however like I mentioned above this will also be expanding in the future. In all dealings, it is important that a steward always remember the role they play in this community and the position of trust they are given, a trust that must be respected at all times. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 14:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame

edit
I do think that integrity and honesty are important characteristics of a Steward. If you are heartfelt and honest about your response here, I would vote for you. -- Thekohser 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Integrity and honesty are important characteristics for a steward to have, however, I don't see how my actions about 10-12 months in the past matter any longer because of how long ago it happened. I've changed quite a bit over the past year, so while I might have acted like an arrogant jerk a few years ago, I now am a kind and helpful person who likes to help new people out with things on Wikimedia wikis. If I didn't believe I had any integrity or honesty, I would not have applied to become a steward here. As the old saying goes, "What has happened has happened." and "no need to dig up old bones that you've already buried." Razorflame 20:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your recent issues on en.wiktionary, simple.wiktionary, and simple.wikipedia, do you feel you are likely to be appointed to steward? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the questiosn Juliancolton. I believe that while people can have difficulties in life, they can easily be overcome and easily beaten, and that is what I hope to do. While I'm not expecting any miracles, I'm not expecting a flop of an election. I still think that it will be interesting. I think that I do have a chance, but that that chance is not as large as some of the other candidates.
    People who learn to work through difficult times with flair and kindness will end up becoming some of the most sturdy and friendly people that you can ever know, and I believe that I am becoming one of them now. This is just another difficulty in my life that I will work hard to overcome, but it will be fairly hard to do so. I hope this answers your question. Thanks again for asking it, Razorflame 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Barras

edit
  • I just figured out that you were recently blocked on enwikt. Can you explain why you were blocked there for one week? Also, do you think it is good not to be in the position of at least an admin on any wiki to become a steward? Furthermore, I saw that you asked the stewards to do quick deletions (routine ones) on simple wiktionary where admins are often around? Do I have to be frightened that you could do such work with your possible steward tool? (I think a text to this can be found somewhere on simplewikt, I think I read about this there) Also, you retired last year several times and come back just after minutes (at least sometimes or ones). If you get the stewardship, will you do the same? Would you just remove the steward flag then and request the bit ten minutes later back? Can you explain why people should trust you with the steward flag when they don't even trust you with the sysop bit (see below, the 12 RfAs on simplewiki, the bit regaining requests on simple wiktionary [all listed here])? -Barras talk 10:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello there Barras. Yes, I was recently blocked on the English Wiktionary, but it wasn't for breaking the rules of the Wiki. It was for violating a promise that I made (this was back on the 30th of December) to not add translations to languages other than Ido, Esperanto, Spanish, and English. I added some translations to some languages other than those four using the information provided by the English Wikipedia (and the interwikis). It wasn't for anything about vandalism, disruption, stupidity, or any of the other reasons why people are blocked on the English Wiktionary.
    Yes, while I do think that a steward should be an administrator/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversighter on other wikipedias, I also believe that people who used to be sysops or bureaucrats on Wikimedia wikis, and how resigned their tools in good faith would also understand what stewards have to do and how to use the tools. Basically, I believe that if a user has experience with the tools that stewards use, even though they do not hold any restricted tools at the moment, but have in the past makes me believe that they have experience in those areas.
    About the routine deletions on simplewikt, yes, I did request it, however, when one of the stewards told me that that was not a good idea, I learned from that mistake and have not asked for any of those kinds of permission recently or in the near past. No, you would not need to be frightened that I would or could do such work with the possible steward tool because the Steward policy is very clear that I cannot handle any requests in any of the Wikimedia wikis that I actively edit. Since the Simple English Wiktionary is one of the wikis that I actively edit, I would not do any steward work on the Simple English Wiktionary.
    Yes, I did retire several times last year, only to come back a few minutes-hours later, and I blame that on my instable lifestyle at that point in time. Since my lifestyle was hectic back then, so, too, was my editing style on Wikimedia wikis. Since then, though, my lifestyle has gotten much more stable and I have not retired or unretired for a while now. Furthermore, if I were granted the steward tool, I would most certainly not resign my steward bit unlesss I am absolutely sure that I am not going to use it again, which would not be the case.
    I believe that people should trust me with the steward flag because of the fact that I have matured and changed over the past few months. My process of thinking, and my editing style on Wikimedia wikis have become much slower paced than before, and I have been thinking through every single thing that I have done on Wikimedia wikis for the past few months. While certain users might not trust me with the sysop tool, I ask them to carefully look over all my contributions and all of my edits and everything that has happened over the last few months, and ask them if giving me the steward flag would be a net positive or net negative for all the projects involved with stewardship. I believe that people can trust me with the steward flag for the same reason that they trusted me with the bureaucrat and sysop flag on the Simple English Wiktionary, that it would be a net positive for all projects involved. While I have not thought through things in the past, I have been doing so more and more often over the past few months, and I definitely believe as though everything that I do is the right thing to do at that point in time.
    Thank you for asking me those questions Barras. I hope that my answers satisfy what you were asking for. Razorflame 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Kennedy

edit
  • You recently withdrew your 12th RfA at Simple.Wikipedia. Please explain how you would be suited to the role of steward when you have no current "flags" at wikipedia, and your only experience of those is on a relatively inactive Wiktionary? Kennedy 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Kennedy. Thank you for your concerns about whether or not I would make a good steward. I'll try to answer this question as honestly and completely as I can.
    In my opinion, stewards are the people that you go to when you are dealing with cross-wiki vandalism. I, for one, am thouroughly disgusted by people who think that if they vandalize on one project and then hop to another project, that they think that they can get away with it. Since I joined the SWMT in January or February of last year, I've been exposed to these kinds of things and it makes me upset that people do cross-wiki vandalism, just to have a laugh or to have a hoot. Stewards help to control these cross-wiki vandals, as well as help to serve as the link between all of the different wiki projects, and to communicate with many different people of many different countries, which I find fascinating, and even more so when I am able to help them solve a problem that they have so that they can continue on volunteering at that project of their choice.
    While it is true that I have not had any of the flags on a Wikipedia project, I have had both the bureaucrat and administrator flag on the Simple English Wiktionary, which, while not as active as some of the other Wikimedia wikis, still had vandalism happen on it. When I first became a sysop on the Simple English Wiktionary, I was one of the only people who noticed a trend between a bunch of different IP ranges and malbots editing two specific entries on the Simple English Wiktionary: adder and conformity. I then proceeded to map them all out using NMap and found a huge open proxy farm on the Simple English Wiktionary. If I were to become a steward, I would strive to root out people who vandalize using open proxies or who are malbots on other wikis and stop them from harming those wikis. While it is true that I did have some difficulties with the flags on the Simple English Wiktionary, I took the high road and took other administrators' advice on how to do things. For example, when Tygrrr called me out (happened in March or April of 2009) for blocking someone without giving them a sufficient warning first, I took his advice to heart and didn't block any IP after that without first warning them for vandalism. The problems that I had with the administrator flag weren't earthshattering and problem-causing issues; they were small issues that were easy to fix, and they were fixed as soon as they came to my attention.
    While it is true that I did just withdraw (about a week and a half ago) from my 12th RfA on the Simple English Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is is that the reason why the number of RfAs is so high is because of the fact that when I first joined and started editing the Simple English Wikipedia, I didn't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia then, or what each flag was for, so I foolishly ran for RfA in too quick of succession. I attribute this to the fact that I was ignorant and unknowledgable back then and that I didn't really know what I was doing. Over the two years that I have been editing Mediawiki wikis, I believe that I have grown and matured quite a bit from when I first started editing. Instead of being the person who asks other, more knowledgeable editors for help with writing an article, I am now the person giving other, newer, lesser experienced users the help and advice that I was given when I first started editing. While I know and understand the problems that people have with me being an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia, I believe that while they do have valid points, the fact of the matter is that I believe that I have matured immensely, and that I am now sturdy as a rock in terms of stability. Both of those were concerns that other people had about me on my RfAs.
    I understand that my judgement might not be the best, but what you really need to understand is that I do everything that I do for the benefit of the Wiki. I know that people make mistakes; it is in their nature, but is the right thing really to continually chastise them about it, or to let them grow and become more confident?
    People might be thinking, wow, this user has never been a Checkuser on any Wiki, how is he going to be able to do the Checkuser? Well, I will be able to use the checkuser tool appropriately because I will, if elected seek out help with things that I am unfamiliar with, so as to minimize the chance that I would make a mistake. For example, if I needed to checkuser someone on, for example, the Swedish Wiktionary because of a request that someone from that wiki made on Steward requests/Checkuser, I would first ask another steward to help guide me through the process the first time because even though I don't have any experience, I would learn quickly. While some people might think: Oh? We shouldn't elect a steward who would need to ask another steward for help when he needs to run a checkuser, the fact of the matter is that stewards help other stewards out when they have a problem with something, or if they just need a second opinion. I would utilize this to be absolutely sure that what needs to be done is the right way of tackling things. Since I would be a new steward who wouldn't know the lay of the land, I would be more prone to make mistakes, but that is how people learn, and I, too, would learn the lay of the land.
    Honestly. I was a fool to have run so many RfAS in such quick succession when I first started editing the Simple English Wikipedia, and adminship doesn't really interest me that much any longer. The only reason why I want to become a steward is so that I can help as many people as I can solve as many problems as they have on their wikis, and to help make sure that all Mediawiki wikis run as smoothly as they possibly can. My intent is pure.
    I believe that I would be well suited for the role of steward because I like helping other people solve their problems and because I like making a difference in the community. While I might not know everything, what I don't know can easily be learnt over time. Again, my intentions for running for steward are completely and honestly pure, and I only want to be able to help out as many people as I can and help keep all Wikimedia wikis running smoothly.
    I hope this answers your question, Kennedy. Razorflame 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question by A Stop at Willoughby

edit
  • Did you resign your sysop and bureaucrat rights on the Simple English Wiktionary? If so, why and under what circumstances? A Stop at Willoughby 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello there A Stop at Willoughby. That situation was complex and caused the stewards to get together for a discussion about it. What happened was I requested my bits removed, and then requested them restored about 15 minutes later. Please keep in mind that this happened on the 22nd of November. Basically, I made a terrible snap decision and resigned my bits, in good faith, because I thought that I wasn't going to edit that Wiki any longer. After mulling it over for several minutes (10-15, to be exact), I decided that that was not the right thing to do and requested them back, which were restored to me. However, after the stewards talked it over with each other, they decided that even if people who request their bits removed and then request them restored fairly quickly afterwords, that people can no longer do so over IRC.
    That whole incident was due to the turmoil that I was going through on the English Wiktionary at that time. This happened over two months ago, and I've moved past it. I made a stupid decision then, because of what was going on, and I regretted it almost instantly. However, I fully respect the stewards' decision to remove them again because it was the right thing to do. According to the Stewards' Handbook, stewards can only remove the bits; they cannot restore them. Only a local community discussion and community consensus to regain the bits can allow you to regain the bits.
    Two months later, I have gotten those rash decisions under control. I no longer make extremely rash decisions at a seconds' notice.
    The bits were removed due to a mistake that I completely regret, and I can assure you that I no longer make those kinds of mistakes any longer. If you were to elect me as a steward, I would carefully think through every action that I make before I make them, and if I am unsure about making an action, I would ask another stewards' opinion on the matter, especially if it has to deal with one of the wikis that I am active on.
    Below are the log entries for this incident:
    • 02:42, 23 November 2009 Lar (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from Bureaucrats and Administrators to (none) (Stewards can remove permissions but absent a community process or consensus, cannot restore them.)
    • 02:21, 23 November 2009 Pathoschild (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from (none) to Administrators and Bureaucrats (Steward requests/Permissions)
    • 02:11, 23 November 2009 Lar (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from Bureaucrats and Administrators to (none) (request)
    Thank you for the question, and I hope this answers it! Cheers, Razorflame 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements?

edit
  • Please, explain the chronology of your behavior. In particular, I am interested in: (1) which types of troubles you had been creating (a sentence or two per type is enough), (2) when it had stopped, and (3) which are improvements in your behavior? Also, I would like to see some testimonies of the improvement of your behavior. I think that everyone can change their behavior, but you need to prove that you have done it. --Millosh 10:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the questions Millosh, however, I am a bit confused as to what you mean by these questions. Are there any particular Wikimedia wikis to which you are referring? Thanks for the clarification, Razorflame 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't know you and I saw that some persons are talking about that. So, I want that you explain them and I want to learn about your improvements. There is nothing behind my questions. --Millosh 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that there isn't anything behind the questions, Millosh. I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are asking. Razorflame 02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Millosh

edit

Hello there Millosh. I finally understand exactly what you are asking now. Please see my answers to the questions by Barras for some of the problems that I unintentionally caused. Other than the problems that I have unintentionally caused on the English Wiktionary, there have been others, all of which have been solved:

  • I sometimes have people tell me that I might be used the rollback when an undo is the better choice. The last instance of someone telling me this was about two months ago. This issue has already been solved because I have made sure that every single edit that I rollback is the correct type of edit to rollback. Since the last instance of this, I have not had anyone tell me that I might have used the rollback tool when the undo tool was the better choice. Sometimes, my touchpad on my laptop seems to like to click the rollback button, and sometimes, I accidentally click the rollback button when I did not mean to because my laptop's touchpad sensed a click when that was not the case. This problem has also been fixed.
  • People tell me that I tend to rush through things. The last instance of someone telling me this was a few months ago. Since then, I have slowed down my rate of editing and now think through the edit before I make it. Since then, I have not had anyone tell me that I rush through things.

I might add other problems that people have had with me and how I have solved them if I think of them, but for now, that is all of the ones that I can think of right now. Razorflame 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question by 74.50.118.91

edit
  • Since you are eo-2 and io-2, are you going to translate your statement into Esperanto and Ido? 74.50.118.91 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, since I am only eo and io-2, I do not have enough experience in the languages to successfully translate my statement into these languages. That isn't to say that I did not think about doing so, I did, it is just that I don't have enough experience in the languages to successfully translate my statement into the languages requested. Razorflame 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Avraham translated all of the statements into Hebrew even though he is only he-2 and User:Dferg wrote his statement in English even though he is only en-2. If you really are eo-2 and io-2, you should be able to write your statement in those languages. Also, why does your user page say "io-1"? 74.50.118.91 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, he must be on the high end fo the he-2 scale, whereas I am on the low end of the eo-2 and io-2 scale. Furthermore, I haven't updated my babel yet, so that is why it says io-1. Razorflame 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true, Razorflame! Even me, I'm just only en-2, but I can understand and write pretty well the language are. Maybe that it is not your level, though. Also, it's been a long time a go I've seen your WP:Babel shows that you can speak es-3 (on the simple English). However, I'm little bit surprised to see you now you're speaking es-1 or 2. How come?--Wikipedian (Activist) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we got any guidelines for language rating, so eo-2 only means he personally thinks he can write and speak esperanto at an intermediate level. Whether or not that is sufficient for translating a statement, is his decision. The statement is quite important to the candidate, and I fully understand that he would not like his Esperanto or Ido statement to contain grammatical errors (which might occure when you're an eo-2/io-2). --EivindJ 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Innv

edit

You have ~100K edits in WMF wikis, but you don't have sysop/crat rights in any wiki. Why? Regards, – Innv | d | s: 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do have around 100k edits on Wikimedia wikis, there are a few in which I have not run at all on, because I have not wanted to run in them. This includes the English Wikipedia. I have no desire to be an administrator there. I was an administrator and bureacurat on the Simple English Wiktionary a few months ago, however, if you read my reply to the question by A Stop at Willoughby, you will see the reason as to why I am no longer one there. Please also read my replies to the questions posed by Kennedy and Barras for the answers as to why I am not an administrator on the Simple projects. Another reason why I am not a sysop or bureaucrat on any project is because I do not really see why I should be one of those projects because I like contributing content to them. That does not mean that I don't fight vandalism on them, though :) Razorflame 03:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being blunt, but your claim "While I do have around 100k edits on Wikimedia wikis, there are a few in which I have not run at all on, because I have not wanted to run in them. This includes the English Wikipedia. I have no desire to be an administrator there" is not true. If you had no desire to be an administrator on EN, why undergo admin coaching not once, but twice? I note the comment from near the top of the first link "What do I still need to work on before you feel comfortable with nominating me for adminship? I would like to tell you that I am someone who likes having a goal to work towards, as it is a part of who I am. Cheers, Razorflame 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)". I do have some sympathy towards you in that you've failed RFA on Simple English at least 12 times - and a grudging sort of respect for not vanishing and creating a new account, as 99.99% of other people would have done - but if you really think this candidacy here is serious, you are fooling yourself George The Dragon 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I have expressed interest in the past on running for adminship on the English Wikipedia, if you notice the dates on those links, they were from well over a year ago, and time changes people. While over a year ago, I might have had a desire to run for adminship on the English Wikipedia, now, I have no desire to run for adminship on the English Wikipedia. Furthermore, if I thought that this candidacy wasn't serious, I would not have posted it in the first place, or taken the time to identify myself to the Wikimedia Foundation. These kinds of comments are not only derogatory, but violate, in my opinion, the NPA policy. Razorflame 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unfair. He'd get my vote simply because he's not a long-term veteran sysop/crat/check user like most applicants seem to be. Fresh blood is needed and an ability to not just go along with what everyone else wants is essential.--Xania 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SETI3

edit

Shashank Reddy.P

edit
  • You claim being fluent in Hindi and Telugu. Are you somewhat active in the Wikipedias in those languages? What kind of tasks do you like to do there mostly? Do you feel ready, as a steward, to help people from smaller Wikipedias? Amikeco 09:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Answer from Shashank Reddy.P to Amikeco

Well I have been an active editor in wikipedia since an year and have done very minor tasks in those languages as I specialize in editing others fields which i have mentioned in my profile. Yes I feel ready to help people from smaller Wikipedias...how may i help you? please do let me know if you need any help, I am here to help out fellow Wikipedians.

Answer from Shashank Reddy.P to Teles I had a previous account on Wikipedia with less than 150 edits but someone hacked into that account and i had to delete it Though I had less edits I do believe in my self and I am self confident in making Wikipedia a better place with help of others and helping fellow Wikipedians in whichever way possible

It is not always quantity but quality too matters.

  • Hello Shashank reddy, You told that you are fluent in telugu. So, I'm asking you a question in telugu. Ofcourse typed in english...Meeru Steward gaa participate cheyaalani enduku anukuntunaaru?...means why do you want to be a steward??.....115.184.47.174 11:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit
The most interesting function is the ability to be able to fight vandalism with all the tools (checkuser, oversight, CentralAuth). Thank you for your question and for translate my statement. -- @lestaty discuţie 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer and welcome. Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do think your plan to "help mainly the Latin communities (including the Portuguese-speaking ones), which have few stewards supporting them" is appropriate for a steward, who would be expected to help particularly with small wikis (AFAIK, the pt projects are not very small) and to avoid taking steward actions on their home wiki(s)?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike, this is my main interest, but obviously I will play the other roles of steward, fighting vandalism on smaller wikis of another languages. And according to the rules of the stewards, in my home wiki I will not perform the role of steward Cheers -- @lestaty discuţie 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do plan to do about the american stewards? Also, can you create a page on George M. Davis Jr. Elementary School in New Rochelle New York? I would appreciate that.-pchittg

Thekohser

edit
  • You have a lenghty history of blocks on many wikis, including five blocks till infinity on your home wiki, you have created dozens of sockpuppets in English Wikipedia and you have almost no experience as a sysop, crat or checkuser. Why you apply for steward rights? Do you think it is appropriate for a steward to be blocked on several wikis? — NickK 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think blocks that inherently don't work like a magic wand to "create" the illusion of due process are not a major concern to me and my candidacy. I am a sysop and owner of a wiki with over 2,000 registered users and over 50,000 pages. How is that "almost no experience"? How many wikis do you own and operate, NickK? -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, blocks are really a concern. If a user asks you (if you were elected a steward), for example, to hide some private information at strategywiki, how will you react? Actually you would not be able to do that as you are blocked. I do not own any wikis, however, that's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Concerning experience, I do not think that a user who has any experience with sysop tools, would perform simple tests like that. Usually sysops block their sockpuppets a few hours after being elected, but not a week before nominating for stewardship. Do you have any experience as a bureaucrat, checkuser or oversight? — NickK 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really feel that being an admin on Wikimedia Laboratories Flagged Revisions, a wiki where anyone can become an administrator for testing Flagged Revisions, is an "achievement"? 74.50.118.91 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I earned the trust of Gregory Maxwell, and that is an achievement of at least some degree. I am sorry to see you disparage this sense of accomplishment. -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Compromised" is a loaded term, and my wallet has nothing to do with my Steward candidacy. (Unless, that is, Steward bits can be purchased like Wikimedia Foundation board seats can be? If that's the case, how much do I need to shell out for this Steward-level user right?) -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say it more clearly then: Mr Kohs, were you using the account User:Cool3? --Philippe 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Philippe who blocked me from adding my reasoned, forward-looking opinions to Philippe's personal fiefdom, the Strategy Wiki? But now -- NOW -- he wants answers from me, when it might cast me in some sort of negative light? How macabre, Mr Beaudette. -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're avoiding the question, and with an ad hominem distraction, too. Lar, Philippe, and I all ask the question. Did you or did you not use the Cool3 account? This is a yes-or-no question. Nihiltres(t.u) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question, "Did you or did you not use the Cool3 account?" is not the same question that Lar asked (he seems fixated on the purported "purchase" of the account), but it is essentially the same question that Philippe asked. I did not respond to Philippe, because he has censored my ideas in the past, so I felt he was unworthy of receiving my response now. Kind of like if you went to your neighbor to borrow rake, he said "no, go away", and then you went to him again to borrow a shovel, he said "no, go away"; when he comes to your door and asks (in a demanding tone) to borrow an axe, I wouldn't find it at all unusual to say, "Considering your past treatment of me, I don't feel that you deserve to borrow my axe." But, you, Nihiltres have never gotten me banned from a Wikimedia website, have you? You've only sought to ban me from Yahoo! Answers, correct? So, I suppose I owe you a direct yes-or-no answer to your question. Yes, I did use the Cool3 account. I thought that was abundantly clear, already, though -- don't you trust your ArbCom and your "multiple" CheckUser reports? -- Thekohser 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to become a Steward to expand my understanding and awareness of the cross-wiki operations of various Wikimedia Foundation projects. My brevity in explaining my "campaign speech" stems from previous experience with one audio-recorded Wikimedia project that took up over 2 hours of my time to answer various questions posed by a user named Durova, and preserved in a digital file held by a user named Shoemaker's Holiday. He decided to suppress that recording, and it's never seen the light of day. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • apart from questions about the blocks mentioned above (see here), you seem to be uncertain about wikilayout (i noticed [7] and [8]), and you haven't unified your accounts; what is your vision on what a steward is and does and needs to be and do? do you think a steward needs some wiki-related, basic or advanced, technical knowledge and experience? which (other) aspects to being a steward are also important in your opinion, why would you qualify? what steward related bug reports are urgent in your opinion? would you as a steward assume or have the right to edit, view and perform specialized actions on wikis where you are currently indefinitely blocked? good luck and all the best, oscar 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My familiarity with wikilayout is at least as competent as your usage of capitalization. My accounts are unified, so it's difficult to see why you're throwing around a claim to the contrary. Of course a steward needs to have a reasonable level of technical competency -- skills I am certain I can acquire shortly after elected. I have an IQ of 134. If that is not sufficient to acquire the technical skills, then I will withdraw my candidacy. I will avoid all projects (I believe just one of hundreds?) where I am blocked. -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I put forward a candidacy on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki in order to demonstrate against Wikipedia. Check the upper left-hand corner of this page. This isn't Wikipedia, Razorflame. -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you became a steward, would you attempt to unblock yourself on any project you have been blocked on? Would you try to use your status as steward to make any block appeals on said projects? Would you attempt to use CU or OS on said projects? Ottava Rima 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will endeavor to never use Steward tools or privileges to engage in any way on "any project" (it's currently just English Wikipedia, correct?) where I am blocked at the time of my holding the Steward user rights. -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you by any chance apply because of the disappointment you felt for your poor result in the 2009 Board election (third to last)? Or do you have the same agenda than on said election (and I quote : "a good shake-up", "curb the culture of unaccountability, lack of professionalism, and sub-average content quality") (in which case you obviously believe that being a Steward is the right place to do so)? Would this application have anything to see with your "instrumental roles in launching several Internet brands", and possibly the eventual reenactment of such a role in future launchings of similar companies, with absolutely no bonus for Wikimedia? Alphos [bother me] 07:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Steward bit would be a highly inefficient means toward any of the possible ends that you hypothesize above. So, I would have to answer you with "No", "No", "Only marginally, from an experiential credentials perspective". You mention "no bonus for Wikimedia". Once again, I am concerned -- am I required to pay a bonus to Wikimedia in order to acquire this Steward bit? That sounds a smidgen unseemly, but how much of a bonus am I expected to remit? -- Thekohser 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say "money" ? A bonus can also merely be time spent efficiently ... but appearantly the only thing you believe someone can give to Wikimedia is a bucket of bucks. Isn't that just loveable ? Alphos [bother me] 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alphos, re: "Or do you have the same agenda than on said election (and I quote : "a good shake-up", "curb the culture of unaccountability, lack of professionalism, and sub-average content quality")"
I'm curious as to what component of this statement/agenda you found controversial and/or objectionable. Should Wikimedia projects retain their culture of unaccountability, lack of professionalism, and sub-average content quality? Please explain your thinking here, because at first glance, it seems to me very strange to oppose someone for this reason.Proabivouac 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is it a steward's role to define WMF and WMF-wikis guidelines? WMF-wikis have been created with a motto : "free [content] that anyone can edit". What Thekohser is trying to introduce here is some kind of Citizendium-like or Knol-like database that would be written by professionals (or at least people with "profesionalism" - if different, define professionalism a little more clearly... all I hope is that he doesn't want to create a system where there are "professional Wikipedia editors", "professional Wiktionary updaters", "personnal Wikibooks writers", and so on : I can't even imagine how shocking that would be!). If that's what he wants, I still wonder why he keeps bothering appearantly everyone pretty much everywhere on WMF-wikis : he really, really should depart our community for one of the two I cited ; this is the best way for him to finally see "professionalism", "accountability", "supra-average content quality", and for us to get rid of him. In other words : please scoot ; skedaddle ; move ; leave ; hit the road ; go away ; etc...
As for the second part of the question : Wikimedia wikis, by their motto, are precisely prone to be disrupted by vandals, "unprofessional" people ; and considering notability criteria decided by the community (and by this, I mean "not by Stewards alone"), they may hold content of low interest for some people (I can't myself understand why we so much need reality-shows, or soccer, or catch, or pretty much any sport actually ; but unlike Thekohser I have learned to live with it...), but that doesn't make it "sub-average content quality". Feeling superior doesn't mean you are superior... So, I'd say Wikimedia projects should retain :
  • lack of professionalism : they must keep being freely editable.
  • culture of unaccountability : I can't seriously imagine anyone editing an article about Tibet, working from behind a few proxies just to get out of the Great Firewall of China have to reveal their name in order to participate ; anonymity most definitely is a necessary feature : let those who want to tell their names do it, and those who don't want to, not.
  • sub-average content quality : Wikipédia is probably the only encyclopedia that has an article about w:Susan Boyle (viewed 213641 times this january alone), w:Beyonce Knowles (396641 times), w:John Malkovich (101412), the w:muons (12753), the w:Ventury effect (25688), the w:Bugatti Veyron (171374), the w:Greco-Italian War (5882), the w:Code of Hammurabi (45077), etc... If we remove that, we probably are going to get our lovely critics reminding us we don't improve anything compared to Britannica ; and quite frankly, I wouldn't even try proving them wrong if that were the case. Britannica doesn't want an article on many things : Wikipedia does indeed wish to provide sourced and verifiable content on every notable content. And with rates that high, who would I be, and who does Thekohser believe he is, to decide this "sub-average-quality content" does not have its place on an encyclopedia ?
  • and above all, its unshaken community.
Alphos [bother me] 04:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too lengthy and meandering to respond to intelligently. Suffice it to say, I believe Alphos is misguided in many of his assumptions. -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I asked you questions - none of which you managed to give a convincing answer to, unless you count 7-word answers and money-centerism as answers... I wouldn't even hope you to stop being disruptive, but could you just give it a try ? C'm'on, don't be shy, no-one will be mad at you =) Alphos [bother me] 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe Stewards need to give straight answers to direct yes or no questions? (that's a direct yes or no question, by the way) Why or why not? Do you think that you've given straight answers to the questions you've been asked here? If you do think that, please elaborate as to why they should not be perceived as disingenuous and evasive. If you acknowledge that you haven't, why not? ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are certain questions that a Steward should not feel compelled to respond to. Example: "Did you or did you not visit a massage parlor in Moscow while traveling on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and if so, did you then submit the receipt for that visit to the Foundation for reimbursement (whether intentional or not)?" That's a sort of question that a Steward "need" not give a straight answer to. I have not given straight answers to all of the questions that I've been asked here, largely because the Wikimedia Foundation that owns this site and its servers is frequently prone to delivering less than straight answers. I'm just trying to fit in, you know? -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it true that you decided to do breaching experiments on the English Wikipedia? Furthermore, do you feel that these experiments are in line with the duties of a steward? —Dark talk 11:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did decide to conduct a breaching experiment on the English Wikipedia. Activities like these would not be a part of the "duty" list of a Steward, as far as I can tell, although, they could be an honorable pastime while "off duty" and not on the Steward clock. Surely, we all agree that my breaching experiment of January 2010 was one of the most helpful and beneficial such experiments ever conducted on Wikipedia? -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have repeatedly vandalized at least the English Wikipedia using multiple accounts, as recently as this January. You have also been a very vocal proponent of forcibly outing the identities of pseudonymous editors. How do you reconcile your behavior with requesting a role that demands that you protect the Wikimedia projects from people that behave exactly like you do? — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very reckless definition of "vandalized", as well as of "forcibly outing", Coren. Until you can shape up those issues, I see no need to answer if I've stopped beating my wife. -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently you have said in a forum "There was a time when I felt surrounded by Wikipediots on Yahoo! Answers. It seems that the tables have turned, and there are now more bona fide Wikipedia critics active there than the sycophants can muster against. The party faithful are starting to visibly crack." Could you elaborate more? Sole Soul 07:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Great question, by the way. Yahoo! Answers has a category where people may ask questions about and relating to "Wikipedia". Between 12 and 18 months ago, I found my answers to many of the questions I found there were a "voice in the wilderness", in that I seemed to be the only respondent capable of imagining that Wikipedia might not be a perfect utopia of free knowledge. In the past 6 months or so, however, I am seeing that not only am I not alone in doubting the ethics and accountability of Wikipedia's leadership, my voice seems to be a part of a small majority of respondents. It is clear that this is highly disturbing to many Wikipedia-faithful (whom I sometimes label "Wikipediots"), but it is a necessary part of their waking up to realize that most of their activity merely perpetuates the sloppy, the careless, and the self-serving management of the world's "knowledge". Once they come over to my way of thinking, they will realize the folly of their past ways, then can begin to constructively change Wikipedia for the better by ceasing their daily toleration of ethically unaccountable practices. -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that such revelation is exactly what certain Wikipediots are looking for in order to bring federal electronic terrorism charges against me, and so therefore, I respectfully decline to satisfy your curiosity in this matter. -- Thekohser 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have edited Wikipedia using the account en:User:Cool3. I do not anticipate presenting apologies to en:User:Cool three because en:User:Cool three has not asked me for any apology. -- Thekohser 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wutsje

edit
  • Given the lack of stewards, do you anticipate that your activity concerning SWMT will be reduced? as you will inevitably have more things to do as a steward. --Egmontaz♤ talk 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally speaking being a steward would probably lead to some focus shifts in my activities, certainly in the beginning, because growing into performing new tasks and roles obviously needs time. However, I do not intend to create that time by becoming less active as an SWMT member (it's more likely that I will reduce my home wiki activities). Besides, as a steward I would have the opportunity to deal with cross wiki vandals in a much more effective way: being able to globally block a disruptive cross wiki user myself for example would be considerably less time consuming than reverting his edits, requesting such a block in #wikimedia-stewards, waiting for it to be imposed (which may take some time when there are no active stewards around), reverting more vandalistic edits in the meantime.
  • What quality do you think is the most important quality for a steward to have, and why? Razorflame 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's such a thing as a single most important steward quality, but if I had to choose a conditio sine qua non at gunpoint I'd probably say: a good memory, because it's very hard to function in any position without that. But of course other qualities are relevant too, for example: cross wiki experience, technical and language skills, knowing what is and what is not expected from a steward, a basically friendly and helpful attitude, being aware you're working in a team, knowing when and where to seek advise, some talent for diplomacy, a basic psychological insight, the ability to stay calm when needed, not having a nine to five attitude, understanding of and respect for other cultures, a good general knowledge, and even some sense of humour. Wutsje 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have sysop rights in many wikis, but don't have special rights like checkuser or bureaucrat (in content wiki). Why? Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 12:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

patachonf

edit
  • …

thecurran

edit
  • …

wishfulanthony

edit

Notice: Want to ask questions or write comments on my candidacy? Those must be directed here so that it will be easier for you to write them down (instead of writing it along with the huge amounts of text on this page), and I will answer each one of them personally. The link will bring you to my statements Talk page.

For all candidates

edit

This section is meant for generic questions where all candidates are asked to answer. Please keep this number of questions to an absolute minimum due to the caused overhead.

Questions by Sukida

edit
  1. Are you familiar with, and willing to abide by, policies such as the Steward policy, Checkuser policy, and Oversight policy in your position as steward if elected? Please elaborate beyond a simple "yes."
  2. Are you familiar with the various tools available to stewards on Wikimedia, such as CentralAuth, Interwiki userrights, Global blocking and global groups, and Wiki sets?
  3. If an editor asked you to perform an emergency desysop and the situation seems to be politically charged, would you perform it even though it could cost you votes on your next confirmation? If an editor shows where an administrator is posting the editor's address and phone number in an article, what actions would you take, and why? Ultimately, which is more important: Retaining your stewardship or benefiting the project?
  4. People ask stewards for various things which are not strictly steward functions: If you're asked to create a new namespace for a project, change its logo, or add an extension, do you know how to assist the user in fulfilling this request?
  5. Are you capable of saying "No" when needed?

Answers from Avraham

edit
  1. Yes, I already have committed to adhere to the CU and OS policies as an EnWiki CU and OS.
  2. Yes, although, as I found with CU, using the tools will bring the most familiarity.
  3. That depends. Per the Steward handbook, if a user requests that another user's rights be removed, the action must comply with the local wiki's policy on removal of rights. As a new steward, I intend to learn from the experience and wisdom of longer-tenured stewards. It is similar to checkusering, in that when I started, I asked for help from the experienced users on EnWiki and Checkuser-l, and now, thankfully, I am one to whom others turn for advice. Of course, the overall projects' benefits come before personal political gain, and I am well aware of that as an EnWiki admin, checkuser, oversighter, and bureaucrat; having to have made difficult and potentially unpopular decisions in each of those roles.
  4. No, I am not currently aware how to do that, nor do I see those roles in the Steward handbook; however, as a new steward, I would forward the request to a more experienced steward and would learn from the experience.
  5. No.… Just did  . In all seriousness, I can say, and have said, no, when necessary in all of the maintenance roles I perform on EnWiki and the Commons.

-- Avi 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Shashank Reddy.P

edit
  1. Yes, I am familiar with all those policies and have already adhered to the Steward policy, Checkuser policy, and Oversight policy
  2. No, I am just beginning to learn those tools .
  3. Well now coming to the point , No I would not do that until i get a confirmation, because every information we get is from how and where basis and then I would see to the genuineness of the information though it would cost me my steward rights.To me providing correct information to the people is important.
  4. Yes, though they are not one of the functions I am required to do, but I would do that because my main aim is to serve people.
  5. Yes, if the situation requires me to say no I will say no but with an apology.It all depends upon the request.

Answers from Cutno

edit

Thank you for your questions, Sukida. I hope my answers will be satisfactory.

  1. Yes, I am willing to abide by all policies as laid out, and will look back to them when a question arises that can be answered from review. Such privileges are dangerous when one does not know why the tools are there in the first place.
  2. I have never been entrusted to these tools to properly gain familiarity. I will ask for help regarding each of these tools and will review the documentation.
  3. I see three questions in one. And I will answer them separately. A. I will not revoke sysops if I see that the request is politically motivated. I seek a through understanding of such a request from editors by asking the five W's and the H. (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?). And not only from that, but I would use the policies and group discussion to guide my decision in to how to respond to such a request. I do not care if it costs me votes. What of the project, and the editors in general? B. If an administrator were to do such a thing without the permission of the hypothetical victim, I would oversight the personal details immediately and then proceed to ask questions of all involved. Based on the information given by affected parties, I will take the appropriate action. As far as my experience with personal information and Wikipedia, no editor wants their private information revealed to the public. C. The Project comes first.
  4. I would make every attempt to find a way to help the requester. Even if I do nothing all.
  5. I will probably end up saying no to most requests. The best thing one can do with powers is not use them at all. I will however provide alternatives if it fits with a particular situation that does not require a steward. As I said before, I will make an attempt to be helpful.

--Cutno 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Dferg

edit

Hello Sukida, thanks for your questions.

  1. Yes. I'm familiar (and I adhere) with the CheckUser policy as I am a checkuser here. Despite not being a steward or an oversighter I'm familiar with those policies since I sometimes had to deal with on-wiki disclosure of personal/libelous information and I had to request sometimes from a steward or an oversighter to oversight that edits according to the current policy. If elected I of course will adhere to the Stewards policy and the Oversight policy.
  2. Yes. I have not used CentralAuth, interwiki-userrights, wiki-sets, etc... however I spent quite some times working with stewards and they have explained me sometimes how those tools works. However, when in doubt there is the steward handbook which provides information about the use of those extensions and tools. I also took a look at the various descriptions of those tools and extensions at mediawiki.org for further technical information and I also follow the evolution & bugs of those extensions. Notwithstanding, if elected shall I face a request that I can not resolve myself I'd ask for advice and help for senior stewards.
  3. Please note that removal of other user rights is not taken lightly. Emergency desysops are complicated situations and those actions are only performed when the user holding that tools are causing a big damage to the project that requires an inmediate action, and I'll probably not be acting alone. That said if a situation like this comes I'll be asking other senior stewards for advice before acting, even if it is an emergency. During the last year I saw some emergency desysops and that's the way they got handled, by discussing among the stewards and analyzing the facts presented. About what to do if third parties post others personal information: if the project has local oversighters, I'd forward the case to them, if not and the case is clear I'd suppress that information and warn the user in question/the community. About what I prefer, if retaining my stewardship or benefiting the project the answer is clear from me: the benefit of the project should be always our guideline.
  4. Yes. I saw that sometimes users from other projects ask stewards sometimes things like that, however that's not stewards' task to change logos or create new namespaces; this need to be requested at bugzilla so that a system administrator can handle it. If I ever have to deal with a request like this, I'll be pointing the user to that project or #mediawiki. I'd also advice the user that such requests needs a previous community consensus and before submiting a bug their community need to agree with that.
  5. Yes, I am; and I had to do it sometimes as part of my sysop/'crat and checkuser work.

Best regards, — Dferg (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from J.delanoy

edit
  1. Yes and yes. I have always done my absolute best to abide by the editorial policies of wikis that I edit, and I think that I have always followed the administrator and checkuser policies on the projects where I have those permissions. I'm not sure really how to elaborate past that...
  2. Well, I'm not a steward, and I've never set up a private wiki or anything to see what most of the tools look. I have looked at the (read-only) global group management pages, and I know how to use Special:UserRights, although obviously I don't change rights on other wikis. I am reasonably sure that I would find CentralAuth and Wiki sets to be fairly straightforward. If you are asking if I know what these features and tools do, then the answer is yes.
  3. If someone randomly asked me to desysop someone, I would ask why, and if they could not give me a valid reason under local and global policy, I would refuse. If the situation did indeed present an immediate danger to the project, I would desysop the administrator in question. That would be irrespective of whether I thought that I would fail my reconfirmation as a result of my actions.
    If the project had no local oversighters, I would oversight the edits, and warn the administrator to stop. If the project had local oversighters, I would try to contact them.
    I try to make sure that my actions benefit the project as a whole, and I try to do the right thing at all times. If my actions result in me losing access to certain permissions, but I am sure that I did the right thing for the benefit of the project, I am willing to accept that.
  4. If someone asks me something I don't know, I do my best to try to find an answer, and if I can't, I try to point the person at someone else who I think would be able to answer their question. In the specific cases that you mentioned, I believe that you would be required to file a bugzilla request, or at the very least ask a dev.
  5. In the course of my work as an administrator and checkuser, I am sometimes asked to perform tasks that I do not think should be done. I will tell people "no" if I have to, even if they are good wikifriends.

-- J.delanoygabsadds 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mwilso24

edit
  1. Sukida, thank you for the questions. If I was not familiar with, and willing to abide by, the policies you have listed I would not put my name forward for consideration. A steward is in a trusted position within the community and therefore must always uphold the principles and policies of this community to its highest level.
  2. Although I have not previously been a steward, I have taken time to research the position which includes the tools available. I feel comfortable that I will be able to use the tools efficiently and effectively.
  3. A steward can only act within the parameters of the position, and must follow the rules as described in the policies and the handbook. Any action must comply with the rules, and in the case of removing rights the action must comply with the local wiki's policy, if one exists. As for whether it is more important for me to retain my stewardship or benefit the project, I would not be here if I didn't want to benefit the project so therefore for me the project comes fist.
  4. I am willing to help out as needed, as long it is within the parameters set for a steward.
  5. As someone with experience in the legal profession I am faced with having to inform people of harsh realities on a continual basis, which includes telling people no. Stewards are here for the betterment of the Wikimedia community as a whole, not just individual users.

--mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 14:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Razorflame

edit
  1. Yes, I am ready and willing to abide by all limitations defined by the Steward Policy. I've been exposed to all three policies stated in your question through regular RfX's that have been going on on several Wikimedia wikis, and as such, I have had to pretty much memorize all three policies because of my activities on these Wikimedia wikis.
  2. Yes, as a member of the SWMT, I am versed in the different tools that are available to a steward, include global blocks, locking and hiding, and centralauth.
  3. I would not perform an emergency desysop if the situation appeared to be politically charged because I feel that I would not be able to be objective enough to fulfill the requirement. If it was on a Wikimedia wiki that was big and had enough active sysops, I would definitely not perform the emergency desysop because the community would be able to handle the situation. If an administrator was posting other people's real world information, I would warn the user the first time that he did so and oversight the differences, and if he did it again, I would oversight the differences, and if it was on a Wikimedia wiki that did not have enough of a community, I would desysop him using the emergency desysop clause. If it happened on a Wikimedia wiki that had a big enough community, and had other active bureaucrats and administrators, I would let the active bureaucrats know about the situation and allow them to handle it. Benefitting the project is more important than retaining my stewardship.
  4. No, I would not know how to assist other users in these kinds of requests.
  5. Yes, I am capable of saying no to other people because sometimes, you just have to say no in certain situations. Razorflame 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Wutsje

edit
  1. Yes. In my statement I already mentioned that "all my steward actions would be performed within the limits set out in the Stewards policy". Of course the same applies to all other policies.
  2. Yes, in the sense that I know they're there and what their purposes are (not only by reading the available documentation about them, but also because I've seen them used very often in the many months I spent in #wikimedia-stewards); no, in the sense that I've obviously not worked with them, because I have never been a steward. My general experience with tools however is that actually working with them rapidly increases familiarity. Besides, there are some very capable senior stewards around to answer any questions I might have regarding their usage and I will not hesitate to seek their advise when needed.
  3. If that emergency desysop request clearly is indeed an emergency and legitimate beyond any doubt, fits within the rules set out in the Steward handbook, the relevant local and steward policies and if there are absolutely no other stewards around: yes. However, I would for obvious reasons very strongly prefer to confer with other stewards, which is the way requests like these are normally handled. Generally speaking, the interests of the projects should of course at all times prevail. If that requires taking decisions that may not increase my chances to be reconfirmed as a steward, so be it.
  4. I would point out that those are not steward tasks, kindly refer them to the appropriate place to submit such requests and if I'm not able to help them with that, ask a more experienced user to do so.
  5. Yes, I most certainly am (and I've done so repeatedly as a sysop).

-- Wutsje 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from billinghurst

edit
  1. Yes, absolutely, of course. This user doesn't win beauty contests, integrity is what I do offer. WYSIWYG
  2. I know CU tools, I have read about the others, though cannot be familiar with tools that I haven't used. One hastens slowly with any new tool, and trains first. They are hardly more complex than spamassassin filters, sendmail config files, listmaster tools, ... with which I have experience, so I think I have the aptitude. There are also people to ask.
  3. Take a step back on that one. There is a process of natural justice; there is a thing called an investigation and not pre-judging a situation. If there are local people with the rights on the project, they deal with it. When I take an action it is in consideration of the evidence, consulted as necessary, and have a process of review if necessary. To the generics of the question … in all these privileged roles, the integrity of the duties that you perform for the community have to take precedence. As said earlier, this isn't about popularity contests, it is about performing the required and expected tasks of the role. If one loses stewardship? Big deal, there are plenty of things to do, more works to transcribe, images to crop, works to transwiki.<shrug>
  4. Bugzilla is your friend. I don't know all of the answers, though know some. Plus I know a number of places to research answers, and I know where to go to ask such a question. One can choose to answer or to direct them to the knowledge base. No different from being a sysop in that regard. Also nothing wrong with saying "I don't know."
  5. Yes. Ask my kids! There are lots of ways to say no, or should I say, lots of ways to not say yes.

-- billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Damërung

edit
  1. Yes, except with the Oversight policy, which now that you posted it, I´m familiar with it now. And I´m willing to abide by any policy needed in order to help enhance wikimedia.
  2. I´m not familiar with such tools (by using them), since I´ve never been a steward or sysop, but I´ve read about some, like the CentralAuth. So I consider that I do not require much to be familiarized with them.
  3. I really don´t care about my 'status' on wikimedia (being sysop, steward, bureaucrat, etc). My only goal here is to improve wikimedia, whether I´m elected or not, I´ll continue doing my part here, so if such situation compromises my stewardship reelection/status I´ll do what would be best for the wikimedia community. As I said in the past, I even chose to stay as a normal editor on the english wikipedia because I didn´t consider it (sysop) to be a special rank and I didn´t need it.
  4. I´m always willing to help (as I´ve done with new editors in the english wikipedia), but for the moment, I don´t know how to perform such functions (which seems like such things require bigger/outer consensus). And I also consider to be able to deal and familiarize with such things quite fast.
  5. Yes I can, but I always try to soften things by saying no in a more comfortable, polite, less-abrasive, less direct form whenever I can.

- ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Jamesofur

edit

Appologiges to everyone, I couldn't cut it down much further :(

  • 1. Yes, I've read and reread all of the policies on multiple occasions to make sure I understand them. I obviously had to agree to follow the Checkuser policy when I was given the flag on SimpleWiki and believe I have followed both the letter and spirit of the policy since then. While I have not held the oversight position I have had to request oversight on countless occasions on many wikis (both from local OS users and stewards) and have learned from those experiences many of the nuances of what should be hidden (and from whom). I also took part in the discussion and implementation of two different changes to the oversight policy in November. I think the best description of a steward I've ever heard was from Kylu: Stewards are like the genie in Alladin "Absolute Cosmic Power! ... itsy bitsy living space." . Stewards are ABLE to do almost anything but because of this they have many policies they have to follow in using those tools (for good reason).
  • 2. I'm familiar with all of them in that I have looked at all the documentation that I can find (Steward_handbook, MediaWiki documentation, public facing interfaces etc). I have obviously not been able to use them much though I have used an extension similar to the global groups extension on another wiki and have what I consider a reasonable amount of experience with user rights. I have never had any real difficulty learning new tools or extensions in MediaWiki and do not think it will be difficult to learn the tools I haven't used in the past. That said I know that I would be able to get help and advice from the current stewards as I started out (and continued on for that matter) and would have no hesitation to ask for that help.
  • 3. I'm not sure if these are all connected (i.e if the scenario is the emergency desysop scenario) but I'm going to take them as such and feel free to correct me if you want another answer. As with everything context is key, however there is very very little (I can't think of any) reason that an administrator, or anyone, should be posting an editor's address and phone number into an article. The immediate response is to suppress the edits and hopefully warn the administrator. If they continue you are unfortunately left with little choice but to block and desysop. The editor's privacy in that case far outweighs the benefits of waiting any longer. If, when I come in to the situation, other sysops had already tried to block the user or remove the information (and he had continued) then an immediate desysop would definitely be in order and the local community can decide if the user should get the rights back. Any steward action like this is temporary, for the protection of the project and projects, the final decision has to be made by the local community. In the end protecting the projects are of paramount importance and if I think something has to be done for that reason then I'm going to do it without any care about votes on my next confirmation. If I get removed it is because enough people disagreed with me AND the stewards thought there was merit in the issues (since confirmations are not votes). If that is the case then I probably should be removed, either because I was wrong or because the projects and I just don't see eye to eye anymore.
  • 4. I have always felt the best thing to do is to help the editor find what they need. If I can't help them directly then I generally want to 1. show them where to go for the answer and 2. hopefully help them get there. In the past this usually includes finding the user they need or showing them bugzilla, an example of what they need and hopefully giving them some advice on what to put or when they will need community consensus.
  • 5. Yes, saying yes is easy and the fun part of the job that almost anyone can do. Saying No is the hard part where you have to look at a request, often done in good faith where the person think it should (or needs) to be done, and tell the user that you just can't do it. It is of course even harder when you know the person asking but you have to be able to do it, and I do think I'm able to. I have on multiple occasions had to say no to blocks (or checkuser checks) on accounts when the evidence just wasn't there despite sometimes my personal issue with what the user was doing and my friendship with the person asking. The one thing that surprised me the most when I became a sysop was that my thought process changed. As a normal vandal fighter it was very easy to say "000.00.00.00 is a vandal block him for 32 hours", or Userx is a VOA, or incivil etc, As a sysop I suddenly found myself having to step back and think about it before I made the block instead of passing the buck, and sometimes you just had to tell someone no. More users is very important on all wikis, but especially smaller ones. To often we pounce on new users who sometimes just don't know what to do.

James (T|C) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Melos

edit
  1. I feel I have already addressed these issues in my statement and my previous answers to other questions.
  2. See above.
  3. All actions done by sysops and stewards can be reverted. I'd perform a desysop only when a real threat surfaces, i.e. the account became insecure due to a possibly stealed password, or when the desysop has been requested by the sysop himself, or when there is a clear decision by the community requiring the desysop. In less blatant cases, I'd ask for assistance before going ahead. I never minded how many votes an action on my part could bring positively or negatively: in fact, as I have already stressed in my previous answers, I act based on policies only in order to protect the Project, not to boost my reputation. Anyway, in the case I would see and admin posting sensitive personal data, I would immediately perform and Oversight, warn the admin and her/his local colleagues letting to her/his community a final word on what to do. Case this would occur again, I will ponder accurately the situation, possibily asking for other stewards opinions.
  4. I already have done such actions, on for scn.wiki for example, and yes, I'm familiar with these functions.
  5. You say "no" whenever it's necessary to say "no", exactly as you say "yes" whenever it's appropriate to say "yes".

--Melos 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Bletilla

edit
  1. Yes. But unfortunately I have had nothing to do with them.
  2. Yes. But unfortunately I have had nothing to do with them.
  3. Yes. I would do if necessary. If the editor do not want it, I would delete it and warn to the administor immediately because, in my opinion, no one can show any private information out of hope of being been public. Benefiting the project is more important for me.
  4. Probably yes.
  5. Yes. I have to do it when done even if I tell it in a roundabout way which Japanese are good at.

--Bletilla 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Drew R. Smith

edit
  1. Are you familiar with, and willing to abide by, policies such as the Steward policy, Checkuser policy, and Oversight policy in your position as steward if elected? Please elaborate beyond a simple "yes." - Yes.
  2. Are you familiar with the various tools available to stewards on Wikimedia, such as CentralAuth, Interwiki userrights, Global blocking and global groups, and Wiki sets? - Yes.
  3. If an editor asked you to perform an emergency desysop and the situation seems to be politically charged, would you perform it even though it could cost you votes on your next confirmation? - Yes.
  4. If an editor shows where an administrator is posting the editor's address and phone number in an article, what actions would you take, and why? - Temporarily block the Admin, and oversight the address and phone number.
  5. Ultimately, which is more important: Retaining your stewardship or benefiting the project? - Benefiting the project.
  6. People ask stewards for various things which are not strictly steward functions: If you're asked to create a new namespace for a project, change its logo, or add an extension, do you know how to assist the user in fulfilling this request? - Yes.
  7. Are you capable of saying "No" when needed? - Yes.
- Drew 05:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mercy

edit
  1. As I have already stated, yes I am. When having such a function, there is no place for ignoring the rules.
  2. I've been watching the stewards at work for several months, so I have some basic knowledge about the tools. If I wasn't not sure what to do, I'd consult the steward handbook or ask some more experienced users.
  3. In case of the firstly mentioned situation, I would first ask the user to show me the local policy and to state a valid reason under it. I would desysop the administrator only if the request was reasonable and the action would not be against any applicable rules. In case of the secondly mentioned situation, the information posted by such an administrator should be oversighted as soon as possible. After that I would contact the administrator to explain them that their action was inappropriate. Protection of the projects and their users has always been among my priorities. When I fail as a steward, I fully agree to have my rights removed.
  4. I'll try to do my best and provide the information needed. In case my rights or knowledge is not sufficient to perform the requested action, I'll provide a link to a relevant page or person with an explanation what to do.
  5. Sure, even to people whom I know well. As an administrator on various projects, I am sometimes asked to perform actions where I doubt the person who's asking is right. Saying no is sometimes needed to stay impartial.

Regards, --Mercy 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit
  1. Yes. I am familiar with the checkuser policy, since I've been a checkuser in the past. Even though I haven't performed the Oversight e Steward roles, I have read their policies and I commit to follow them, if I'm elected.
  2. Yes, I am familiar with all those tools, because prior to be released to all communities, they're tested on the test.wikipedia, where I'm an admin and a crat.
  3. I will follow the stewards' manual, but obviously, in delicate situations, I'll likely consult other, more experient stewards before making a decision, as happens with the checkuser role. In many cases, our actions make us impopular, because it is very hard to please everyone. But I always ponder and try my best to let the community's decision to prevail.
  4. Yes! Because we work in small projects where the number of users is small, we have to know a bit of everything. For that reason, I feel much more confident about being able to help anyone, in any situation.
  5. Yes, I cannot and will not step over any rule to please anyone. If I have to say no, even to a close friend, they will hear the same thing than anyone else would. In my work on Wikimedia projects, I always kept friendship from editorial work, and I'll apply the same principles in my work as a steward.

Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Annabel

edit
  1. Yes, I already committed to the checkuser policy as I have been a checkuser for more than a year (after which I took a wikibreak). I am familiar with the other policies as well.
  2. Yes, Because of the work as checkuser, although not using the tools, you come into contact with them as you discover cross-wiki abuse/abuse (such as the infamous JtV, Mario Scolas , etc.
  3. A clear answer for all situations can not be given, as each situation is different and must be studied individually. It also depends on who is asking it (a beginning user, longterm user, sysop, bureaucrat, or checkuser), in other words, it depends on how this person can be trusted. Off course, what is most important is benefit to the project and not stewardship.
  4. I'll do my best to help this person, do things myself if possible and if not, guide the person to the right place (such as bugzilla in the examples mentioned).
  5. No. ;-) Off course I do.

Annabel 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Jyothis

edit
  1. Yes, I am aware of the policies and as an OTRS member, I am aware of the privacy issues associated with the special rights. I have worked with existing Stewards for Checkuser requests for my home wiki on many situations and I am regular in #wikimedia-stewards and #cvn-sw. I will abibe to the rules and follow them with the best of my abilities. In an event where I find myself in a COI, I will pass on the ball to another steward who could act on it.
  2. I have read the stewards handbook and have used user rights change (Though not many times) in the local wiki that I am a BC in. I have been a Sysop for quite some time and I am familiar with the special rights and responsibilities that comes along with them. I have no practical experience with them, but that would come with time.
  3. In such an event ( or in any event), The local wiki should see if they can settle it locally. If a local BC is available and active, the decision should be their, and not from a Steward. Stewards should be neutral and follow communities decision for fulfilling the request. I would want to consult the handbook and other experienced Stewards as well to decide the best course of action. In case no local BC or community members are available to look at it and if it can become a threat to the project's integrity, First step would be to request the admin to provide an explanation and see if he or she responds. If there is a majority of the local users agreeing to the desysop, that can be fulfilled. Steward does not decide on anything, unless it becomse a serious threat for the project. If an admin is posting personal info (which is not expected from a person in an admin postion), the admin should be warned and asked for an explanation. If the action is being repeated, further actions can be taken against the individual as per the guidelines and recommendations. The personal info can be removed on the user's request in the proper channel. Project and its integrity stands above the stewardship, and future votes should not be a primary consideration while implementing the community's wish and vision. I am an experienced sysop and have served the community during many conflicts before. Even at work, the rule is "When in doubt, ask others and pass the ball if needed".
  4. Technical changes need to go thru a bug request in the bugzilla. We have gone thru that many times for my home wiki and sister projects. There are designated request pages for various items and I am familair with them and can direct the users to that.
  5. Yes, I am verymuch capable of saying 'No' to illegit/unreasonable requests. I manage a large, high security production environment for living and I am verymuch experienced in saying it on the face as a part of my work itself.

--Jyothis 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from wishfulanthony

edit

(from yours truly -- 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  1. I have read the Steward Policy and the Oversight Policy, but I am still exploring the rest of all three policies, to be honest. I am a person who would be enforcing all the rules only when those [rules] are needed (i.e. when a person I follow actually violates any of the policies made, that's the time I enforce the necessary laws). Honestly, I am a lenient guy when it comes to rules because many, if not all, rules may be bended, in terms that there will be times when a user has done something bad the first time, I will accept the user's apology, but when he/she commits the same mistake over and over, that's where appropriate action/s is/are needed. I apologize if there will be people who may be against me because of my leniency, but, I am a rule-enforcing, forgiving, approachable, and workable person to be with, all at the same time, if ever I get to become a Steward.
  2. I am exploring those various tools you're referring to, from CentralAuth to Wiki sets, since I've just been a contributor to the Wikipedia, not a full-blown sysop or admin member. Just give me time to learn all of those, and I will be using them when needed (same as being lenient at times, only to be strict when needed).
  3. Politically-motivated situations that warrant an emergency desysop is just one of the situations that I really do not want to do or be involved in the first place because I believe that the motivations of such situation may not be as accurate or proven from various angles, and it is something that I do not want to participate in since it will involve fellow stewards and administrators, such that if that problem arises, I will make sure that the causes have to be explored first before providing any appropriate action.
  4. I do know how to do those things (change its logo, add an extension, create new namespace); I actually have been doing that pretty much on my Wikipedia English articles, so it can be an easy job for me (I might need to practice those, though, in the Wikimedia environment).
  5. Oh yes, I really have a capability of saying no, especially when the issues I face are truly against my own beliefs and will.

Answers from Carkuni

edit
  1. Yes. I observe CheckUser policy, active on Japanese Wikipedia. Of course I observe the Steward policy and Oversight policy.
  2. I study to see a documentation and the my local environment on private.
  3. It's difficult question. I think case by case, but I think a project is priority.
  4. Only the area I can do. When, an adjustment of a system is led to Bugzilla (new namespace, logo image and extensions).
  5. Yes. I should say 'NO' to an impossible case.

Thank you. --Carkuni 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Eivind

edit
  1. Yes, I'm both familiar with and willing to abide by the Steward, Checkuser and Oversight policies. I do not simply do that to pass this election, but I've read them and found that I agree with them.
  2. I have experienced quite a lot with MediaWikis, but unfortunately I've never connected to eachother, so that I could test these kind of extensions. But, even though I haven't tried them before, I'm familiar with what they do and how they are used.
  3. I would not perform such a desysop alone. First of all, I would require a consensus from the local wiki. If that is not available, I would have a chat with some of the other stewards before finally declining. Whether or not it would cost me a vote or two, I don't care. If I lose my stewardship due to a couple of votes, I probably shouldn't be a steward. But, in your other scenario I would probably act different. If the editor hadn't agreed with the publishment of his/her personal information, I would make sure it was removed: preferrably by making an local admin have it removed, or removing it myself, if no-one else did it. I'm at Wikipedia because I like the project, not because I'm dying to get my hands on the steward tools (regarding your last question).
  4. I'm familiar with these tasks, as I've managed and mastered quite a few MediaWiki installations.
  5. Certainly!

Thanks, --EivindJ 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Eseki

edit
  1. Yes. I observe CheckUser policy,Steward policy and Oversight policy.
  2. I study to see a documentation and the my local environment on private.
  3. It's difficult question. I think case by case, but I think a project is priority.
  4. Only the area I can do. When, an adjustment of a system is led to Bugzilla .
  5. Yes. I should say 'NO' to an impossible case.

Thank you.Eseki Eseki 05:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Krinkle

edit
  1. Most certainly, yes, as I've previously stated in my statement, I abide the Steward policy and any other policy that is required for a task I perform. Be it a global policy such as the Checkuser policy, or a local policy when operating as an administrator.
  2. I haven't used them first hand, but have studied some of them in MediaWiki's Extension repositary for inspiration of my own scripts in a MediaWiki. For the rest I've used Extensions for Sysops and am familiar with their logic, look and feel. And when needed know where to find the manuals or expert in case I need more information on a tool.
  3. Whether a situation is brought to me by a user, or if I read it on a request page, same policies apply. My first impression will depend on the user requesting the desysop, after that I'd investigate to verify his motivation. If I then come to the conclusion that an immediate emergency desysop is the right thing to do, and that this action in this environment is in comply with the policy/policies then I would perform the desysop. If doing what I think is right for the project costs me votes at my next confirmation, then so be it.
  4. If I'me asked to perform actions a Steward cannot or may not do, I will try to help the editor in a different way if possible, else will forward his request to the appropiate person, page and/or channel. In the given example a developer on IRC for small things or a file a BugZilla ticket for big things. And ofcourse verify the consensus in the local community.
  5. In my experience as a sysop so far, I've encountered enough situations where I had to say no to requests when appropiate or impossible.

Answers from Mentifisto

edit
  1. Yes; as I try the best I can to abide by the local sysop policies and changeable consensus, I understand the importance of upholding the protocols that regulate these tools.
  2. I am familiar with the concept of those tools, and have seen most of them in action in the course of my small wiki monitoring. Ultimately, as with any other tools, I will always approach them cautiously at the beginning and if in doubt I'll recheck the documentation or ask others with more experience.
  3. If the emergency desysop request seems to be political then it's possibly not an emergency, and I would only fulfil it if the sysop is clearly damaging the wiki actively. In unclear cases I will always either discuss with other stewards or decline the request, because stewards aren't there to decide whether consensus is clear or not. If a sysop is then releasing personal information I would seek local oversighters, or do it myself if there are none, and then inform the local community so they could discuss the actions and make a decision on what happened. In the end it seems my actions and the reconfirmation are mutually dependent, so if I don't act properly the community should rightly oppose it.
  4. In those cases I would refer the users to the developers and to file a bug with a link to the appropriate consensus for such a change (but if it's something that can be done by local sysops and they only require the how-to then I'll try to help them if I'm knowledgeable enough, and if I'm not I'll check the software's documentation).
  5. Yes. :-) I will say no whenever an action is against policy or if I am doubtful about a particular situation. -- Mentifisto 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

edit

Previous experience with restricted access: (As last year, this is a question for every candidate) What previous sysop, checkuser, oversight, or bureaucrat experience, if any, do you have? If your answer is none, why do you think you're especially well suited to be a steward? If you have some, please tell us about a particularly challenging real situation (omitting any private information) and how you handled it? If you have no such experience, feel free to discuss a hypothetical situation instead. Given that stewards "don't decide", how would you have handled it differently if you were a steward, and it was not a home wiki? ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Avraham

edit

I am a sysop on both Enwiki and the Commons, and I am a checkuser, oversighter, and bureaucrat on EnWiki, so I have experience with many, if not most, of the restricted access tools a steward will use. I will not bore you with long soliloquies of examples of difficult situations I have worked with, but among the more recent difficult issues I have had a role in, are included the NihonJoe RfB 4 on EnWiki where I took responsibility for and led the discussions, although another bureaucrat actually performed the actual flipping. I am very involved in EnWiki checkusering, and have dealt with some of the more widespread sock farms and have been used as a resource by both EnWiki ArbCom and other experienced EnWiki checkusers to confirm/comment on difficult and politically charged checks. I am comfortable both in situations where personal decisions have to be made (oversight and checkuser) as well as in situations where personal opinions have to be suppressed and either judgment about other's consensus (bureaucrat) or strict application of policy (sysop) needs to be implemented. -- Avi 06:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Cutno

edit

Well Lar, I have no experience with restricted access with Wikipedia. However, I do work for the US Government, and I am very good at what I do for my particular Department and Bureau (IE Paperwork and the General Public. Before you ask, I do not work in law enforcement or the military). I think I make a very potential Stewart for the Wikimedia Project. I'm terrible at Hypotheticals. If you make one up, I'll be happy to answer it. As for content, its up to the community. I do not pretend to know everything, nor will I decide what is appropriate. Thank you. --Cutno 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Dferg

edit

Hello Lar, thanks for your question. As my statement says I am a bureaucrat at eswiki and eswikibooks, sysop on commmons and a CheckUser here at meta. Also, I have experience with transwiki import and import given that meta sysops and now, eswikibooks sysops are able to import contents from other sites. My scope is mainly related to maintenance tasks: patrolling recent changes, block vandals, delete pages, close requests for deletion, etc... I also do some assistance work like answering requests on the different administrators' noticeboards, help new users and discuss policies on the village pump. As a bureaucrat, I like to close requests for adminship, requests for bot flags and help with requests for user name changes and usurpations. I also like to help users with the SUL process.

I am happy to say that my collaboration on the different Wikimedia projects have always been peaceful and I had no conflicts related to the use of the extra tools. I am also glad to say that many users approaches me and ask for help or advice (especially technical help) in case they are in doubt. However, months ago it was presented to me a conflict between two users at eswiki. They where both really upset each other and I decided to mediate between the two. After some days of peaceful and tactful communication between the two users I'm glad to see that both users are able to contribute without problems each other again. I doubt that if I was a steward in that particular case would have made any change on the situation because it was a content dispute and that is up to the local communities and its members to resolve. Stewards do not decide which content is appropriate or not. Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from billinghurst

edit

As a checkuser at EnWikisource, it is about the prevention of the abuse, with hopefully no, otherwise minimal collateral damage. Certain cases are malicious abuse and relatively easy to manage, though there are the determined and repeat offenders who will do anything to avoid a block. Collaborative and consultative approach with other Checkusers, or consultation with Stewards has always been helpful in decision-making. No bureaucrat experience, and no oversight at our project.

Generally I take a gentler approach and revert a simple abuse, and give the editor who is acting a little feral either a pointer that they are being watched, or an innocent push towards the sandbox to go and play there. That is usually enough. However, there have been the more difficult cases, like a battle that flowed to our project, from another, with a persistent case of cyberstalking. It becomes a case of calmly reverting edits, gentle protection as necessary, and calmly and politely letting the recidivist know that you have the patience to outlast their efforts, and to take their battle elsewhere. It is not about getting back or getting even, it is about getting/maintaining the right behaviour for your community. billinghurst 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I have seen Avraham, Dferg and J.Delanoy undertake their Checkuser duties, and wholeheartedly support their commentary and I can reflect on their efficiency, professionalism, and support in performing their duties. billinghurst 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from J.delanoy

edit

I am an administrator on Commons, Meta, and the English Wikipedia. I am also a checkuser on the English Wikipedia. Probably the most difficult situation I found myself in with regard to my "extra" permissions was when I found that a very prominent established user was socking. To be sure of myself, I asked two more-experienced checkusers for their opinion before I acted. If I was a steward in a similar situation, I would have done much the same thing, namely asking another person for their opinion, and then I would have presented my results to the local community so that they could decide how to respond to it. J.delanoygabsadds 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Razorflame

edit

I was an administrator and bureaucrat on the Simple English Wiktionary. I have no other experience with restricted accesses, however, I have read and know both the Oversighter and Checkuser policies very well, so even though I have not been an oversighter or checkuser, I feel that I would be able to perform both duties to the best of my abilities. One particularly challenging situation that I had to deal with was a bot that was making incorrect changes to the Simple English Wiktionary. I originally blocked the user for seven days to allow the user time to fix his or her bot, but I decided that removing the user's bot status was the best way to solve the situation. If I were a steward, and someone alerted me to this situation, I would relay the information to Brett, Barras, and Tempodivalse and allow them to take care of the situation, because there are active bureaucrats and sysops on this project.

Thank you for asking this question, Lar, and I hope that I answered it the way you wanted it answered. Cheers, Razorflame 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Melos

edit

I am an admin and a CU on it.wiki and a bureaucrat on scn.wiki and scn.wikt. Given the fairly big size of it.wiki and the high frequency of socks circumventing policies herein, I can't recall just one "particular case" because, as my most active colleagues do, I deal with "particular cases" almost every day, including - but certainly not limited to - legal threats and lobbying even from MP's. So, to handle such situations, I do strictly conform to our policies, which is, in my view, the best guarantee for a correct and effective response to the issues we face anytime. All in all, my technical response comes from the strive to correctly implementating the appropriate policies rather than out of "creativity", as I do intend the flags as a technical service and not as a special reward or worse, a power tool. Therefore, even thought I believe that I have enough experience to handle new situations, I'm happy to hear advices anytime. As a steward I'd act in the same way, putting my experience at the service of the comunity decisions. --Melos 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mwilso24

edit

While I am a rollbacker on enwiki that is currently the extent of my official flags. Where I have experience, however, is through working closely with sysops and others to aid in administrative tasks. I have read and know the policies involved, and would not be here if I didn't believe I could do the job effectively and to the best of my abilities. A steward is there to build consensus and follow the steward policies, and although the line with being a sysop or bureaucrat may be blurred by some at times this community must remember a steward is a steward and a sysop is a sysop. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 13:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Wutsje

edit

I'm a sysop on nl:wiki (my home wiki), Commons, Meta, and on a number of smaller projects, and I have as such performed my fair share of admin actions. However, I really can't remember situations which I as an administrator perceived as very challenging. There have been things I did not particularly like doing (such as blocking a well known user on my home wiki for violating local privacy policy), but having to take unpleasant decisions is unavoidable when you're a sysop. Content disputes however may in my opinion often be much more challenging, but of course I'd stay far away from those if I were a steward (assuming they were not taking place on my home wiki). Wutsje 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Damërung

edit

While I haven´t been a sysop or a bureaucrat, I consider to be suited for the steward position because of two reasons:

  • First, I´me very familiarized with wikimedia guidelines, and I´ve been involved (not directly) with some cases where disputes have been heated and hard to settle. So I´ve got experience of how things may get;
  • Second, and I believe most important, is that I know and I´ve been involved in situations of... calling it this way... "low levels of the pyramid", what lets me understand and being in the shoes of both sides when some kind of dispute may arise. This allows me to take a more neutral and impartial thinking.

One situation I was involved with was with one editor acused by several administrators (and defended by other editors) of being violating copyright status of certain website, and not responding to warnings. That in one hand; in the other hand, the information brought to wikipedia were straight facts (for example: "Every Light In The House" is a country music song written by Kent Robbins), which done by that user over and over again (different each time) resulted in being found as copyright violation again, seen unfair by some editors. In a case like that, I would communicate with the editor, for example, reaching and agreement on the syntax of the text. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Eivind

edit

Thanks, Lar. I have experience as an administrator on no.wiki and en.wikt and as a bureaucrat at no.wikt. I have not had any particular challenges using these tools, as our policies and guidelines are quite clear. When dealing with conflicts and problems, I tend to turn to policies and guidelines first to see if they have an answer. If in doubt, I communicate with my fellow wikipedians to get advices and suggestions. --EivindJ 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jamesofur

edit

I am a sysop on Simple Wikipedia and Meta as well as a Checkuser on Simple. I don't have experience as bureaucrat or over-sighter within the WMF but I do have experience with both tools outside of it. Like the other experienced SWMT members running I have also done administrative actions (with temporary access from stewards) on multiple small wikis when there were no local administrators and backlogs of vandalism. Like many here I have been lucky not to have any extreme conflicts in my work but there are always people who do not agree with a decision you've made. As I said in my answer to Sukida's question I think the hardest thing, at least for me, is when I feel I can't make a block or use my tools (generally a CU check) when a local user is asking me to and truly believe they are right. This has happened multiple times, especially recently, and I have had to try and explain that I won't block someone unless it is necessary or check someone unless their is evidence. There are times when in my gut I will agree with them but the evidence is just not there and I think it is usually better to wait or get a second opinion from another CU. I have a feeling issues like this will increase if I were to receive the steward flag. I have often noticed that many users see a steward as a person they can go to when they need a problem fixed (on any wiki) especially if they have talked to the steward before. While we can always try to help them when possible stewards need to be careful not to interfere with the local wikis and this means that you are often unable to do what the user is asking. Let me know if this doesn't totally answer the question :) James (T C) 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Bletilla

edit

I do not have anything. I am a sysop at Japanese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Strategic Planning. I have never challenged any real situations to tell you fortunately or unfortunately. It is a difficult question to answer. I rather want your hypothetical situation. I would like to be better at impartial treatment than my home wiki. --Bletilla 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mercy

edit

Well, as I have said in my statement, I've been an administrator on various projects (in three different languages) for a rather long period of time. Due the course of my adminship I had to temporarily block several fairly active users for trolling, personal attacks or POV-pushing and there were protests of other users against the blocks. When my decision was proved to be wrong, I apologized the affected user and unblocked them. However, I don't think there has been any highly challenging situation I got into, just the common ones. I mostly focus on fighting vandalism. When in doubt, I'd rather ask others what they think about it. I'm always open to discussion about my actions. Best regards, --Mercy 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit

I've had checkuser access in a moment where the community faced a user who repeatedly abused multiple accounts to introduce copyrighted material. After many accounts being created, a range block was applied in order to prevent that abuse. With that, the community was able to get back to work and the abuses stopped. Also, during my period as a checkuser I've helped other checkusers in the resolution of similar situations.

Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Annabel

edit

Hi Lar, I've been sysop and bureaucrat on wikipedia NL and wiktionary NL. In addition, I've been checkuser on the Dutch wikipedia for some time. There are several cases which I have faced, but the most particular one, was where a sysop started to vandalise with sockpuppets himself because of enduring absue and endless misbehaviour of other people. In such a situation it is necessary to work as a team, and we proposed to stop the wrecked behaviour and ask for an immediate desysop himself, or a desysop/block/... of his account. As a steward, I would also have tried to come in touch, and if this was not possible, this would have been a desysop. Annabel 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jyothis

edit

I am a sysop in ml wiki and ml wikisource. I am the BC for ml wikibooks. I would make a good Steward, since I am willing to put myself into the task and work my way thru the problems. I value the project's services to the man kind and I am willing to put my foot down to preserve the same. In our wiki, we had a few users who started vandalizing the project because we did not let them push their personal agenda into the project. I, along with the sysops have worked very hard to keep them at bay and protect the project from a flurry of vandalism attacks. We thankfully remember all the help from the stewards during this. We had to issue multiple checkuser requests and block the socks out to control the situation. We let the actual user off with a short block and could bring back peace. If it were to happen on another wiki, since a steward does not decide, if the user community have enough active BC/Sysops around, I would rather leave it for them to handle. In a situation where there is no one around, I would revert the vandalisms as much as I can and in the worst case, would consult other stewards and hand book to see the best course of action to contain it. The steward actions would be taken, if only if the situation causes a threat to the integrity of the project. --Jyothis 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from wishfulanthony

edit

Good question! I have not held any position in any of Wikimedia's group of forums (except for being a contributor on Wikipedia English), but I can say simply that through my various online and real-life experiences, I believe that I can be a really great steward because I believe that helping others through affirmative and assertive actions can really make a difference in the Wikimedia community, such that I can demonstrate my capabilities of being with the members in times of problems (i.e. article contribution, group projects) and trials (i.e. a member confronting another member, a leader not doing his/her job fairly for everyone else) that all of us face. I can tell you, though, that I am currently a staff member of one forums site (in which I will not disclose) wherein I am faced with tasks ranging from checking users' identity for bots and spams, keeping the forum boards healthy and free from vulgarity, and allowing vibrant discussions on today's issues. One issue that I faced was that there were some IPs that I treated somehow as suspicious because even though they masked themselves as various usernames, I have observed similar, if not identical, patterns that made me thought that they were spammers. And so what I've done to go through that situation is to flag them down, with their IP information, and inform my admin that it may be a probable spam, in which he detected as such. Being a steward, for me, can be a challenging task, but, hopefully, through the help of other stewards and the members of this vibrant community, I will make my future job an enjoyable one. On the stewards being "not able to decide", I would do the same thing I mentioned earlier: explore the causes of the situation, gather information and evidences as necessary, translate the complaint/s into English or my local language, then put appropriate action as needed; even though that it is not my home wiki, I will be assigning an interpreter who has knowledge of both English and the home wiki's language of issue so that I can understand the situation and do whatever is needed. -- wishfulanthony 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Eseki

edit

I do not have anything. I am a sysop at Japanese Wikipedia Strategic Planning. I have never challenged any real situations to tell you fortunately or unfortunately. It is a difficult question to answer. I rather want your hypothetical situation. Eseki 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mentifisto

edit

I'm mostly an active sysop on en, simple, meta, and commons. In relatively challenging situations I first make sure that I'm getting and understanding all the information there is (to avoid making an uninformed decision) and then consider whether there might be someone more suitable than me (and if there is, specifically on non-home wikis, I will defer to the local community, per policy), otherwise attempt to make a decision with as minimal a fallout as possible (prior to consulting with others when I'm especially dubious), following relevant policies. -- Mentifisto 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Krinkle

edit

I'm an active sysop on nlwiki and so far haven't found myself in a situation that I experienced as "challenging", though I have had less-fun days where I had to make decisions that I knew not everybody was gonna like. One that happends very often lately is deletion of images from users who have put a fair amount of time in a visualisation of something or alteration but weren't aware of the license (a Creative Commons label doesn't always mean it's free..). Handling admininistator requests such as blocking users, deleting/securing content always bring situations with them that pretty much always have one or more persons involved that wouldn't like the request being executed. Though it's not exception these persons don't like eachother, I feel it's my task to investigate regardless of the way both parties communicate with eachother, and instead focus on what we are doing this for: To help contribute to a world of free sharing knowledge. Once one steps back to that view it simplifies the situation and helps making the right decisions. As a steward I would most likely not have been involved in the situation as a participator, instead as the one verifying the situation after the community is ready and if appropiate and in harmony with the policies, excecute the needed action. Krinkle 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Millosh

edit
  1. By your opinion, what would be your main contribution (or contributions) to Wikimedia community if you become a steward? --Millosh 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Describe the most important problems (if any) with whom you dealt during your Wikimedian life. How did you solve them? --Millosh 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Describe the most important problems (if any) which you caused at Wikimedia projects. What has been changed in you behavior since then? --Millosh 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Cutno

edit

Well Millosh, lets see if I can answer these to you satisfaction:

  1. I currently do not have a main goal of providing any one main contribution.
  2. When I came to Wikipedia I was baited by a suspected corporate shill, who was not happy with my edits to a particular article. I did not immediately write back to him/her as I was going to write something I was going to regret later on. I took a ten minute breather, made a Peanut-butter sandwich, and ate it while thinking of a way good and polite way to respond.
  3. I have a clean record. I have caused no known problems to any Wikimedia projects. --Cutno 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Dferg

edit

Hello Millosh, thanks for your questions:

  1. Please refer to my statement. As an editor of different projects I would like to continue collaborating as I did in the past (and I am doing nowadays). As steward, if elected, I would like to start working on the different requests. As a bureaucrat on eswiki and eswikibooks I have experience in the use of the bureaucrat tools and I would probably be starting with those requests requiring that knowledge like: SRP, SRB, SRUC and SR/SUL. Also, as a long time member of the SWMT and my experience as administrator in some projects (two of them, with global implications: meta and commons) I would like to continue fighting global vandalism/spam; if elected I will be able to try to stop it in a more efficient way and not to constantly ping stewards on #wikimedia-stewardsconnect for blocks, locks or global blocks.
  2. I'm happy that my life as Wikimedian has been always paceful without any major problem. I'm glad to say that I had no major issues with anybody. Please refer to my answer to Lar's question above for a detailed explanation.
  3. I'm not sure if I understood good this question, Millosh. If you meant that if I caused any damage at a global scale I think that the answer is no.

Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Fail

edit
  • My main contribution would be to secure access and to restrict the crosswiki vandals or sockpuppeters, spotting any eventual cases & applying the proper action.
  • My most important case was the harassment by a indian sockpuppeteer under the name of RRaunak in wich he kept vandalizing me, emailing me, vandalizing my subpages for his own purposes.
  • I'm a former sockpuppeteer that stopped sockpuppeterring a long time ago. I just created socks to simply annoy, not like that legendary GRAWP and his legion of impersonators. I got blocked for it, then got unblocked.

Answers from J.delanoy

edit
  1. Most of my steward work would probably involve combatting crosswiki vandals, so most of what I would do would be locking accounts, blocking vandals on projects that don't have any active local admins, and possibly deleting vandalism if pages are created on those projects. I would also likely perform checkuser queries and fill oversight requests on projects that do not have local checkusers and/or oversighters.
  2. I can't think of any really serious problems off hand...
  3. If I get myself into a problem, I try to apologize and fix any mistakes I made. I don't think I've cause any major problems. Most of what I have done is things like mistaken blocks. Once I realize I am in error, I undo myself and apologize as soon as I can.

Answers from Melos

edit
  1. Please refers to my statement and my previous answer. Anyway, I want to help everyone in everything I can, expecially in CVN where there is always work to do.
  2. As a CU on itwiki I have tracked down successfully several obnoxious and persistent socks. Also helped with licenze update process, template development and so on.
  3. As far as I can tell I don't remember any problem that I might have caused at any wikimedia projects. I do my best to be meticulous and very careful about what I do, here and elsewhere. --Melos 13:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mwilso24

edit
  1. As per my statement, I have put my name forward for this trusted position because I believe in what a steward is and what a steward does. What this means is that I plan on being very active in the role, contributing through work on steward requests, combating global vandalism and spam, and always living up to what a steward should be.
  2. When I take on a role I must be able to give myself to the role 110%. I know this may sound cliche, but there was a time when I was unable to be as active as I would have liked, however thankfully this is no longer the case. If elected I pledge to be exceptionally active as a steward, completing tasks promptly and professionally.
  3. While my record is clean, I will admit that it did take me some time to learn how to use the vandalism-fighting tools properly. There was one time, for example, that a reversion was challenged, however that incident cleared itself up quickly and I learned from the events to be exceptionally careful in everything that I do. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 14:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Razorflame

edit
  1. I would be involved with the locking and hiding of accounts as per the Steward policy, the global blocking of troublesome IP addresses that are crosswiki vandalizing as per the Steward policy, and the deletion of vandalous pages created by vandals on projects without any local active administrators, and blocking of vandals on projects without any local active administrators. (as per the Steward policy).
  2. I have been involved in several disputes over the past few years. Benniguy, aka Iamandrewrice, was a user on the Simple English Wikipedia a year ago, and I was very involved in the whole discussion that was involved with this user. After the first week that the conflict started, I stepped out of the discussion and allowed the other users on the Simple English Wikipedia to solve the issue. More recently, I've been involved in several disputes on the English Wiktionary relating to both me and an administrator on there, Opiaterein, who has been uncivil towards me. The issue has been resolved now, though, with him not posting any messages on my talk page and me doing the same on his talk page. So far, that has been proving to be the best solution and no new issues have flared up between me and him since then.
  3. I am unaware of any major problems that I have caused on any Wikimedia wiki, however, if there has been one, either I do not know about it, or it was already resolved. I cannot think of any major problems currently on any Wikimedia wiki.

Razorflame 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Wutsje

edit
  1. Please see my statement.
  2. There have been quite a few complex problems which I helped to solve (e.g. exposing sockpuppeteers, or fixing the mess caused by certain types of heavy vandalism), but the truly big problems on Wikimedia projects are almost never solved by a single person.
  3. I'm not aware of any major problems I might have caused. If I make a mistake, I correct myself and I apologise. It's the decent thing to do.

-- Wutsje 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Avraham

edit
  1. To continue what I already do now (checkuser, oversight, renames, user privileges (admin/crat), bot privileges, blocks, protections) but be able to help many more projects than just EnWiki or the Commons.
  2. Many of the complicated issues I have helped solve involve non-releasable information (oversight, checkuser, and OTRS), but I have been a part of difficult RfAs/RfBs and mediation on very contentious articles such as Mahmoud Ahmadinijead on EnWiki.
  3. Thankfully, I do not believe I have been a part or significant contributor to any major drama or problem, nor do I intend to be :)

-- Avi 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Answers from billinghurst

edit
  1. I have a passion to reduce (prevent?) abuse (spam, vandalism, sockfarms). So stop pinging !admin in IRC, and fix the problem. Beyond that, I am a team player, and often a jack of all trades in getting fixes into place, and problem-solving. So I know one area to start, and able to participate in areas of need. I would also be watching with a new perspective the application of bureaucrat and oversight rights, as a learning and reflective exercise before stepping into that arena, as this is one area where a steward's determination and action can have consequences for a project. billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Problems? We are meant to have problems? I cannot say that I have them (well, intricate template coding aside!). Be positive, be polite focus on a solution, and understand that we are dealing with humans (mostly). Lead the aspects of a culture that you wish to propagate.
  2. Any good faith issues that I have with people, I try to resolve quietly and peacefully, and aiming for p+ve outcomes for the project, them and myself.

Answers from Damërung

edit
  1. I think that my main contribution as a steward would be community consensus and help to others (like the requests), things that needs improvement and develop among the wikimedia projects (which I have came across with some). In fact, that´s why I postulated;
  2. For now, I haven´t dealt with major problems (not directly, but I have been in important problems some times). But one problem (small one) that I had is with my signature, which was disruptive in the past (and I didn´t know it). Some users complained about it and I wanted to keep it, so I tried different aproaches and alternatives (discussions, mainly to understand the problem), and after watching the problem at 'full-tone' in a public computer (because mine does not display that problem), I understood and changed it (happened twice until now);
  3. Long ago I vandalized some userpages and talk pages (not logged in). It wasn´t very long, it was just about half a year ago. My motive for doing that was to watch how is the response against vandalism in specific namespace pages, nothing too evil. My vandal edits were removed by users and a bot within some minutes (or seconds).

- ☩Damërung ☩. -- 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Jamesofur

edit

1. Like I said in my statement my main focus would probably be cross wiki abuse and vandalism (which would include crosswiki OS/CU) but I also intend to be active on the Steward Request pages since I am around on irc the majority of the time (where all edits to those pages are reported).

2. There have been quite a few extensive vandalism messes or sockpuppet problems that I have either dealt with on my own (rare) or helped to deal with (much more common). As Wutsje said most problems on wiki big or small are fixed with teamwork, and should be.

3. I can not think of any major problem that I've caused. If you or anyone else can do so I would however appreciate you asking about it or mentioning it to me so that I can hopefully address it. James (T C) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Bletilla

edit
  1. I would contribute peaceful and impartial treatment mainly for the community.
  2. It is the article Yokohama City a few years ago when it was confused about a contribution by an editor. Repeatedly, I solved it impartially.
  3. I do not have any most important problems which I caused at any projects. My behaviour has not changed.

--Bletilla 02:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mercy

edit
  1. It would definitely be fighting vandalism which is the main reason I'm asking for the steward access.
  2. There's recently been a sock-puppeteer that was active on several projects (including Commons, Czech and English Wikipedias etc.) that kept on revert-warring and uploading unfree images from different sources. It took me quite a lot of time to discover his sock-puppets and the sources of the images he uploaded. Based on his cross-wiki activity, I had to watch him on several projects. The situation was resolved after he was checkusered on Commons and blocked. In this case, several other administrators helped to solve the problem as well.
  3. I was involved in a short revert-warring over my bots' edits on some small project several months ago. The local admin was not willing to explain me why he reverted some of my bot's edits. He ignored my message on his talk page so I started reverting the unexplained reverts and I got blocked temporarily for, as the admin stated, vandalism. Later on, he replied with some unconvincing reason but after a short discussion I decided to withdraw because it wasn't worth my time and effort. --Mercy 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit
  1. My main contribution would be in the support of smaller communities, in addition to the contributions that I already perform as a regular editor. I would now be able to help in a more effective and active way in the fight against vandals. I would as well help the Latin communities, which currently can't count on many stewards who speak or understand their languages, since most of the current stewards are English speakers. Right now there are only two stewards who speak Portuguese, and both have been rather inactive. I hope to be able to change this.
  2. I always fought firmly the abusive usage of open proxies and the irregularities in the projects, such as policy violations. Regarding open proxies, I've had a bot approved that blocks these proxies, preventing their usage. As for policy violations, I can say that I'm known for reporting those situations and proposing solutions to end those abuses.
  3. Like many users when they start contributing to Wikimedia, I initially wanted to perform big changes. Even though I never caused any problems in the communities I worked on, with time, I gradually learned to work in harmony with the communities' decisions.

Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Annabel

edit
  1. My main contribution is to help the different wikimedia projects.
  2. This expands the whole range of issue, from simple school vandalism over enduring sometimes tough debates into sockpuppet abuse. Each case requires its own way of handling.
  3. I'm not aware of such important issues.

Annabel 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Jyothis

edit
  1. Counter Vandalism/ Cross wiki abuse, User rights Management, Tools development, Check User, swmt. I am usually active and available on IRC.
  2. You may read it here - An old case diary. I did my best to collect the facts and furnish them at the best as I can.
  3. Apart from the one above, I have not caused any problems in Wikimedia projects. I have been awarded the civility star and peace star in my home wiki.

--Jyothis 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from wishfulanthony

edit
  1. My major contributions to the Wikimedia community if I become a steward would be the following:
  • To expand my presence in the Wikipedia English forum (my home wiki) through article expansions and improvements;
  • To improve the quality of the various projects Wikimedia currently has;
  • To reduce incidences of vandalism and wiki abuse;
  • To improve and expand the User Rights that may be missing from the current documentation; and
  • To make myself available on the IRC.
  1. I have not had encountered any problems so far during my Wikimedian life, since it has been geared more towards Wikipedia English.
  2. I have a clean record on all Wikimedia-related projects, including my home wiki.

Thanks for asking them. Those will really help me look at where I am in the elections. -- wishfulanthony 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Eivind

edit
  1. I would like to engage in cross-wiki activity, fighting vandalism and spam. Also, I would love to help out with the normal steward tasks here at meta.
  2. I've worked with a lot of problems at no.wiki, mostly relating to POV articles and POV editors. They were all solved through hard work over time, with great help from my fellow no.wiki administrators :)
  3. I've probably done and said some stupid stuff, but nothing which I haven't been able to fix / restore and apologise shortly afterwards.

Thanks, --EivindJ 08:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mentifisto

edit
  1. I will continue my small wiki monitoring work while helping people on the IRC channels, along with monitoring requests on Meta where I feel I can lend a hand (like SRSD; I will always approach anything I attempt to do cautiously and thoughtfully, as I hope I do with my sysop work).
  2. The problems I come across are usually maintenance-related, and they're normally solved by following conventional policies and guidelines. My personal demeanour, though, is commonly efficient (or so I try to be, ideally) and if it's a persistent vandal (for example) I usually succeed in dealing with the problem without further ado.
  3. I normally try to be low-profile, dealing with issues without trying to create even more, but whenever I slipped and recognized that I've committed an error I always attempt to rectify it and calm the situation down, if possible. -- Mentifisto 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from oscar

edit

Say you had 10 points to distribute among the following 8 stewards' properties, as far as they are yours: how would you rate yourself?

  1. you have lots of time available
  2. you have proven technical skills
  3. you are good at helping people
  4. you are a speaker of many or special languages
  5. you are eager to learn
  6. you are meticulous and/or efficient
  7. you are impartial and neutral in conflicts
  8. you are a passionate supporter of wikimedia

thank you in advance for answering and good luck! all the best, oscar 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Cutno

edit
  1. Time available 1
  2. Technical Skills 2
  3. Good at helping people 2
  4. Many or special languages 0
  5. Eager to learn 1
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient 1
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts 2
  8. Supporter of Wikimedia 1

Thank you for your question, Oscar. It was quite fun and challenging.--Cutno 03:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Razorflame

edit

I would not know exactly how I would rate myself in these categories because of the fact that it isn't very clear to me, but as with Wutsje, I will answer these questions with words instead of numbers.

  1. Since I currently am not going to school and that I currently am available a good portion of the time, I would say that I have quite a bit of free time available. I wouldn't want to do steward tasks 24/7, though, because that would wear me out and would probably cause me to not make the best of decisions. I would probably say that I would be able to give up to two hours of actual work towards steward tasks while I would be available 99% of the time on IRC.
  2. I don't have very many technical skills, however, I am able to determine if an IP is an open proxy or not. I use a program called Nmap to help me with this. Other than that, I have no experience with other kinds of technically strong things. I do not forsee this to hamper or block my ability to perform steward tasks, though.
  3. I believe that I am good at helping people. I've been very helpful for new users on the Simple Wikipedia, Simple Wiktionary and the English Wiktionary. I usually help people whenever they ask me a question and I usually do it as thoughtfully and completely as possible.
  4. I can speak English natively, and I know the basics of Spanish and Italian, as well as an intermediate amount of Ido and Esperanto. I am also currently planning on learning the basics of quite a few more languages in the near future. Therefore, I believe that I would be able to understand discussion in several languages in the near future.
  5. I am very eager to learn. I love learning from my mistakes (when made), and I love learning other kinds of things. I would classify myself as someone who is extremely eager to learn new things because I believe that this would make me a better person :).
  6. Since I edit the English Wiktionary the most, and since that project demands meticulous and efficient editing, I definitely believe myself to be a meticulous and efficient editor and person. In real life, I usually play a video game until I finish 100% of the game and get a 100% completion rating, which usually takes much, much longer than just finishing the game.
  7. I believe that, for discussions that I do not have a personal bias on, I would definitely be able to discuss the discussion in an impartial and neutral way, however, in discussions in which I already have a personal bias, I would either not participate in the discussion, or try to make an impartial and neutral comment on it. I would not partake in the discussion over a long period of time.
  8. I've been a passionate supporter of Wikimedia for the past 2 years and 3 months.

Thanks for asking these questions, and I hope that I've answered them the way you wanted them answered, Razorflame 03:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Wutsje

edit

A well known problem with ordinal scale self ranking is that the exact criteria a respondent uses remain unclear, so I'm going to answer these eight questions in words.

  1. Normally I have quite some time available for Wikimedia and my intention is to keep it that way, but obviously this could always change due to the unpredictable character of real life. Wikimedia is very important to me (I would not have 73K+ edits cross wiki if it wasn't), but if for example someone dear to me were to become seriously ill and needed full time care, my priorities could shift very quickly.
  2. As for my technical skills: they're okay. I'm not a brilliant wizz kid, but I've been a programmer, I've worked at a helpdesk and as a network administrator, so I do have some experience there. And should I need technical advise, there are many highly experienced users to turn to.
  3. I tend to think so, yes - but strictly speaking you should ask people who were on the receiving end.
  4. I'm not a speaker of many languages. My native languages are Frisian and Dutch, I speak English reasonably well, my spoken German is probably better (but I'm not very used to writing it), and I speak French at a basic level. I can however read most Germanic and Romance languages/dialects at levels ranging from 1 to 4, I have some knowledge of Albanian and Turkish, and I'm able to at least identify most other languages.
  5. Yes, that's one of my basic attitudes.
  6. Everything I do I want to do as good as possible, because I hate sloppiness, and I always try to be as efficient as possible too. Time is precious and should not be wasted.
  7. Generally speaking: yes, but it depends on the kind of conflict. If I become involved in a content dispute on my home wiki, I make sure I only take part in that as a user and not as an administrator (but even then I try to see my opponents' point of view, keeping the basic aims of Wikipedia in mind). If I'm not involved, I usually take a typical administrator stance, trying to facilitate the debate and stressing the importance of reaching consensus. As a steward though, given the fact that stewards are not supposed to decide, I would at all times do my best to remain as impartial and neutral as possible.
  8. Yes, I think so and the amount of time I put in it may reflect that. See also 1.

-- Wutsje 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from J.delanoy

edit
  1. you have lots of time available -- ? I used to have more time than I do now, but classes are getting more and more difficult, so I am not as active as I once was. Due to some weirdness with my university, I do not yet know what my schedule for next semester will be. Once I do, I will update this.
  2. you have proven technical skills -- 2 I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable with most features and extensions of wikitext, and I could probably write a bot in C# or C++ if I had the motivation. I am not an expert in writing code, though, and I know little of most scripting languages, or such languages as Perl, Python, PHP, etc.
  3. you are good at helping people -- 3 I like helping people a lot, and I think I am pretty good at it. It is rare that someone asks me about something that I am totally at a loss to give them an answer. Most of the time, when people ask me for help with something, I am able to resolve their issue, or at least point them to someone who can
  4. you are a speaker of many or special languages -- 0 I can speak English fluently. I speak enough Spanish to carry on a conversation at a basic level, albeit slowly. I can read Spanish significantly better than I can write it, but I still probably have about 85% comprehension.
  5. you are eager to learn -- 2 I love learning about pretty much anything, and various things on Wikimedia projects are no exception.
  6. you are meticulous and/or efficient -- 1 I am getting better, but I still have a tendency to jump to conclusions on occasion. I can usually get a lot done in a short amount of time, though.
  7. you are impartial and neutral in conflicts -- 1 I try to be neutral at all times, but I rarely involve myself in conflicts if I can avoid them reasonably, with a few exceptions here and there. I will not pretend that I have a lot of experience in dispute resolution.
  8. you are a passionate supporter of wikimedia -- 1 I support Wikimedia projects through my edits, but I don't know if I would call myself "passionate". I just like doing it. J.delanoygabsadds 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Avraham

edit

Point values in (italics)

  1. Time available Yes - I am usually available close to 12 hours a day. (1)
  2. Technical Skills Yes - I am a CU, Crat, and OS, and have written templates with parser functions. (1)
  3. Good at helping people Yes - I am an OTRS volunteer and respond to help requests onwiki, via e-mail, and IRC, (1.5)
  4. Many or special languages Hebrew and at an intermediate level. (.5)
  5. Eager to learn Yes, always. (2)
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient I hope so. (1)
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts I believe so, and I believe I can find enough comments to support the position that there are others who agree. This is something close to a raison d'être in my wikilife. (2)
  8. Supporter of Wikimedia By volunteering many hours of my time daily. (1)

-- Avi 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from billinghurst

edit

I am not a rater, either 0-10, +++

  • you have lots of time available

I have solid bundles of time available on a regular basis, an edit and an IRC record that demonstrates this. I also sit in a different time zone from many. I have periods where I am away with work.

  • you have proven technical skills

Absolutely. Not an expert, however, a broad competency, and solid experience.

  • you are good at helping people

Fifteen internet years of it, and many years of working life. On the days when I have had enough of people, I do technical things.

  • you are a speaker of many or special languages

Fail miserably. Strine, colourful and swearing are my strengths, they count less in a wiki. ;-) I can read and interpret logs, and lookups well.

  • you are eager to learn

Life is a learning journey, and learning a means to an end or for a better understanding. One just does it, my eagerness is in achieving things, and learning is just a part of it

  • you are meticulous and/or efficient

Where, and as required. My study is a mess, WMF wins over tidying it

  • you are impartial and neutral in conflicts

One does one best to be objective. A trained investigator, with sufficient life experience

  • you are a passionate supporter of wikimedia

A no-brainer. One doesn't stick their hand up for this gig, with a solid editing record, if one is half-arsed about it (well apart from those agenda to push), which I haven't. billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Jamesofur

edit

I agree with the others I hate ratings I'll try though :)

  1. time available: 1 I am at school (and work 2 nights a week) but I study at my desk and spend an enormous amount of my time near the computer even for work. In the end I think I am online an enormous amount of time and would be very available for steward related work. I also don't foresee this changing with the job opportunities I have for after school.
  2. technical skills: 1 I do have a fair amount of experience with MediaWiki and it's extensions. I know the Java programming language and am slowly teaching myself python and php/sql (mostly though Wikimedia and my personal MediaWiki installations) I am also very good at figuring out how to take advantage of new tools and systems.
  3. good at helping people: 2 I love to help, that is first and foremost. In the end that is the main reason I like working on WMF wiki's I like the projects and their goals and I love to help people use them.
  4. many or special languages: 0 I'm not, I do think my language skills are sufficient for the job but they aren't anything special it took me 5-8 minutes to be happy with the the very short paragraph I wrote for someone on the global sysops page recently, nothing special :)
  5. eager to learn: 1 If I had more points this would be higher, I love to learn and I love to read and to figure out how something works and why things are happening. I actually think this has helped me defuse conflict situations because I can usually draw on information to help people out or calm them down.
  6. meticulous and/or efficient: 1 Mixed bag :) Anyone who has seen me on IRC will know I sometimes write too fast and mess up words (and then correct them in the next line) so it is hard for me to say I am meticulous in that way. However when it comes to wiki work I want to make sure the write thing happens so I always make sure I have enough information to be totally comfortable with my decision and efficient enough to get the job done as quickly as possible.
  7. impartial and neutral: 2 I'm not totally sure how to show this but I do believe I can be impartial and neutral and that I can do so even when I actually have strong feelings. I don't like conflict, sometimes it is inevitable but I try to calm the situation down as quickly and as permanently as possible. I've found that in most arguments both sides have legitimate issues and knowing that going in makes being impartial much easier.
  8. passionate supporter of wikimedia: 2 This is easy, I love the Wikimedia Projects and it's free content goals. I may not always agree with decisions made (volunteer and staff) but I know they mean well and I want to see the projects flourish world wide.

James (T|C) 13:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Dferg

edit

Please allow me commenting a bit while rating:

  1. Time: Yes, right now I have a reasonable ammount of free time that allows me to collaborate daily on the different WMF projects. (1)
  2. Technical skills: I think so. I feel confortable working with the different sets of tools that I have been entrusted with on the different projects I am active. Also I have a medium knowledge about networking and informatics. (1)
  3. Good at helping people: Many people approaches me and ask me for help/advice and I try to help them as much as I can. Also I try to answer questions and queries on the different onwiki administrators' noticeboards/help desks; however I think that this needs to be asked to those persons I try to help everyday. (1)
  4. Speaker of any or special languages: I'm glad that I can speak 3 languages (es, fr, en) and I can read a bunch of other ones at a basic/middle level like an, ext, ast, ca, gl and a bit of Italian and Latin. Actually I plan to start learning German soon. (1)
  5. Eager to learn: Yes. (2)
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient: I think that this is one of my characteristics. I try to be so every day (onwiki and offwiki). I do not like to leave things half done or semi-resolved if possible. (1)
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts: I always try to avoid COIs when possible and remain impartial and neutral when the valid community consensus needs to be implemented. As I've said to Lar above, I did not have any major conflicts with anybody however in the different discussions we can have I try to stay as calm and civil as possible. (2)
  8. Supporter of wikimedia: As Avi above. (1)

— Dferg (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mwilso24

edit

If I am only allowed 10 points between these 8 categories here is my breakdown:

  1. time available: 2 - I am able to dedicate the time required for the position, and would not be here if I couldn't give 110%.
  2. technical skills: 1 - I have installed and run the mediawiki software on a number of independent platforms, and am a long-time user of wikimedia projects.
  3. good at helping people: 1 - I will be helping people for a living, however due to the limited number of selections available I have to give this a 1.
  4. many or special languages: 0 - I am fluent in English and have some French abilities, however I do not categorize my skills as many or special.
  5. eager to learn: 1 - Always eager to learn, I wouldn't be part of this community otherwise.
  6. meticulous and/or efficient: 1 - Efficiency brings order from chaos. I know I can help with that also.
  7. impartial and neutral in conflicts: 3 - As someone learned in the law I understand the importance of alternative dispute resolution methods such as consensus building and impartiality.
  8. supporter of wikimedia: 1 - I wish I had more numbers to spread around. Like everyone else, I wouldn't be here if I didn't support the goals and aims of wikimedia.

--mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 14:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Damërung

edit

I´m not always very good at rating myself, and in this case the question is not very clear to me, but here it goes:

  1. Time available - .7 - I can have plenty of time some days, but sometimes I just can´t.
  2. Technical skills - 0 - I haven´t got substantial experience, but I´ve been reading about stewards and I´m familiarized with policies.
  3. Good at helping people - 2.1 - This is one of my best areas. In fact, a good portion of my collaborations lately (in the english wikipedia) have been helping new users.
  4. Many or special languages - .1 - I only speak fluently english and spanish, I can read and write russian but in a basic level, with german I still have some problems speaking it.
  5. Eager to learn - 2 - I´m always eager to learn. I wouldn´t have nominated myself as a steward if not.
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient - 1.2 - I often work in placing things right, having the propper details in the correct places and completing lists. These have been my lately contributions in the english wikipedia (the portion of my contributions in article/template namespace... and userspace also).
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts - 2.2 - In conflicts I always scan for all possible alternatives and try my best to balance things. I believe I´m a very very impartial and neutral user (having this parameter with the most points).
  8. Supporter of wikimedia - 1.7 - Over the time, I´ve come to appreciate a lot the wikimedia foundation and everything it does. I couldn´t give more points because I ran out of 'em.

I would like more a 1 to 10 rating on each one. But I guess this is about it. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Melos

edit
  1. I'm often available on IRC, and I believe anyway devote I enough time to the Project (1)
  2. I have enough experience and knowledge of the steward tools (CU, OS, CentralAuth, etc.) and, as a CU I have a fairly good knowledge of networking (2)
  3. Several users from the wiki's I am active on consider me as a helper :P (2)
  4. Please see my statement for which languages I know, but I can read several other languages. (.5)
  5. I love to learn. (1)
  6. As I told answering to Millosh: I do my best to be meticulous and very careful about what I do, here and elsewhere. (1.5)
  7. I deal with several user issues and, up to now, I have been known as impartial and neutral; I can't see why I should change my beahviour. (1)
  8. I contribute with translations or translation reviews at wikimedia. (1)

--Melos 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Bletilla

edit
  1. Do you mean time to do for sewardship? Yes! I am a candidate for it.
  2. Probably yes.
  3. Yes. I am.
  4. Yes. But my most languages to speak are official languages of the United Nations.
  5. Yes. I am. I am an editor because of an eager learner.
  6. Yes. I am meticulous, though a little unefficient.
  7. Yes. I think it proves with a conflict at Yokohama City that I answer to Millosh.
  8. Yes. I think so. I support my contributions of articles, not of money.

--Bletilla 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mercy

edit

Say you had 10 points to distribute among the following 8 stewards' properties, as far as they are yours: how would you rate yourself?

  1. time available: (1) Well, I do have time available. But as you know, sometimes everyone needs to take a break, so I'm pretty sure I won't be available 24/7.
  2. technical skills: (1) I have some basic knowledge of the MediaWiki software, however, I'm not an IT specialist. When I need information, I consult technically-experienced Wikimedians or the available tech-manuals.
  3. good at helping people: (2) The purpose of the steward function is to help people, therefore I'm always willing to help other users and to do my best.
  4. many or special languages: (1) My best advantage for the steward access is that I have a basic understanding of Germanic, Romance and Slavonic languages which makes me capable of dealing with vandalism and other disruptions on a host of different wikis.
  5. eager to learn: I've always wanted to learn new stuff, especially languages. When I make a mistake, I'd be glad to be told what I had done wrong and how to avoid from making such a mistake in the future.
  6. meticulous and/or efficient: (1) When sticking to steward policies, it is essential to be meticulous. Secondly, I prefer to solve problems quickly and effectively rather than spending many hours discussing and writing kilobytes of arguments without coming up with any solution to the problem.
  7. impartial and neutral in conflicts: (2) I've always tried to be impartial but there's often someone who disputes your impartiality, especially when it comes to discussions on "hot topics". That is why I mostly tend to watch such discussions and interfere only to calm down the parties involved or when a breach of policy has occurred.
  8. supporter of wikimedia: (1) I'm a member of Wikimedia Czech Republic and I have created quite a lot of articles on various Wikipedias. My current cross-wiki edit count is over 80,000 which shows my devotion to Wikimedia the best. I try to help Wikimedia projects as much as I'm able to.

Best regards, --Mercy 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit
  1. Yes, currently I have plenty of free time.(1)
  2. Yes, I'm a system administrator in real life, and I believe my skills with the mediawiki software are good enough to help the community (1)
  3. Yes, either through email, my talk pages or via many other forms of contact, I'm constantly helping people. (1)
  4. Yes, I know some languages, though I'm a much better reader than writer in some of them. (1)
  5. Of couse! Every day I learn something new, and whenever possible I trasmit this knowledge to others. This is the Wiki(media) way: to freely give and receive knowledge. (1)
  6. Yes, I am always willing to find the best way to help communities and especially to find efficient ways to do it. (1)
  7. Yes, there have been situations where I had to report abuses committed by friends, but I kept my impartiality and neutrality above all. (2)
  8. Yes! I love Wikimedia and its projects and I'm very happy to be part of this community. (1)

Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Annabel

edit

Well, I'm looking for the range of scoring, but it seems it was not given. ;-)

  1. + as is probably the case for everyone, it depends from time to time, but I have generally quite some time.
  2. ++ I'm quite familiar with the methods and backgroudn of mediawiki and I programmed some tools for wiktionary NL
  3. ++ I guess so. ;-)
  4. + I'm essentially trilingual
  5. ++ I always want to learn, that's partly the reason why I am involved with the wikimedia projects.
  6. + I am always looking for a solution or at least partial results before sleeping well.
  7. + Probably the hardest part of the job. One never can be 100% neutral, but I always try to do my best.
  8. +++ For more than four years I am.

Annabel 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jyothis

edit
  1. 1 - I am usually available full time in the Evenings and as needed during the business hours. I am always available on email (iphone/pc/laptop)
  2. 2 - I am a technical lead by profession with one of the largest software companies in the world and have lots of experience in programming and production management. Currently working with az1568 in maintaining the SWMTBot. I am also working on a new bot and have taken the tool server account to work on some tools that I have in plan.
  3. 2 - I have always been good at helping people. I am a member of OTRS email response team for wikimedia and does helping people for my living.
  4. 1 - I can speak 5 languages (Malayalam, English, Hindi, Kannada, Tamil) and can read and write 3 (Malayalam, English, Hindi). I am working on adding Spanish and German in my list as well.
  5. 1 - I have always been a quick learner and have mastered many skills within a short span for my work life. I bet I can do it here as well.
  6. 1 - Yes and May be. there are times when inefficient means do work better (e.g, stuff that needs cautious manual review).
  7. 1 - I have done this many times in my sysop career. I have been awarded the civility and peace star by my fellows in ml wiki and a guidance barn star in en wiki my fellow wikipedian.
  8. 1 - I am an avid supporter of wikipedia on and off the net. We do not miss an opportunity to promote wikimedia initiatives and we are constantly looking out for opportunities. I am working with others in cvn-sw and swmt. We have been successfully maintaining a wiki with a very high depth (229 at this time). Infact, in our state, we have even obtained the government support and state government has given its own encyclopedia for free to be merged into wikipedia. From a state that is not wiki aware, it is quite a feet that is achieved by my wiki community.

Too bad. not enough points to distribute. :-) --Jyothis 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from wishfulanthony

edit

Seems like it's a hard question, since if you want me to distribute all of the 10 points, it will be something of a challenge for me! But, let me give it a try. I also wonder if half points (0.5) are allowed too! -- by wishfulanthony 05:11, 26 January 2010

  1. Time Available: 1.0, since I am currently studying and use up a lot of time on volunteering, so this will be an easy thing for me.
  2. Technical Skills: 0.5, since I have limited managerial skills, but I am willing to learn them as I go along (see later).
  3. Good at Helping People: 1.0, since I am a person who wants to reach out to the members to the best of my ability.
  4. Languages: 1.5, since I speak two languages quite common in today's world, English and Filipino (Tagalog), that have global audiences.
  5. Eager to Learn: 2.0, since I really want to expand my knowledge into Wikimedia's concepts of management, and it will enable me to broaden my online communication skills.
  6. Efficiency: 1.0, since I do my very best to work within a timeframe with ease and effort. Not to mention the fact that I do procrastinate at times when I'm overloaded with online and real-life work.
  7. Neutrality in Conflicts: 1.5, since I want to seek out both sides of a problem, look at all the angles, and justify the needed actions that will benefit both the Stewards and the users.
  8. Supporter of Wikimedia: 1.5, since I really like the goings-on of the group as a whole, and I feel that I am contributing to my home wiki (albeit small).

Answers from Eivind

edit

You want them in points, you'll get them in points.

  1. Time available: 1
  2. Proven technical skills: 1
  3. Good at helping people: 2
  4. Many or special languages: 0
  5. Eager to learn: 2
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient: 1
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts: 3
  8. Supporter of Wikimedia: 0

Thanks ;) --EivindJ 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Carkuni

edit
  1. I have time available. But I take break and working hours. I want to spend time for the Wikimedia projects.
  2. I have the information technology skill. (Install Media wiki on local environment.)
  3. Yes. I want to help people.
  4. you are a speaker of many or special languages
  5. I can't talk a lot. But, I learning many languages.
  6. Yes, I am.
  7. I want to work like that.
  8. Yes. I wants to be me with neutrality anytime.
  9. Yes. I support the Wikimedia projects.

Thank you.--Carkuni 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Krinkle

edit
  1. Time available - 1 : I spend hours a day on Wikimedia projects and will continue doing so.
  2. Technical skills - 2 : My technical skills are good. On a daily base I work with building and maintaining websites in front- and backend (XHTML/CSS/JS/PHP etc.). Also in MediaWiki-relation I have a fair bit experience working with Extensions and local installations of it.
  3. Good at helping people - 1 : Whenever I can I take the oppertunity to explain a thing or two to a beginner in cases of reverts or small fixes; I remember from my early, anonymous being, on Wikipedia that some things that seem obvious now, weren't always that simple. So, where I can I try to either create or improve manuals/help's or explain it to the user directly. Ofcourse, in cases of vandalism this will vary.
  4. Many or special languages - 1 : Not sure how many is considered 'many'. I speak English and German on a high level (4?) (In typing my German is more towards de-2 or de-3 though). For the rest I understand most Frisian and Tweants. And like Wutsje mentioned, will understand most words in Germanic languages and recognize the language in question.
  5. Eager to learn - 1 : Oh yeah, this is built right into my core. Everyday I learn something and I have curiosity in a variaty of subjects; which fits perfect into what a Wiki does.
  6. Meticulous and/or efficient - 2 : Often I'm called a perfectionist. I'm not sure what to think of that term, but I always try to do things the best and most effecient way I can or know. And when relevant I'd turn to an expert on the subject and ask how he'd do it, or what he thinks of my proposal.
  7. Impartial and neutral in conflicts - 1 : So far I haven't been in any conflicts that I know of. If I see a conflict that catches my personal interest I will either avoid it, or contribute to it as a user if I feel there's substantial knowledge missing on the subject. But in most cases I will not participate in conflicts, and so far have not done so. When or if I would get involved in a conflict I will take an in-depth look from both perspectives and base my standpoint on the consensus of the community and/or for what is best in harmony with Wikimedia's base principles.
  8. Supporter of Wikimedia - 1 : I support Wikimedia as much as I can, and am always excited to see people arround me join the project and/or decide to change licences and contribute/upload their content to Wikimedia.

Good points oscar, Thanks for the list. --Krinkle 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Mentifisto

edit
  1. I do have time at my disposal. As can be seen from my edits/logs and IRC presence I'm regularly available. (2)
  2. I'd like to think I'm technically able. I'm familiar with the navigability of MediaWiki (as a user, ever since I became active) and whenever I'm unsure or don't know of something I peruse the manuals/help pages. (1)
  3. I try to be as helpful as possible, and usually strive to find a solution to a problem or point people to more suitable venues, if possible. (1)
  4. I feel with the languages I know I'm able to (basically) comprehend elements of certain languages (using the Latin alphabet). (1)
  5. I am indeed eager to learn, and I know I do so all the time. It is actually what attracted me to wikis. (1)
  6. I try to examine all the factors in a given situation before making decisions (regarding meticulousness), and in so doing attempt to minimize wasted time or other resources. (2)
  7. I usually find myself as a casual observer, and if I think I can point out anything of use I will, while attempting to remain detached and rational in the process. (1)
  8. Through my edits, yes. (1) -- Mentifisto 07:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Juliancolton

edit

What is your take on the ongoing Global sysops proposal? Thanks in advance for the answers, and best of luck. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an off-topic, ideas about new features to introduce cannot change the way a steward will attempt to his role. --Vituzzu 16:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's very relevant. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May you be more precise? I use not to pay attemption to ideas which are not directly involved in the role I'm gonna voting for. --Vituzzu 17:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, global sysops will be working closely with stewards, if they are implemented, and I think the candidates' opinion of the process as proposed is important. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly against my better judgement but I do want to say that I think the proposal is very directly involved in the steward role. At its heart being a steward is a xwiki position and one of the main (if not only) reasons that the Global sysops position was proposed was to assist the stewards in their most overworked job (xwiki vandalism). James (T C) 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Cutno

edit

More help is always welcomed. --Cutno 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jamesofur

edit

It is a complicated question in my opinion. The stewards need more help with cross wiki vandalism, and I think will still need more help even after this election. In that sense I think global sysops are needed, the global roll-backers have been great (obviously biased in that) and have increased their activity but they are a small group with little ability to actually stop an attacker, especially a xwiki attacker, all they can do is keep them at bay. If a steward is unavailable an attacker can run rampant for quite a while held back only by rollbacks or undo's and if he is jumping from wiki to wiki (or ip to ip) he can become hard to keep track of. If the vandalism is not caught quickly it is likely it will remain for a VERY long time. On more then one occasion I have considered looking for a sysadmin to block because a steward was unavailable for 20-30 minutes and someone was still going crazy.

That being said, Global blocking is a powerful tool that effects every wiki. I can totally understand why people are hesitant to give it to non-stewards despite its usefulness. I was originally actually in favor of having global sysops identify to the WMF but that was voted down fairly quickly. I do hope that the proposal passes BUT each individual person applying needs to be carefully vetted and to be honest I will basically NOT support someone who hasn't been a global rollbacker for a while. Working xwiki with languages you do not understand is not easy and it is hard to tell if someone is able to do so unless they have been doing it for a while already. Careful vetting will be crucial to whether the idea works or fails miserably. I generally have a whynot policy with sysops, this will not be the case for global sysops. James (T C) 05:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Bletilla

edit

I would like to support global sysops after the proposal would become the formal system but, if steward elctions were plural every year, Stewards might make up for their shortage in my opion. Necessary creation and change of a system should be flexible when the community want it. Because of the voluntary community and increasing editors, prblems including abuse will be much more than ever. Again, I would like to support global sysops for Wikimedia Projects not to need pie in the sky.

I hope my answer is not complicated to you. --Bletilla 07:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mwilso24

edit

While some people may view this question to be relevant, and some may not, I will answer it anyways and you, the reader, can decide how much weight, if any, to give to this question.

Global Sysops have the benefit to helping this community by allowing dedicated users access to administrative functions on our smaller projects. On the surface, therefore, the proposed bit could benefit the community as a whole. That being said, however, I do have a number of concerns.

Global Sysops can only be as effective as the policies which guide their actions. Those of us standing for election as a steward should be well aware of the policies we have to follow. Sysops, however, must follow the policies for their local wiki and are their actions are not governed by a community-wide set of rules. For a Global Sysop to operate properly, therefore, they must either conform to the policies and procedures of each individual wiki that they are assisting, or the smaller projects must be forced to adopt a set of policies outside of local control. In my opinion neither of these realities excite me.

Additionally, my analysis of the current proposal does not explicitly require Global Sysops to have any multi-lingual experience. Multi-lingual experience would aid their work on our smaller projects, and would allow them to take their work beyond blatant vandalism which most bots could revert.

In conclusion, therefore, while my mind is not made up on the Global Sysops proposal I feel that there are a number of areas which need addressing, after which I would be more likely to support the proposal than I am now.

--mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mercy

edit

I fully support the idea of global sysops and believe the policy will came into force. In the course of recent moths I have been given a temporary admin flag to combat vandalism on two small Wikipedias. I have actually been deciding whether to submit my candidature for steward or to wait a little and to run for the global adminship. Global sysops would make defending small wikis from vandals much more effective mainly because they wouldn't have to ask stewards for help or adminship permission. As the terms of the policy are quite strict, I believe the global sysops will do no harm to anyone. Best regards, --Mercy 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from J.delanoy

edit

Well, I supported the proposal, so it should be obvious what my opinion is. Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure how this relates to stewards... J.delanoygabsadds 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

edit

My answer here is the same of J.delanoy... I supported the proposal too. Regards -- @lestaty discuţie 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Avraham

edit

I supported the proposal; I also fail to see the relevance to the steward elections. -- Avi 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Dferg

edit

I stayed neutral at the proposal as so I do here (I did not voted). Excuse me if I do not see in this question any direct relevance to the stewards elections too. — Dferg (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Annabel

edit

I also fail to see the relevance with candidatures. Global sysops might be good help. Annabel 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jyothis

edit

The global sysop concept is quite a useful one in my view, since I see the pain of Stewards almost daily in the IRC channel when cross wiki abuse and vandalism issues arises. This should help stewards in dealing with them and this should help the smaller projects to get their routine tasks done. As of now, we do not have enough hands to cover it all. Apart from counter vandalism, they could help a lot in routine tasks in each wikis and could perfrom community requests as per guidelines.

However, the sysop's ability to comprehend the language they will be dealing with should be considered, since they can edit the interface as well. Local sysops and BCs should agree to the actions and global sysops should not over rule the local community. Overseeing the changes made by the global sysops would be an issue too. --Jyothis 05:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from wishfulanthony

edit

I have read the entire proposal, and I do agree on having global sysops because it will allow a greater supervision of the various projects made in Wikimedia, and through their help, hopefully, they can reduce wiki spam and vandalism through assertive actions of controlling such texts, reminding users about the dangers of spam, and listening to the users' concerns over the sysops' power opportunities. I have made my vote on that one quite a long time ago, so I feel comfortable explaining that from my end. -- wishfulanthony 05:16, 26 January 2010

Answer from Wutsje

edit

How my point of view regarding this proposal could be relevant to my steward candidacy remains unclear to me too, but anyway: I did not take part in the vote (which would have been different had there been an option to vote "neutral": while I welcome the general idea of global sysops, I'm not convinced of the desirability to give them the power to block users globally). Wutsje 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from billinghurst

edit

I made two comments on the Votes page, one said absolutely (for), and the other commented upon managing of disputed blocks.

The role is a necessity for the size and scope of the sites (have to consider the future). The principle is right, and the procedures look okay, though one can guarantee that they will need tweaking as it evolves (and that is okay). It is a working role, and while a position with rights, it should not seen as a position of special authority, and should be seen as subsidiary to local sysops in that sense. Global rollbackers, global sysops and stewards are there to do the task at hand and to move on. If someone wants to hang around a site, well then they should join the community. It is probable that the stewards will get referrals from this, and while one hope for perfection, it isn't going to happen and that is okay, however, one would hope that it will be as a shepherding role. billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Damërung

edit

My position about that is that such tools or rights should be handled by stewards instead of making a new group to do it. Nevertheless, I do not completely oppose to that proposal, that's just my point of view. Anyway, I´ll be more than happy to help a global sysop in any way I could. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Eseki

edit

Well, I supported the proposal, so it should be obvious what my opinion is. Eseki 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Razorflame

edit

I supported the proposal because I believe that global stewards would help to alleviate some of the stress, pressure, and workload on the stewards and would allow them to focus more on the more major parts of being a steward, such as keeping a lid of crosswiki vandalism. Razorflame 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Mentifisto

edit

I think it's a sensible proposal, and one that attempts to solve some of the ongoing problems on a daily basis, but I can understand the rationales of some people on both sides, so I was left neutrally minded. -- Mentifisto 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rab777hp

edit
  1. How well do you know the Steward Handbook?
  2. Do you manage/have any history with any other Wikis running the MediaWiki platform?
  3. Why do you think I should vote for you?

Response from billinghurst

edit
  1. Not perfectly (yet), around it in principle, practice components in existing roles, and know it well enough to step up to the primary tasks at hand. I hasten slowly; I work collegiately; I seek opinion as required. Occasionally bold, never reckless. I believe that this has been demonstrated, though it is other's opinions that will confirm or deny such.
  2. Obviously here, yes. Outside of WMF, no formal management of, have bits and pieces; work intranet, family history sites, and a little that a government organisation runs, and I tinker as time permits or a need a breath outside.
  3. I would ask that you vote for those candidates who you believe can be trusted with big janitorial brushes, pans and shovels, and put themselves forward for the right reasons being the benefit of the community and its aims. There are a number that I will be voting for on that basis. If you think that I fit that aspect, or others do, then you/they can support my candidature. You have the right to your opinion, and I support your right to make your choice whether you vote for me, against me, or are neutral. I hope that suffices. billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Mercy

edit
  1. Well, I have read the handbook several times. I can't say that I know it by heart, but at least I know what information I can get from it and what the MediaWiki functions available to stewards are.
  2. I have tried installing my own MediaWiki installation once, just out of curiosity to test how the platform works. And I've also been using the platform outside Wikimedia projects, but only as a regular user.
  3. Depends on what you expect from me. I can promise I would use the tools carefully and when in doubt I would consult the Steward handbook or ask for help some more experienced colleagues.

Best regards, --Mercy 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2010/Questions&oldid=24959657"