Talk:Stewards

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

See also:

Contents

How did Martin get on the list of stewards? He had only 75% support - I thought the threshold was 80%. --217.228.164.118 18:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Original threshold proposed by Tim was simple majority. Eloquence later claimed that the threshold was 80%.
So whatever Tim proposes will be done? Simple majority is absurd for something as important as this. It should be at least as high as for admins, and 80% is what most people agree on there. --217.228.164.118 19:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
At least three of Martin's opposing votes were related to him being an arbitrator, but this was discussed at talk:developer access where the consensus was reached that as long as arbitrators did not use their steward access on their own project, this would not be an issue. As the discussion occured afte the vote and there were no objections to this, I think the results of that would have more weight than the votes that were made without taking this into consideration. Angela 19:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Then those three people should have changed their votes. It's not for you to reinterpret opposing votes. --217.228.164.118 20:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The same doesn't apply to Tarquin though, so perhaps he shouldn't be one if people do want 80%. There seemed to be no agreement on that being the case though and I added him to list simply because his percentage was so close to Martin's, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the reasons for Martin's opposition were not the same as Tarquin's. Angela 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About 80% seems to be the current standard of support needed to be made an admin on the english wikipedia. I don't see how someone can be placed into a position of even more power/responsibility with less support than needed to currently become an admin. Maximus Rex 20:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, this morning on IRC, everyone seemed to be agreeing with it but that obviously isn't the case now. I don't have any strong opinion either way so I've reverted my stewarding of Martin. Someone else can make the decision. Tarquin was never made one as he didn't have an account on Test at the time. Angela 22:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't get here in time to vote, so here goes:
# Oppose. Martin is busy being an arbitrator. Martin spends too much time on Wikipedia already. Martin doesn't speak foreign languages well enough to handle non-English issues, and English issues may be restricted by virtue of being an arbitrator (cf talk:developer access). --Martin
Hopefully I get some say in the matter! :) Also, I think Tarquin would make an excellent steward, so I hope the dispute is resolved in the correct direction. :) Martin

Ok, I guess that resolves the Martin issue. :) Can some other than me do something about Tarquin please; ie- set his access or remove the "disputed status" section from the stewards page. I don't like the way people have tried to change the rules after the vote started. Originally it was 50%, then 80% and now there 4 different "close of vote" dates. By the original date, even Anthere didn't have 80% so removing Tarquin now and saying that changing the date is ok, but changing the percentage required isn't doesn't seem entirely the right way to go about things. Angela 23:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


note that at original date, the percentage mentionned had never been 80%. It suddenly popped up, while till then, the requirements were 50%. This was the reason why the vote was extended, since people thought the requirements were 50 rather than 80. Two ways to solve the issue would be 1) to ask Tarquin (I think he never voted, so might not even be aware of that vote) and 2) ask the ones opposing what they think about it. Or drop the whole matter. Anthere

I had no idea there was a vote, and in fact, I didn't even know about "stewards" at all! -- I've been off the mailing list for months now. I'm curious though, did people give a reason to object against me? -- tarquin

I think the only objections to you were based on people wanting a limited number of people to be stewards, so were supporting that number and opposing the rest. See [1] and talk:developer access where people explain that their reasons for opposing were not personal. Angela 22:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Je suis d accord avec Angela. Tu as été listé au début, et au début le principe suivi était plutot de limiter le nombre de personne. D'ou bcp de votes d'opposition de principes, pas sur la personne, mais sur le nombre total. Je crois qu'il ne faut surtout pas te frapper par les oppositions que tu as eu. En effet, quand il y a eu de vrai oppositions (sur la personne) cela a été le plus généralement indiqué. Amicalement Anthere 23:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Move to Meta?

If you make yourself a developer on Meta, the steward interface is now enabled here as well. So, should we move all sysoppings here instead of Test? There are three advantages to this:

  1. When the software is being tested and Test is unstable, we can still make sysops.
  2. The database on Test is occasionally wiped, meaning we would lose the Bureaucrat log; something that is far less likely to happen on Meta.
  3. The log is more visible on Meta. People view recent changes here far more often than on Test, so will notice any mistakes or controversial sysoppings.

Angela 01:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not understand from the start why we had this function on test... (maybe for test-purpose? ;-)
So, if there is no reason for test, meta is perfect :-) Fantasy 12:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
yes, meta is more suited. -- Looxix 17:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
of course. Anthere 21:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. - Andre Engels 08:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

becoming a steward?

What does one have to do to a) Become trusted enough to be a steward and b) where to go to nominate oneself or that is, ask for this highly honorable position :D . (if you reply on here, I would appreciate it if you tell my on my talk on enWiki). [btw, I speak English and Russian] Ilyanep 23:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Somebody suggested to me to add why I think we need more stewards. I'll tell you why. First, there are only 8 stewards, which means that it will take longer for someone to notice (unless all the stewards are insomniacs). Second, I have not seen a steward who could read russian (or is it just my ignorance?) Third, if we're gonna establish a heirarchy, let's fill it up (fine, that may not be the best reason). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean with "it will take longer for someone to notice"? To notice what?
There are 1000 languages in the world. Do we need 1000 Stewards?
Just my point of view: As a steward we just do a minimal job. See the russion Wikipedia as an example: In the moment, that we have a russion bureaucrat, there is no steward for new admins needed.
If there is an admin to be de-sysopt on the russion wikipedia, the request can be put on meta, and there it will be handled.
Think of this: There was a big fight between 3 Admins on the German Wikipedia. I got a phone call by one of them, asking me "Can you de-admin us please for some time"?
I explicitely denied the request (and told them, to ask a non-german steward), because I am working in the german Wikipedia! It should not be the Russion steward to de-sysop a russion admin if there is a fight between them. How can you as a russion admin be neutral?! Never!
And being neutral is the fundamental thing for a Steward.
The german story ended so, that on IRC they asked another steward, not working on the german Wikipedia, to do the de-sysop, and that worked well.
I hope, you understand what I wanted to tell you. Otherwise just contact me, and I will try to explain better.
See you :-) Fantasy 容 12:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for actually replying :D — Ilyanep (not logged in)
But are there exactly 1000 languages in the world? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

New Stewards

Yann

I would like to be steward too. I am currently admin on French Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikibooks, on English Wikibooks, on Commons, on Wikisource, on Hindi Wiktionary and on Gujarati Wikipedia and Wiktionary. I am usually available on IRC (#wikimedia, #in.wikimedia and #fr.wikipedia). Yann 21:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aphaia

I would like to give a help, if necessary. But supposingly there are many good people who will request for stewardship, too. Aphaia.

Waerth

I to would like to become a steward, for the simple reason, I am in a different timezone of others, I wouldn't add much in the scope of other langauges. I have done work on different projects as well. I am a choosen sysop on: nl:wikipedia and on: nl:wikiquote ; I was asked to stay sysop on: th:wikipedia after I had a temp status there ; I am taking care of the lo:wikipedia untill it gets users. I am in the process of being chosen a bureaucrat on: nl:wikinews (I am a temp untill then), and a sysop on: nl:wikiquote.

I am an active contributor. If I have spare time I am usually available through IRC. Waerth 13:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  1. support - Waerth is, besides other wikimedia-projects, a very active sysop at nl:wikipedia. He is always busy fighting vandalism and stopping fights before they can get out of hand. Furthermore he is our Dutch spokesman whenever there are requests for interviews. CE 20:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oscar

moved from Request for permissions

  • oscar 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thx for moving it here aphaia ;-)

i am a bureaucrat on nl:wikipedia, and would like to request for stewardship if possible. oscar 12:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  1. support - Oscar is a very active sysop at nl:wikipedia. He organised the first dutch Wikipedia-symposium which was a succes. He is dedicated contributor to the democratic process and the rules that are needed to make that a succes. Besides that he's active in setting up a dutch "foundation". CE 20:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fire

Fire also requested for stewardship on foundation-l.

his message from foundation-l

I found this mail, it remembered me that I always wanted to do this job due to the interlingual - side of this task, but also because of the help - aspect.

More information: Fire's mail

notafish

Same as Aphaia, if help is needed (and I believe it is - for proof the many sites still with a fundraising notice...). Same as villy, if direct appointment. I speak fr, en, de, es, it and probably can get by in a few more languages, present on many different projects.notafish }<';> 16:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Jean-Christophe Chazalette (villy)

I said somewhere (where was it?) I was willing to help out as long as I had not to go through votes (I went through votes for :fr adminship, :fr bureaucratship, :commons adminship+bureaucratship, :meta adminiship, not to mention plenty of others for various projects,just getting sick of it for the moment). I speak fr, en, it, es, can cope with pt, am very bad but still read de and nl, and am an enthusiastic long time learner of ja and zh. villy 15:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vote again?

(Fantasy's first comment was originally added to Danny's self-nomination.)

Yes, I would really be happy if we would have some more, sometimes I feel really bad for not being able to look at the Request-page every day... (But if I would look more often there, I would probably need to look for a new wife as well :-( Just an Idea that came to me now, I have not thought it through, I don't know if it is good or bad, I just put it here: We have now hundreds of Admins. To be Admin you have to have some experience with Wikipedia. So we could do election for new Stewards, with rules like:

  • Admin can candidate
    It would be strange, if a "not-Admin" would be steward, wouldn't it?
  • Admins can vote
    Admins are Wikipedians that have gotten a certain level of trust. So they could be seen as the Trust-people, that are given the trust to take the right choice for a decision like this.
    And it would make the election much easyer, not much checking for sock-puppets, no big advertising for the elections.
    And Stewards have (normally) nothing to do with normal Wikipedians. The main relation is to admins. So it should maybe be the Admins to decide who they want to do the temp-Admin/de-Admin/... things.

Just some thought, please don't hit mi for this things, this Ideas are just to start a discussion I look forward to your comments :-) Fantasy 容 09:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fantasy, your proposal seems to me very reasonable. On the previous vote (I read it after the election was over), rude people tried to make a confusion. If such can be avoided, it would be better. And admin vote is very effective to avoid sock puppetting.
On my part, I have two proposals:
  1. by language. Some major project lack the steward who can speak their language. Usually we communicate here, but it is a bit unconvinient. I think it would be better we have a steward who speaks Japanese, Polish or other languages of major Wikipedia but not as their mother tongue - or he or she can't deal the project. I look for a steward who can speak Japanese. Perhaps Polish people think a similar thing or not? For this reason a steward candidate can speak at least two langauges, I think.
    From this view, Yann would be a good candidate. He is a trusted guy and fluent in several languages, including Indian ones.
  2. by area. In my opinion it is better we have one or two steward in Asia. Now there is no steward living in Asia or Oceania, if I recall correctly. Sometimes on Japanese projects some worried craking and sysop vandals. For emergency, it is ideal a help from stewards as soon as possible. Recently Looxix helped us as a steward, and then some of us think perhaps it would be a grant for us we have a Chinese or Austrarian Wikipedian as a steward near tu us (on timezone).

--Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 21:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with Fantasy. The request that candidate be sysop somewhere is fair. But voting should not be restricted to sysops. Many very trusted people are not sysops and I wish not that people feel they should be sysop to have the right to vote. Besides, a lot of our activity is precisely not with sysop, since people are asking us to be set sysop.

Finally, I will generally say that though it is important to manage more languages than we do right now, we also had concluded that stewards should avoid for example unsysoping in their own language, as they might be biaised. Anthere

The "only sysops vote" is mainly to keep the procedure simple. Sysops already went through a trust-process, and therefore they are "trusted people in Wikipedia". Why should "trusted people" not be able to select between them a "specially trusted person" who they would like to have the power to take away from them the sysop-right.
Stewards have mainly to do with sysops, so (IMHO) sysop could/should decide on who is looking after them.
But we can do a vote on who can vote ;-) Fantasy 容 22:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Once I support your idea, but I agree if we can avoid some troubles like sockpupetting, it is better good people without sysopship can also vote ... steward treat with bot status and it is not always related to sysopship. So an idea came to me. If this matter is so serious, why can't we use Boardvote? The arbcom on en used it and it is effective to allow qualified users (e.g. experience of three months more, no sockpupeet, etc) to vote. --Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 16:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Aphaia, AFAIK Boardvote is currently limited to en: wiki database. I got adminship on it.wiki and still had some troubles when voting as my first edits on the english wikipedia I did'n use a login. --M/ 18:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the usual trolls, vandals, etc. pay much attention to Meta. Unless applicants plan to campaign on other WikiMedia wikis, I doubt there would be a problem with letting all users vote. Bureaucrat is also a "specially trusted" person, and (on en: at least) anyone can vote for them. The last (and least important) reason to leave the vote open to all is that it discourages claims of a "cabal". If you just want to lessen the chance of sockpuppet votes, require all voters to be 1 month old with 100 edits, or something like that. —Ben Brockert < 00:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Assigning rights to yourself

Please could stewards be more careful when assigning rights to themselves to:

  1. consider if it's necessary or whether there are local admins who could deal with whatever it is you need an admin for
  2. let the local community know why you've become a sysop
  3. record this at requests for permissions or its archive page so other users know what's going on
  4. remove those rights as soon as possible to prevent complaints about unelected admins appearing for no apparent reason

I've had two complaints today from different wikis when the community had no idea why people had become admins against their local admin policies. In both cases, there were plenty of local admins on the wikis (pt and es), and no apparent reason for the stewards concerned to have retained their adminship on those wikis. Angela 22:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I need to edit the sitewide messages of many different wikis each quarter to start and end fund drives. This is the only thing I use admin rights on those wikis for and it is an official part of my duties as CFO. Having to readd those rights every single time I need to edit makes a huge undertaking almost unbearable. So I think a special case can be made for me, at least until we have a global sitewide message that is autotranslated with variables/templates is in place. --Daniel Mayer 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dumb question - why not just notify an admin on each respective wiki? My even have an admin on each one dedicated to updating the message. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Needless bureaucracy and delay.Daniel Mayer 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Being a steward is not the same as being a global admin. If you want global admin rights, make a policy and become one. Don't try to turn stewardship (the ability to make other people admins after consensus on the relevant wiki) into something it is not. Angela 20:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, more bureaucracy and delay. I've just been doing my job. --Daniel Mayer 20:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Angela and Daniel Mayer, I understand what both of you have said. After reviewing many other stewards' user right logs, I have seen so many cases when they have temporarily promoted themselves and then reverted their own actions. Many of these self-promotions and demotions are not explained in the logs. As I have an unanswered question at Talk:Steward_policies#Changing_rights_in_own_wiki.3F, temporary self-promotion for the sole purpose of reviewing deleted pages on local Wikis will not leave any traces there and this is especially critical for Wikimedia Commons images claimed to be transwikied from local sites without proper credits or sources. Leaving no trace of temporary self-promotion on local Wikis should trigger no complaints therefrom.--Jusjih 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC) (new steward and Commons bureaucrat)

Another election

When will be the next election procces? I can see there is needed one because now as the projects are developing itselfs the number of active stewards is decreasing. Maybe we should see which curent stewards didn't used their powers, which didn't used as much as they could use and also make list of real temporar inactive and so one. We have a big list of not procesed requests at RfP here at meta. I don't say that stewards are not working and I know many of them have many things to do and so little time and in this case we should think about having new elections and set up some new stewards. -Romihaitza 20:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Two of the current sysop are subject of adminship cancelation here at meta. We should at least have another two to substitute them in case of removal if not having elections for more stewards. -Romihaitza 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Only one is subject to cancellation. And he will not be missed as he never did even one steward action :-) There were elections pretty recently, so I suggest we wait a bit more. Last point is that most of what people are waiting for are bot flags and my last suggestion on the matter is still pending for comments : ie, bureaucrats having local possibility to set bot flags, just as they currently set admin flags. Anthere 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that people elected 10 stewards to help and just 9 of them really helped (more or less... it doesen't matter). Why not having another person insted of the 10th? This just in case of removal, of course. -Romihaitza 12:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Because in this case, it will not be a quiet nomination of a bunch of editors, but a contest of popularity to elect ONE person amongst a bunch. Not something I feel very motivated for :-) Anthere 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html : give bureaucrats the ability to set bot flags. Anthere

Maybe we should send a Call for stewards and see how many candidates will be and then Board of Trustees can decide about the number of stewards elected. -Romihaitza 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
As the projects grow, more stewards are needed. For. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
Absolutely agree! Borgx 07:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Changing usernames

Why was changing usernames removed as a steward task in mid-October? I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to give that service (at least, not now, with 8 new stewards. Jon Harald Søby 11:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Local bureaucrats have this rights now. Hopefully they will recive the right to manage bot flag also soon :-) We can change usernames in wikis with no bureaucrat. -Romihaitza 11:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. This is a service we should be able to provide for wikis with no bureaucrats… Jon Harald Søby 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal information disclosure conflict in ruwiki

Hi guys. There's a discussion in ruwiki that could be resolved by a single yes from one of the stewards. Has anyone of you discussed the recent identity disclosure case in ruwiki with our admin ru:User:Jaroslavleff and moreover has anyone instructed him by email (added by ACrush ?!/©) to delete the page containing the disclosed info which also led to deletion of talk page history? --ACrush now also a sysop in ruwiki.

This indeed was my edit. --ACrush ?!/© 12:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If anyone did instruct him to delete it, have they done it before March 25, 21:35 (UTC)? --ACrush ?!/© 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my request if the answer cannot be given. I may still be unaware of certain aspects of Stewards policies, but I think that a recommendation to make certain information that may be harmful to a third party would not violate any policy whatsoever. Please email me if I'm wrong.ACrush ?!/© 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible...

Is it possible, that steward will desysop everyone and he is able to do whatever he/she wants?

No. Stewards can, in theory, desteward all the other stewards and then begin desysopping on individual projects, but it would be of no benefit. The developers control the servers, and do so with a separate login and password that cannot be affected by any changes on the projects. If a steward were to go rogue, they would simply be destewarded by one of the developers and their actions reverted. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging now bureaucrat task

Just a quick note (cross posted to Talk:Requests for permissions and Talk:Requests for bot status for full disclosure) that an extension has now been enabled making bot flagging a task for local bureaucrats (accomplished through the Special:Makebot interface). This allows for both flagging and deflagging. Knowing that bot flagging has been described as a less-than-happy-task by stewards, I assume bot requests will now be handled like Requests for permissions; that is, if there is a local bureaucrat, stewards won't set them any longer. Am I correct in this? (I'll be watching here for requests from en.wiki; I've already cleaned up what I could find.) Given that I've cross posted, I suggest centralized discussion at Talk:Requests_for_bot_status#Bot_flagging_now_bureaucrat_task. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Third election

Hi all. After being asked about this by a couple of people and asking Anthere about how this goes, I am starting here a request, or suggestion, for a third open Steward election.
The reasons why I thought this can and should be done are (a) Since the last election closed, 3 Stewards have, for various reasons, lost their status, and 2 others have gone completely inactive (all of this is indicated on this Meta page); (b) Not all the other remaining Stewards have been active on Requests for Permissions regularly (in fact, my observations indicate that only 3 or 4 Stewards attend to requests regularly).
I'm starting this proposal now so that we might have time to work everything out and get this going, if in fact we decide to press forward with this. But I had thought that the election would take place only in December, making it a year after the previous one — although not necessarily to the day; as a matter of fact, I would suggest that, if this happens, we make it a 2-week run lasting for the second (but first full week) and third (second full week) weeks of the month; I had though of opening on December 3 and closing on December 17, thus avoiding the season-end holidays in most western countries.
Finally, although I don't know if this kind of suggestion is necessary, given what I said in point "a" above, I would estimate something between 5 and 8 slots. Thoughts? Redux 13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support this idea. Considering the difficulty in locating stewards at many times, I believe this is a worthwhile notion right now. We've also experienced tremendous growth since the last steward elections, meriting a necessary increase in number of stewards. Bastique 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support. I think too that there aren't enough stewards, and there could be a few more (something like 5 to 8). -- mzlla 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think we need more stewards, for the reasons given by Bastique. guillom 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I support this idea as well, per above. Having more people available to help is always good. — Timichal 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as well. In my experience stewards are in demand, but are typically hard to get ahold of, so having more could help.--Shanel 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! Can't get enough of 'em --Filip (§) 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support Also, I think we should have elections on a regular basis, once a year seems to be good, and the time is good also. Jon Harald Søby 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree, elections once a year seems like a sensible idea. —Xyrael / 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support Elections once a year *is* a sensible idea.

Asnatu 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a Stewart?

I am just wondering, what exactly is a Stewart/what do they do? --166.70.232.84 07:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stewards are people who can assign rights (like admins rights) on any Wikimedia wiki. It's like a bureaucrat, but they can do that anywhere. They can also remove rights which bureaucrats can't do. Angela 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So what is a Stewart?Talltim 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no user access level called Stewart. If you mean in general, see Wikipedia:Stewart. Angela 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ;-)Talltim 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Interesting place to post this. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral votes

I'm just wondering what is the purpose of neutral votes? It appears from past elections that they aren't included in the count, so they are effectively just comments, maybe it would be clearer if only Support, Oppose or Comment entries were allowed? Allowing people to place a neutral vote gives them the impression that their vote means something when it really doesn't. RoscoHead 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Only logical explanation for neutral vote may be, because they do not know the candidate enough to support or oppose, they want to show that, that they cannot decide. If they just do not vote, who knows if they even saw elections? Or who knows if they care about the elections? It is more like showing responsibility as a community member even if you cannot decide but you care. --Dbl2010 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Özgür. But that could be conveyed with a comment rather than a neutral vote to save confusion. Or even change the main page to read "At least 80% overall votes in favor with neutral votes not counting toward the overall total", so that people don't have to go searching through old poll results checking numbers and percentages to work it out. RoscoHead 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. That would be more clear and do not confuse anyone. --Dbl2010 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, no disagreement, so I went ahead and added it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to remove it. RoscoHead 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stewards@enwiki

In case anyone was wondering, we were under the impression that the already-existing user group on enwiki "Stewards" was merely informational, and so we had decided to flag all the Stewards there, in order to make the group useful and help users locate Stewards if necessary. When we started the procedure, which was done by me, we noticed that an extra button was appearing in Special:Specialpages. We're not sure if that would actually still be functional, since the only user on that group has been Jimbo, for as long as I can remember, but I asked Walter to undo the flagging, just to be sure. Redux 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be no stewards on any wiki other than meta since this is where all steward actions ought to be logged. There is no advantage to having steward access elsewhere since Special:Makesysop works cross wikis for stewards. Angela 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. When we noticed that the flag wasn't merely informational, I asked that the initial part of the procedure be undone asap. This seems to be something unusual, since that user group already existed on enwiki, and I don't know when it was created or exactly why; Jimbo is the only one to hold that flag on enwiki. Redux 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Steward policies overhaul

I've sandboxed an overhauled version of the steward policies (diff). Please see Talk:Steward policies#Overhaul for discussion and a summary of changes. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed security policy

Please see en:Wikipedia:Security for a proposed policy that may have ramifications for stewards discovered to have weak passwords. I'm uncertain how this will affect stewards, since Meta policy isn't English policy, but I definitely think that in principle the policy should be heeded by all stewards, who (since they're sometimes called in to perform emergency desysoppings) must be more aware than most of the potential for abuse of privileged accounts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia policy does not apply to stewards (not even in principle), although some are locally subject to it as English Wikipedia editors. Further, that policy looks more like a help page than a policy; it explains passwords and their importance, describes current security measures, and offers plenty of suggestions and "tips", but it doesn't actually codify anything.
I do agree that stewards (and everyone else) should have strong passwords, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:42:07, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note to this, Brion Vibber is now running a server-side password cracker, which has already run on enwiki, and I believe he will be running it on all wikis as well. As such, stewards with weak passwords (of which I certainly hope there are none) will be found out. Unfortunately, forcing stewards and others to have strong passwords is difficult to codify with policy, though hopefully this will soon be done technically. In any case, it may be a good idea to spread the word to all stewards, admins, and crats on meta that they should change their passwords if they think they may be weak. AmiDaniel 05:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to self

Policy on projects without activity or community. Cary Bass demandez 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are any contributors at all and they appear reasonable, promote a pair (similar to checkuser, that way they can monitor each other) and allow them to attempt to build activity and community. If there is actually zero activity, there are no people who have standing to complain about stewards doing needed tasks on the project.
I'd suggest that if there are no significant contributions to a project within a three month time (that is, other than vandalism, bots, and userpage activity) that the stewards be free to maintain the project as they see fit. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems eminently reasonable to me, as a non steward. We presumably would like to avoid repeats of the goldfarming management episode (some obscure language wiki was being used to manage an online gaming guild or some such thing, IIRC without even anyone being a sysop) so keeping at least a sporadic eye on temporaries and on the wiki activities is good... 3 months seems the guideline for temporary sysopping and there is no reason to change that, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Needed steward for South Slavic issues

From time to time I realize that we need (at least) one steward to deal with our local issues. The last incident is related to impersonation of one admin from Croatian Wikipedia (w:hr:User:Roberta F.) on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia and Wiktionary (at least there, we didn't investigate more). Only Wikipedias (and not all of them) have checkusers and it is hard to make fast investigation without a steward from this region. So, I propose myself for stewardship for this issues (I am bureaucrat on all Serbian projects except on Wikipedia and on Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary, as well as I am admin here, on Meta; I was checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia, but I resigned from the position). However, it would be also perfect if some of other well known people from this region would become stewards (like Dungodung, Romanm or SpeedyGonsales). I see that last election was at December 2006; and I am not completely sure what is needed to do next... --Millosh 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New stewards are selected following full Wikimedia elections, which are only held when new stewards are needed on a general basis. All you can do is wait until the next election, which I suspect will occur sometime before this month next year. However, the steward policies prohibit the use of steward tools on a project where you are active. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:25:31, 09 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for info. I think that policy which forbids being active on some project is not so useful, even I fully understand why it is so. Because of such policy, for example, only this region will need three stewards... It is much more easy to communicate with a person who is familiar with the situation then with someone who is not. Even I am not active presently on local wikis (my present plans are to be active only on sh.wikt), being steward means that I wouldn't be able to be active on any of project on which I may give some significant input (in the most cases generating articles about places and similar with bots). And, unlikely with languages with much bigger number of speakers, we don't have such number of persons who are willing not to be active. Whatever... I just wanted to say that because I think that it is a problem related not only to our region. --Millosh 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Stewards can use and have been using the checkuser tool in their home projects. Hillgentleman 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewards/Application_guidelines probably needs updating

Per Steward_policies#Processes typically elections and confirmations are held yearly. This page refers to the process for last year's election. Is it time to start working on the process and pages for this year's election? Has that work already gotten underway? Similarly, Stewards/confirm probably also needs updating. I am interested in this topic, naturally, (as it is fairly common knowledge that I intend to stand again this year) but am not sure it is appropriate that I work directly, however I can presumably help with some of the mechanics/documentation. I suspect there is no reason to change the process, just create and update the appropriate texts. If work is underway please point me at it, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Typically so they say... :) Well, I agree it would be appropriate to hold elections yearly. Whether it's really necessary is another question. Are there many steward backlogs, and/or do the current most active stewards feel under pressure? I don't know the answers to these questions. Last year, I do believe the elections were brought up simply by suggesting it on a talk page, and there being general agreement that it would be a good idea. Btw, I don't think it really matters that you work with it and stand - last year Redux brought it up and ran, so it won't be a problem, just how you feel I suppose. So the question, should we have some elections? If so, when? Majorly (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be that time of year again. I do not think this month is the optimal time.... but December perhaps? Mid-December? I think we should hold these elections sometime around then. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The disadvantage of December is that it will clash with the elections for the English Wikipedia Arbitraion Committee. Angela 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Were they not at the same time last year? Majorly (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the steward elections should not be dependent on dates of other elections. To vote for (or against) a couple of people doesn't need that much time that it would be a real clash if steward elections and arbcom elections are held parallelly. But the end of December might bring the problem that many people are on holidays then... ;o) So why not in the first weeks of December? Btw., the German Wikipedia has arbcom elections in November. :p --Thogo (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we would probably like to announce the steward elections globally, so the Fundraiser notice would clash too, wouldn't it? But otherwise, I think a steward election in late-December would be great. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Stewards are the least relevant to the English Wikipedians, who have the support of bureaucrats, mediators, arbitrators, checkusers, and board members (e.g. the chair recently used the checkuser tool on the English wikipedia) :-). -Hillgentleman 18:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The elections were more or less at the same time last year as the en:wp arbcom elections, as I recall. The Steward elections finished first, winding up well before Jan 1, but definitely had some overlap in timing, as I recall. I don't think that caused any major issues. I think having them at the same time again, more or less, this year makes a fair bit of sense. I do think Hillgentleman has a point, about the only thing stewards have to do for en:wp is remove permissions (and perhaps occasionally do a cross wiki CU). If one looks for a time when there are no overlaps at all with anything, I suspect one will never find such a time, so there is argument for going with precendent. At this point I think there is time to do the things that need doing if the consensus is to have them at the same time. On reflection, I'm not sure there's actually a conflict of interest with candidacy in helping to set up the pages so I'm willing to help if my help is desired. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that new people are really needed, but generally think that it is a good idea to make that an annual event, as well as a turn of confirmation of the current stewards. Let's do that in december ! Anthere 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, unless there is strong objection, and unless someone beats me to it, I will start preparing the pages (with markers on them that the elections are not underway yet) based on last years pages, for both the reconfirmations and the new elections. No changes in process, just changing dates and fresh pages. That will give time to check for errors. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fresh pages aren't necessary; we just need to update the dates when they're known. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:27:04, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't actually reviewed the entire set, but ya, that's what I mean, dust off, archive what needs archiving if anything, etc. As for the dates, I propose the same exact calendar dates as last year (except, for you pedants, add a year :) ) for everything... that would be a starting point. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While it could be argued that "new" people were not needed to my mind there are some current stewards who I would describe as "dormant" (politely) and I guess that alone would indicate that some fresh blood might be useful? --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

New people is welcome, so I don't oppose election (let them do all the work so we can laze). However, I don't see a pressing need for election at this time. Requests are being handled fast enough and we don't have huge backlogs. drini [es:] [commons:] 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I've seen in the rights log just how much you "laze" Drini:) However the last time I did needed a steward on IRC (a while back) I got no one. Equally the CU requests are frequently not speedily done (I know what disruption that can cause a small community). No "pressing need" I agree but .... --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think, at the moment the stewards come through with their tasks, but if the amount of work would increase a little bit (and there were times this year with much more work), it would lead to a nice backlog. So it would just be safer/nicer/whatever to have more active people. One would have more time to do other stuff (like writing nice articles or the like or doing some other work on the "home" wiki...) if there are more people sharing the work. :o) --Thogo (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any need for new stewards? For example, let us look... upstairs. Hillgentleman 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think so. As Herby noted, we have several dormant stewards. New people who are active and wanting to be stewards should be welcomed. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been positively surprised when MaxSem made a promptly reaction for one of our needs (cross-wiki impersonation, based on sh.wikt, hr.wiki etc.). It is much different now then in 2004-2005, when mostly Angela and Anthere were giving prompt responses. While Wikipedias have their own checkusers, almost none of other projects has; and, generally, there are no needs for them. But, from time to time checkuser (and similar) actions are needed and for that reason we need prompt reaction by stewards. However, in the past year or two (with the last exception) I had to spend a lot of time to get steward help. --Millosh 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Discussion related to 2007 election moved to Talk:Stewards/elections_2007. Majorly (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refactor there, it was getting big. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The list

see Stewards#List of stewards ... what do the numbers (first column) mean? They seem to be almost the same as the alphabetical order of the names, except for a few names, and almost the same order as the userids, again except for a few. Anyone remember? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All this time I thought it was set out Alphabetically and chronologically :O ....--Cometstyles 21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope someone knows. Because if we can't suss out what it's for maybe we should ditch it? ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The chart

I updated the chart. It does NOT take the results of confirmations into effect. Old and new stewards need to reach consensus on which stewards are confirmed or not, and at that point some tweaks can be done. I know we had at least one steward who already indicated desire not to go forward but probably best to do all the confirmation changes as a body. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

new stewards december 2007

Can somebody add the new stewards?

As I can see from here it are the persons listed below. Thanks, Ellywa 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

.anaconda Andre Engels Dungodung Jusjih Lar Millosh Spacebirdy Thogo Wpedzich Zirland DerHexer Nick1915

Hi... where would you like to see them added? They have been added to Stewards#List_of_stewards and Stewards#Chart already. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Oké, I see, only Andre Engels is missing, I will add him myself then. Ellywa 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
He is there, you find him quite at the top of the chart, since he already was a steward some years ago. --Thogo (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Steward request page organization

Based on a discussing in the #wikimedia-stewards IRC channel, I propose the following reorganization of steward request pages. This will neatly organize them under a single page (making it much easier for inexperienced users to find what they're looking for), standardize and shorten the titles (making them easy to remember), and allow for very simple scaling to meet future needs (for example, Steward requests/Usurpation will soon be created to deal with unified login merge conflicts).

User groups
Requests for permissions (RFP) → Steward requests/Permissions (SRP)
Requests for bot status (RFBS) → Steward requests/Bot status (SRB)
Other
Requests for CheckUser information (RFCU) → Steward requests/Checkuser (SRCU)
Requests for username changes (RFUC) → Steward requests/Username changes (SRUC)
Multilingual speedy deletions (MSD) → Steward requests/Speedy deletions (SRSD)
n/a → Steward requests/Usurpation (SRU)

Requests for checkuser information and username changes will thus be split from Meta requests, which are now processed by local bureaucrats and checkusers instead of stewards. (Once this is done, I'll separately propose a parallel organization under "Meta:Requests/*".) —{admin} Pathoschild 20:54:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea very much. The archives should be rearranged too in a similar fashion. Majorly (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. @All: Please also check SRU if something is missing or should be changed. Consider it a draft for now. --Thogo (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Eminently reasonable and sensible idea, thanks to all who sorted through this, it should help a lot. The archives may be work but rationalising them will be good. May I suggest leaving some soft redirects behind so that people who have mentioned links in talk pages and the like aren't completely at sea (I suggest soft because we presumably want to encourage new habitual names, which I think leaving real redirects would not encourage as much) ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Comment This idea looks great to me. I say, go for it. Cary Bass demandez 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection, except my general bias toward not enacting a change when it provides no obvious benefit. — Dan | talk 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Standardization seems a fairly obvious benefit to me. Interfaces and data organization schemes should be predictable where possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. guillom 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
+1 —DerHexer (Talk) 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not? The titles should be shorter now and grouped under one base page. --FiLiP ¤ 10:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with guillom, well put :) ...--Cometstyles 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya. Daniel 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, why not, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
✓--Shanel 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, M/ 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree!--Nick1915 - all you want 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What Shanel said. Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. This will also be helpful in explaining to new metans what stewards do, when to ask them for help, &c. -- sj | help translate |+ 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear stewards!

Dear stewards! Please take a look at Metapub#Illegitimate_arbitrators_elections_in_Russian_Wikipedia.3F ... --Jaroslavleff 07:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear stewards! I want that Xosere will be removed from the sysop position at diq.wikipedia. Because of his ignorant personal views, it will be achieved no increase in this project for months. He sees himself as an individual owner of the project and prevents other people from any contribution. Although he, himself is not powerful in the Zazaish language generally. He can’t even speak its own dialect, because he is from the Central Zaza region. He destroys the project, as he contributes. My statement is absolutely true, and many others can testify it. I already started a desysop process on diq.wikipedia. Please implement whatever it is our community comes up with and help us in this matter. Thanks! --Mirzali 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward do not decided, try opening up a requests for comments. Cbrown1023 talk 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boîte Utilisateur stewards

Bonjour à tous, je fais parti du projet de boîte utilisateur de la wikipédia francophone et j'ai créé récemment la boîte w:fr:Modèle:Utilisateur steward pour ceux qui ont une page personnelle sur ce wiki. Amicalement. w:fr:User:FrankyLeRoutier FrankyLeRoutier 07:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin-Fishing

Dear Stewards,

Just to let you know, some people try to become Admin in a ... way :-(

See you :-) Fantasy 容 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Forwarded message ----------

From: The WFFs <wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com>


Date: 2009/5/11 Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Fantasy

Dear Fantasy,

We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!

Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

-- This e-mail was sent by user "The WFFs" on the English Wikipedia to user "Fantasy". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Hello Fantasy, thanks for this, You always contact a local checkuser or a steward via [special:emailuser] and give us the IP address of this User or just forward the complete mail, I have forwarded this one now, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a good and direct abuse contact @google?
--M/ 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why we'd need one... this isn't abuse of their services, and seems to have been handled appropriately.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want the mail account itself suspended, it could be handy to send that and corroborating IP evidence (check the privacy policy to ensure compliance first) to Google, so they can do whatever closure/suspension/etc they want on their end. Generally, I've noticed that major search engines tend to take notes from WP people seriously enough. Kylu 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Steward reflection & activity

During this year's steward confirmations, there were a few discussions about steward activity and how to observe inactivity and encourage steady sustained contributions. We discussed making review/deflagging of inactive stewards regular and undramatic so that confirmations could focus on reliability and quality of work, as originally intended.

Mike and I came at the problem from different angles, and agreed to discuss this more over the course of the Spring. Some specific suggestions follow. -- sj | help translate |+


Discussion

from an email discussion b/t mike.lifeguard and sj

We want to define inactivity of stewards so that those who are busy or off-wiki for a while have time to get involved again; and so that there can be automatic flag removal for those with no time at all. We also want to capture all of the ways stewards help support small wikis and cross-wiki projects, many of which are not logged as steward db actions. Several stewards kept their tools [this winter] on the basis that they would become more active, or would continue to offer wisdom on stewards-l or other non-front-line venues.


Some thoughts: Launchpad helps visualize recent project activity in a useful way. I like how it defines a few different roles, and lets people gather karma through any/all of them. I even like the launchpad 'leaderboard' system that lets everyone see how they are doing and what others are up to. (who is really being active by community metrics? &c) For the inactive, guilt/reminders are useful, but should be passing --sj

We could use a reminder that there is work to do on a daily basis and to please consider setting a few user rights next week. or something equally gentle. --mike


What about something like this:

  • define a crude script that checks for edits to core pages, contributions on dedicated mailing lists, bug filing w/related categories or tags (even bug comments? depends on the role for which activity is being measured), use of available tools/powers.
    nb: BryanBot has a weak version of a 'list of core pages' which has a simple editable interface for updating the list. So someone who feels their work is being undercounted can just publicly modify parts of the metrics.
    For stewards the challenge is completeness; this should list:
    1. global (un)blocks, (un)locks/hiding
    2. user rights changes (esp on yourself, which would be for oversight/checkuser on small wikis normally)
    3. mailing list posts
    4. talk page posts (could maybe count anything on steward-related pages, stewards' individual talk pages, some more general community areas)
    5. bug reports relevant to stewards
    I still like the idea of a steward-bug-watch-l mailing list. I have a number of shared Bugzilla searches. For example for CheckUser bugs, or SpamBlacklist bugs. You can (I think) see them at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=saved-searches --mike
  • the recent activity page should not focus people on their action-count but simply make it casually visible who is working on which types of tasks.
  • have regular barnraisings or reminders once a <period>. [If the group of <foo> can't even define a barnraising every <period>, they are collectively being inactive in a community-building way.
    • ping everyone's talkpage and remind them to come and help out. -sj] perhaps include an additional "you have been inactive for <otherperiod> message - come help us <barnraise> this week!" for those less involved.
    • check activity stats a few weeks after a reminder/barnraising for automatic inactivity removals.


The above is not meant to be steward-specific, for easy comparison to how this is done with other activity assessments (adminship on meta, commons). For stewards, since it's already come up at the start of the year, we could have a single barnraising or reminder, start a thread on what types of metrics make sense (to shake out the lingering uncertainty about whether we're counting availability and common sense shepherding, &c), and ping all stewards on-wiki about getting involved. This might also help raise awareness about what stewards can help with [the recent renaming of Requests pages helps here also].

Under this scheme every <period> (~two weeks after a reminder) there could be automatic flag removals for those who had been inactive for a long time. Note the similarity to Commons admin review, in which simply saying "I'd like to retain my flag" counts as activity enough - we simply need to agree on what constitutes enough activity. We also have the benefit of the stewards email list to which all must be subscribed, for broadcast messages.

  • Can you speak more about what Launchpad is, at least conceptually? If it's something that is a way to consolidate the kinds of activities we do and make them easier, that would be a great thing... right now there is rather a welter of pages that we need to visit to do various things, a dashboard or launchpad that maps out tasks would be really neat. Also, as a note I like the idea of semi-formalising mailing list contributions as one more metric to measure involvement. We don't want to get too focused on numbers alone but it is another metric. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I somehow fail to see that "external" software like Launchpad could be of immense help. It would just make things more complex, IMhO. Also, for what it's worth, I have 2 scripts with steward statistics: User rights changes & Stewards activity statistics. --FiliP ██ 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What might be more useful is weekly reminders of any backlogs, if there are any. Right now, it feels like everything is handled almost immediately, which I guess makes some people look inactive because they're not on IRC to spot those things as soon as they happen. Angela 23:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
i strongly agree with angela here. also i watch over vandalism on smaller wikis, in which case my work doesn't always show up in the checklists above. and i'd hate to be forced into a contest for a number of log-entries really. oscar 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, actions on non-native wikis should be counted; it doesn't need to be even a sysop task: revert of some edit or talk with community members of small wiki xx.xx is a useful steward job. --Millosh 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Angela - I check the request pages weekly and almost all the time everything is taken care of or only requires a comment. Simply having reminders on what areas need help is enough. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So what's the upshot here? :) ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The intent looks like a solution in search of a problem since there does not seem to be a real backlog on the Steward request pages. But I'd really like to see a centralized action backlog page that can list things Stewards can do related to SWMT actions that require sysop/steward tools (we already have the request pages here that Stewards can check). All that may be needed, is ot make tools like the delete tag check tool more prominent to Stewards and to emphasize the need (not requirement) for Stewards to help with SWMT. SWMT actions that require more-than-autoconfirmed tools most certainly should count as Steward activity during the next confirmation (rollback, delete, block, unblock, etc). A tool that can log such actions would be useful during the next confirmation. CrossActivity tool comes close, but only gives the date of last action. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Birdy just told me about the CrossWiki log tool, which shows all recent log activity for any user. That may be enough. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Steward needed

As an admin on the French Wiktionary, I wanted to become an importer on the French Wikipedia for when people (usually IPs) mistakenly create Wikipedia-style articles on the Wiktionary. However The French Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any election process for this, although it does have a WP page on it!! Any idea how to get elected? Mglovesfun 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask on French Wikipedia. We can give you the rights, either temporary or permanent, if you have an election on fr.wp. Using the same method as used for administrators might be a solution. Laaknor 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Desysop

I'm taking a break, so it's probably best to remove my bit in case I don't return (En:User:Deacon of Pndapetzim). Much appreciated. Deacon of Pndapetzim 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. LeinaD (t) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Desysop on Zazaki wikipedia

I want that Xosere will be removed from the sysop position at this project. Because of his ignorant personal views, it will be achieved no increase in this project for months. He sees himself as an individual owner of the project and prevents other people from any contribution. Among so many other of his stupid ideas he recently tries to introduce the Kurdish alphabet in Zazaki Wikipedia. See the discussion here! --Mirzali 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards"