Talk:Stewards/Elections 2025

Premature confirmation page

Stewards/Confirm/2025/EPIC has been created by not-EPIC. I don't know if standard procedure is to blank it or delete it or leave it alone, so I'll leave that in your capable hands. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For now I've went ahead and deleted it. I'll create a statement after the call for candidates has begun in five days. EPIC (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

How many new Stewards are needed?

Hallo. Repeating question from last year: What do current Stewards think how many new colleagues are needed this year to uphold the good service and handle most requests in reasonable time? --Krd 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would we enumerate such limit? Some venues are lacking proper stew support. A09|(pogovor) 10:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

My question doesn't intend to define an upper limit but to identify an estimated minimum number which is required to maintain good service. Which venues are that which currently are lacking proper stew support? Krd 18:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to put a number on it, but given that we cannot (and shouldn't) rely on @EPIC's high activity to continue indefinitely, we really need a number of new stewards. Johannnes89 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Such an estimate is likely hard to be properly made, many actions aren't logged onwiki (think of VRT queues and alike), others vary on a daily basis especially some noticeboards like SRG, where volume of work is related to rate of total LTA activities. A09|(pogovor) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I also find it hard to mention any specific number. What I can say is that our backlogs on-wiki are mostly under control at this time (most of them are on VRT and UTRS at the moment), but of course, that can be bound to change. With that being said, any help we can get is of course appreciated, especially when it comes to underrepresented languages within the steward team. EPIC (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If the current steward team believes the number of current stewards are too few, they may organize a second election in one year. Though no such elections happens since 2011. GZWDer (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Administrator" requirement needs to be reconsidered

We are now two days ahead of the calls and I think that the criterion 3 of the candidate eligibility needs to be revise. We should not generally restrict stewardship to established sysops; let it be open to any newly elected sysops (and to any good standing user). I also fail to understand why stewardship is restricted to sysops and not everybody else? This should be soften or entirely abolished. ToadetteEdit (2025 is here) 08:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would  Oppose any change, though I suppose I'm okay with maybe an exception for global sysops (but that's a discussion for another day). If you think you can pass a steward election, you almost certainly can at your home wiki. For newly-elected sysops, use those 3 months to familiarise using your sysop toolkit, not sysop and steward at the same time. What's the rationale for softening the requirement anyway? --SHB (t • c) 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree there GS should count towards eligibility. Especially on wikis with more unbundling going on (like ruwiki or trwiki) it might be "hard" or "unnecessary" for a mostly antiabuse-focused user to obtain sysop rights, especially once they have a role like eliminator (or, in the ruwiki case, indirect access to the block interface as well). ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Seconded; I think that GS should be eligible for stewardship, but also note that 99.99% of global sysops already have sysop experience for a long time. The rationale of softebing or abolishing the criterion is to allow users (e.g. global rollbackers) in good standing to become stewards to extend their contributions (for example locking accounts). The criterion was introduced without any discussion of any kind so it should be revised. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  No. Global rollback is far inferior to user rights of stewards and does not correlate well with legal implications of stewards. Quality of GR candidates vary greatly and community trust for stewards is one of the highest in Wikimedia community, surpassing almost every other user right. GS can be counted towards this rule since they require more trust from the community than GRs, but even they don't necessarily have bureaucratic experience of CU/OS/ARB/VRT handling. A09|(pogovor) 12:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  (Local sysops don't need to have the functionary experience you are talking about either, so I don't think excluding GSs is really necessary.) ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Going from no permissions to block accounts on a single wiki to having the ability to lock accounts is a huge jump, not one that I'd support for anyone. --SHB (t • c) 12:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would not support such a change, because most steward tools require experience of being a sysop. Plus such a rule reduces the chances of having very weak candidates that are doomed to fail. Leaderboard (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose I expect stewards to be competent people and to have experience with admin tools on at least one wiki. Honestly your proposal just opens an unregulated backdoor to all kinds of hat collectors who can't even obtain enough trust on a single project to gain sysop tools.--A09|(pogovor) 10:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I really can't imagine someone without extensive experience as an admin being elected. This requirement helps to weed out bad candidates; see steward elections from I think 2010 and prior before that requirement was introduced for why. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I guess that the requirement was introduced in this edit, but I could not find any discussion or consensus at all. Maybe this was put into the guidelines informally, then became part of the criteria. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but what's the rationale for getting rid of (or loosening) the requirement. You never mentioned why in your proposal. --SHB (t • c) 07:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I gave the reason above, the fact that I was about to give a rationale before this comment appeared, but didn't post it until an hour later due to IRL situation. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Per above I also would not support removing criterion 3 at this time - but I would support making it harsher. We have even had candidacies in the past where the 3 month sysop criterion has been met but even then has the candidate received opposition related to the length of their sysop tenure (see e.g. Stewards/Elections 2020/Votes/Fitindia). With that being said, like SHB above I'd be willing to support global sysops being included in criterion 3. EPIC (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I oppose making the criteria harsher, because this would reduce the opportunities for sysops to apply for stewardship. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  So you don't want competent stewards? Application limitations do not correlate to opportunities, some people plan their candidacies well ahead and it's not a decision you make in an instant. I cannot accept your argument. A09|(pogovor) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would see it more as a safeguard to ensure candidates are prepared for the role and won't be discouraged by the inevitable opposing votes otherwise. Agreed with A09 and others. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to that as well. EPIC (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  We do need competent stewards, and I think every sysop, new or not, are competent enough to be a steward. As said, I am not against the consequences that would occur. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ToadetteEdit I recommend reading some of the applications for Stewards/Elections 2010. Leaderboard (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sysop doesn't correlate with being competent. Incompetent people are everywhere, and the effect they have it just exponentially increases if an incompetent stewards is elected. A09|(pogovor) 15:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Being a sysop takes time to get used to. There's a lot to digest, and sometimes it really can take 6 months to get fully used to sysop tools (on your first instance at least). Rookie sysop errors aren't unheard of (and the only solution to that is more experience), but the impact of rookie sysop errors are catastrophically worse when you have candidates try and digest sysop and steward within such a short timeframe. --SHB (t • c) 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I imagine that almost every successful steward candidacy has had significantly more than six months of experience with sysop+ tools. I think as well, however, that users who have passed a selection process to be an administrator generally have enough understanding of how things work on-wiki to not immediately apply to be a steward - indeed we have very very few self-nominations from recently promoted admins, and most serious candidates who fail have extensive admin experience but deficiencies elsewhere. So I don't think there's much need to change the 3 months, until and unless we start to be flooded with obviously inappropriate candidates. And some candidates might also have relatively unique histories - for example I had only been a permanent admin on a Wikimedia wiki for about a year before I was elected as a steward, though I had been a global sysop for four and an admin on a couple of large Wikia projects for about 6. If we start increasing the number, we could start squeezing out otherwise good candidates without much benefit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I am somewhat indifferent between 3 and 6 months given what you've said, or would maybe be willing to settle for something in between (such as 120 days). At the moment though I would agree given we haven't had many problematic candidates whose chances are slim to none, and even then the most recent one was a sysop for well over a year, and the fact that there is simply no pressing need at the moment. --SHB (t • c) 12:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with EPIC here – I'd support tightening it to six months and agree that GSes should be counted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per SHB. clear thing. (but  Support to add GS to criterion 3 and  Support for extend to 6 months.) --TenWhile6 07:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose sure. But I'd support global sysops being included in criterion 3. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 19:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per SHB and EPIC. Ternera (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per EPIC and SHB and support for including global sysops in criterion 3. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 07:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Strong support For GS. + Keep For that old time-aspect. + Comment Also, please consider excluding administrators only from wikiprojects with practically little to no local wikicommunity (as that may not simply suffice trust and experience for stewardship...). --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose such candidates from extremely small wikis (wikis with, say, fewer than 3 sysops) would more or less fail unless they have done some extensive work anyway. --SHB (t • c) 12:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Given the global scope of the toolset I believe we should evaluate total user edits on every project, not just the one he's admin at. I don't think a smallwiki admin is best fit for stewards, especially after comparing the workload of the two: one has only a few edits a day/is a fairy of one small project, while the other often solve complex disputes or do advanced-perms stuff, not something a smallwiki admin is usually experienced in. A09|(pogovor) 15:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Strong support for GS;  Support extending the time requirement to 6 months. Svārtava (tɕ) 17:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Like many others I support including global sysops. Also I'm ok with extending the period of adminship from 3 months to 6 months. Stryn (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Consensus in this discussion leans towards allowing global sysops to be eligible for stewardship; however, there was no support for the original proposal (soften or abolish criterion 3). The proposal of extending the sysop tenure from 3 months is also favored by the community, but this should be in its own discussion.

In the end, it is the ElectCom who will decide whether changes to the existing criteria be made or not, and apply it for the next elections due next year. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just to be clear what is discussed here: People are suggesting to change the text to “sysop for more than 3 months or global sysop” and not “sysop for more than 3 months and global sysop”? Because the latter is much too restrictive. We've got many good stewards who haven't been global sysops before. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I understand, we discuss „sysop or global sysop for more than 3/6 months“ TenWhile6 19:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  When there is not enough clarity on this particular addition, maybe a separate request for comments should be started instead of calculating back and forth what people might have supported here or not. (I'd support the or version.) Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  for example, Stryn was explicitly speaking about „including“ global sysops. But yeah, a separate request would be more clear. The original proposal of Toadette clearly didn‘t got consensus. TenWhile6 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  (In my opinion it is rather clear that nobody is suggesting that it should be mandatory for any steward candidate to hold global sysop permissions.) ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

CN banners

I recently saw the CN banners for the election and I have a question. Why in the world will the banners not be shown on MediaWiki.org and wikitech. Just curious. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Users on mw.org and wikitech are more or less likely to see it on a content project anyway. Not sure if that's the main reason, but that's what I assume. --SHB (t • c) 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Questions

The total number of questions that one can ask is a bit overkill (for all candidates + per candidates). As with enwiki RFAs where max two questions can be asked per user, wouldn't it make sense to allow users to ask max two questions in the "For all candidates" and max two questions per candidate? (This exempts followup questions, but not multiple questions disguised as one.) ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we had this system before but it got misused (but im not sure). E.g. someone put 2 questions in the 'for all candidates' section, but then they'd go and ask another question to each candidate 1 by 1 - the same question copy-pasted to everyone. So basically evading that '2 questions for all candidates'-limit. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Steward elections are a mature process, i.e. one that has been around for a long time and hasn't changed much, indicating that it is probably in good shape and has widespread legitimacy. These elections are used to elect people to a position that grants complete access to the front-end wiki interface. Questions are important. Respectfully, I don't think that you are casting yourself in a good light with these topics of discussion. If you think something is wrong or could be improved, maybe focus on one thing, and clearly identify an actual issue (like, for example, if some candidate got 50 questions last election that might be a good reason to limit questions) with a proposed solution. – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, this rule used to be slightly unclear and got clarified with Talk:Stewards/Elections 2023#How many questions can we ask?. I don't think any change is needed at this point. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose any change. enwiki RfAs are not a good example of how things should be done, especially not their morbidly long questions section. Two questions per user is plenty, over time it will add up. Anything more and we dissuade perfectly fine candidates from running for stew. --SHB (t • c) 11:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would also oppose extending the limit at the moment. As I mentioned in Stewards/Elections 2024/Questions#c-EPIC-20240129000700-Klein_Muçi-20240128232900, it's reasonable to ask the candidates questions, but a reasonable amount so that the candidate gets the opportunity to thoroughly answer each question and won't be stressed by an overload. We already had too many questions last year even with the 2 question limit and I'd rather not see that being repeated here or in future elections. EPIC (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Translations do not work

Hi there, I've inserted a translation for one of the statements, but it is not displayed. Could you have a look? Thanks, M/ (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems Template:LangSelect doesn't work anymore. Stryn (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Looking a bit more it actually works, but something else is broken. Maybe some code at Template:Sr-elections 2025 doesn't work similar way than they used to work. Also all the past steward election statements are only in English. Stryn (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)