Requests for comment/Improving the steward election process

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Continuing from Stewards/Elections 2023/Questions#Election process including "(The confirmation process feels a bit "too underground" though.) — Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)", I would like to propose improving the steward election process. Three sections allow direct replies for three issues.Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbents should also answer questions[edit]

Incumbent stewards (called incumbents hereafter) needed not answer Stewards/Elections 2023/Questions#For all candidates, so I would agree that Stewards/Confirm/2023 felt "too underground". Thus I would like to propose that in the future, incumbents should also answer questions, so any issues may be dealt with before confirming incumbents.Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'd say that if we are to make incumbents also answer question for all candidates, there is not any reason why they shouldn't also answer individual questions made specifically to them, like new candidates do. Truth be told, these kinds of discussions already do happen in the individual confirmation sections of the incumbents stewards, in the specific page for that, but it feels like not too many users are aware of this process (even though "too many" can be quite subjective as a term). That's why my original proposal is mostly towards changing the page layouts, links and the overall infrastructure of how these pages involved are all set together (including voting results, etc.), not in regard to the bureaucracies/rules in those pages per se. — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep the layout of Stewards/Confirm/2023 forbidding comments before 5 February 2023 to make "Stewards/Confirm/2024", questioning incumbents earlier will need a space, either in "Stewards/Elections 2024/Questions" or elsewhere.--Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to having a questions page as well, since there can be questions related to previous actions, for example. --Rschen7754 06:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stricter requirements to form the election committee[edit]

Stewards/Elections 2023#Election Committee was formed by some then-incumbents. I would consider the conflict of interest too big. Thus may I propose a new requirements for future election committee membership with all of the following requirements?

  1. Members (of the election committee) must be former stewards, AND
  2. Members must be current administrators on Meta but not limited administrators nor temporary administrators or administrator by decrees, AND
  3. Members must not seek candidacies to become stewards in that election.

If the above proposals become binding policies and violated, the violating actions shall be void at the first place. Thus incumbents not first resigning as stewards are not to be admitted to the election committee, and candidacies to become stewards are to be void is not quitting the committee.--Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


If the community wants to keep incumbent stewards out of the election committee, then we should elect who will be members of the steward election committee much earlier than the steward election.--Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know about this. When ElectCom was the only group who decided whether a steward was reconfirmed, maybe it would make a difference. But now I think they just echo the consensus of stewards that happens after the confirmations close. --Rschen7754 06:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is full of problems. We don't have that many former stewards. Not all of them were removed while in good standing. The current practices are working fine.--BRP ever 09:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stricter requirements to collapse or remove election questions[edit]

Withdrawn by nom while alternate way not being publicly visible seems available--Jusjih (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tasks of Stewards/Elections 2023#Election Committee did not include collapsing or removing election questions, and I would consider the conflict of interest too big again. Whether the idea in the above section passes or not, first, I would like to propose that only former stewards being current unlimited non-temporary Meta administrators while not seeking candidacies to become stewards, as described in the above section, should ever collapse or remove election questions, only in dire necessities to maintain good public order within these ways:

  1. Always assume good faith when explaining to any user why the question might not be appropriate.
  2. Kindly give them the chance to rebut or to adjust the question.

For this issue, I would also like to propose some penalties for improperly collapsing or removing election questions:

  1. Anyone who improperly collapses or removes election questions shall be ineligible to become or remain a steward in that election.
  2. Any Meta administrator who improperly collapses or removes election questions shall be removed from all Meta privileged user groups. They may appeal this removal only to argue that the process was incorrectly done. Otherwise, they may regain the accesses only by reapplying in the regular ways.

After all, I would like the steward election process improved for the future. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


It seems that the third proposal is related to this warning. Thanks. SCP-2000 05:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales and Klein Muçi: All proposals here are to strengthen Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest for much better accountability. See also w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds#How this essay works with requests for adminship that I consider candidates for stewards require much deeper background checks than adminship. To collapse or remove election questions is censorship and may interference with the election, so better define how it must not be done. Derived from q:Thomas_Jefferson#Misattributed that when governments fear the people, there is liberty, but when the people fear the government, there is tyranny, I would like to say that when stewards and administrators fear the people, there is liberty, but when the people fear stewards and administrators, including multiple edit wars to revert being desysopped, there is tyranny. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SCP-2000: Your cited case showed some unfair thoughts not being impartial, so I propose changes. Hounding and stalking mean following badly, but opposing multiple edit wars to revert being desysopped is to regain good order, not harassment.--Jusjih (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel that the penalty you suggest is a bit too harsh for the aforementioned action. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Keep my proposed penalty #1 but drop #2?--Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose what is proposed here, especially the penalties. These things should be handled in case-by-case basis.--BRP ever 09:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jusjih seems to have been advancing governance-related grievances since an election in January 2023 and an RFC in May 2022. The grievances appear to be meritless: the election rules were properly applied and the Meta RFC process was appropriately used. This RFC has failed to convince me that any reform is necessary, let alone that we should adopt any of the particular ideas advanced. I agree with BRPever that this idea is wrong, and the earlier two ideas are also hopeless. I am concerned that this RFC has been opened in bad faith. Oppose Oppose. I hope Jusjih can be convinced to drop their grievances now. AGK ■ 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose what is proposed here, for the well-reasoned explanations given by BRPever and AGK above (namely, the likelihood of this being created in bad faith, per Special:Permalink/25121615). Although changes may be needed (and many may argue they do), they should be carefully considered and proposed by independent editors for the sole purpose of improving the governance of our projects, and not to potentially further historic grievances. (nb. for the absolute avoidance of doubt: I declare a conflict of interest in my vote, as I was on the SE2023 ElectCom and a steward facing reconfirmation during the aforementioned incidents) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the proposition flatly as it being proposed by Jusjih in bad faith. Jusjih has continued to grind an axe and sysop/forum shop in an on-going effort to action a personal grievance from another project. While it is good to review any process, especially the Steward Election process, from time to time, this proposal is POINTy, flows from a bad faith vendetta itself, and has become extremely tiresome. Once this RfC is complete, as a member of the meta community and sysop, I'd suggest the meta community re-consider a de-adminship of Jusjih. I'd tend toward disclosing a conflict of interest as I was the person who actioned ElectCom's decision; but since Jusjih didn't bother pinging me on their talk page message or even attempting to notify me in any way of this RfC specifically mentioning an action I was a part of, I guess they don't believe there is a conflict I should mention. Operator873 connect 03:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to consider a settlement by dropping my second and third proposals, only if all of the following conditions are met:
  1. Please acknowledge that this proposal simply citing Stewards/Elections 2023#Election Committee is non-personal with no retaliation here while I did not want to hound anyone here.
    Thus per w:Wikipedia:Forgive and forget and w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds#How this essay works with requests for adminship, I would like to kindly ask @AGK:, @TheresNoTime: and @Operator873: to withdraw the claims of "bad faith" while I did not personally consider anyone "bad faith". You may oppose my proposals, but please assume good faith yourselves.
    I would also like to kindly Operator873 to drop the call of deadminship here to acknowledge that I supported Vermont's User_talk:Theklan#Block, or it will be a very dangerous precedent to suppress the freedom of faithful speeches. We worked together to support a preventive but not punitive block. I do not want to accuse anyone of badly hounding around, nor do I really want to call for removing any administrator or steward. Yet I acknowledge @BRPever: that " things should be handled in case-by-case basis".
  2. Please look at how bad the fourth edit war by @Zhxy 519: to evade being proposed deadminship on Chinese Wikisource. He even imposed a retaliatory block marked by @Midleading: as unreasonable. Zhxy 519 even made a controversial section in the Scriptorium that is still ongoing including an unproved accusation. Thus any misdeeds there are present-tense.
  3. Please look at Special:Contributions/Zhxy_519 that most, if not all, edits since September 2021 were hounding me badly, so I am a victim, not an aggressor. Opposing multiple edit wars to revert being desysopped is to regain good order, not harassment.
    Thus may I request any specific stewards or global sysops to broker any deals to settle the disputes on Chinese Wikisource? If anyone does not know how to settle the disputes, please stay out.
  4. I do not oppose collapsing potentially problematic questions in steward elections if politely educating the users how to improve. What I oppose is removing questions in steward elections too harshly. Please understand what I am somewhat conceding.
Do you really not see the discrepancy between your Item #1 and Item #2? You immediately annoyingly and predictably segue into airing your grievances AGAIN about something you should have dropped long ago, yet continue to bring up over and over. I will not retract my call for deadminship unless the following conditions are met:
  1. You (Jusjih), per w:Wikipedia:Forgive and forget and w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds#How this essay works with requests for adminship (thanks for linking those btw), agree to drop the stick with your personal vendetta which you continue to forum shop regarding Chinese Wikisource, permanently. Should you bring it up again, further action to protect the community(ies) from the time sink you represent, including blocks, should be applied.
  2. You (Jusjih) apologize to the Meta community for your wikilawyering and repetitive attempts to re-litigate this same issue on meta (for an extended amount of time now) that occurred on another project.
  3. You (Jusjih) acknowledge the "harshness" that you perceive in responses to you is directly related to your ICANTHEARYOU problems.
  4. You (Jusjih) retract the statement I try to assume good faith as much as I can. Now it is your turn to assume good faith as there is no need for any community to AGF where breaches of policy, community guidelines, and community trust are concerned. I'm speaking of course of your behavior. Specifically, the continued complaining about and attempts to re-litigate your Items 2 & 3. You have become a timesink to this community and are disruptive to the efforts herein.
This last edit from you kind of seems to support the idea that you want to hold the community hostage unless you get your way. That stops here. Operator873 connect 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jusjih: Your response is disappointing. Not until point 4 of your response did you try to address our concerns around this proposal. You have still not done so, as the need for stricter requirements remains unclear. The legitimacy of your proposals has been rightly questioned. Rather than showing how your proposal is legitimate, you have doubled down on attacking me and others, still failing to show how your proposals are made in good faith and for the right reasons. I suggest taking a step back from this RFC. If you still feel strongly about the steward election process, return with fresh reform proposals in a year or so. AGK ■ 19:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this as I feel that the penalties are too harsh. I do feel that if an incumbent is asked a question then they should answer it. I have always, personally, invited questions about my actions as I believe in transparency. fr33kman 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]