Jump to content

Stewards/Elections 2020/Questions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The 2020 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate (in total; ie. all questions a candidate needs to answer are counted), and keep them as concise and relevant as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

For all candidates[edit]


When do you believe that it is appropriate for stewards to intervene in local wiki affairs, or advocate on behalf of local communities? I am specifically asking about two types of scenarios:

  • Concerns about wikis not following global Wikimedia norms (such as neutrality, anti-harassment, accountability of administrators) - examples: Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia
  • Concerns about the WMF being too heavy-handed in the application of new conduct policies (w:en:WP:FRAM) or in the deployment of technology (Superprotect). --Rschen7754 19:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stewards are expected not to get involved in local affairs and not to override any local consensus. There may appear issues, though, which are severe and cannot re resolved locally and suggest to require assistance by anybody, such as the two mentioned issues, and stewards may be the last resort to get a problem fixed. I assume - I hope - that for the most troublesome issues, like the mentioned, there will be internal discussions among stewards, and after consideration there may arise action based on group decision, or the problem relayed to the WMF if there is any doubt. In any case none the the two cases IMO should or can be resolved by a single steward.
    • For the second point, I have to admit the I personally was very angry for some days about the superprotect affair. Anger is never a good advisor, and though I was tempted to interfere as a sysop (I think I even did interfere at dewiki), I think I'm mellow enough not to take action as steward is such cases but participate in discussions or go away from the issue. Major conflicts are not resolved by impulsive actions, even if the WMF is mistaken, which happens once in a while as they are human, too. --Krd 20:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stewards should respect and enforce the decisions of local communities unless they do not comply with Wikimedia principles. I think a steward should not decide and act individually in case of violation of rules, but discuss with other stewards and implement common sense decisions. --Jfblanc (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, blocking or banning some one is for me the last decision, a kind of failure coming after a long term mediation. This mediation have to take in consideration specific cultural behaviours and not centralizing every thing around western cultural norms. This is a very important aspect concerning Wikimedia movement if we want to be inclusive. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think stewards cannot act individually in these cases, but their opinion, help or at last, action is needed. I think following stewards policy's clear points such as not ignoring consensus or respecting local decisions is applicable in most cases, but also there are those complicated and serious cases you mentioned. I think a discussion with stewards (involving others or WMF if it's necessary) is needed then to find out the best possible solution. To be honest, I lost the line in Frams' case and therefore I don't know what to think exactly. But I believe that as I steward, I should be more involved in WMF-related cases (I should know much more) to be able to express my opinion. I can promise you that I'll do this. Bencemac (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stewards normally shouldn't get involved in local affairs. However, in some cases, such as heavy harassment/prejudice, which end up violating the guidelines/policies, as in the Til Eulenspiegel/Codex Sinaiticus case, stewards should take action. As Krd has already said, I think that for the cases cited in the first point this should be discussed internally between the stewards, who are already the last feasible instance. They should not monocratically decide to desysop all sysops of a certain wiki (azwiki case), nor blindly accept such a decision from the global community where it won't help. If no consensus emerge among the stewards, they should pass the issue on to WMF, which is the final instance and can make a proper decision.
      For the second point, unfortunately the stewards can't do much regarding that, except pass on the community concerns, after a consensus, to the WMF. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default stewards are expected to avoid preemptive and active intervention in local affairs. They intervene at the request of the local community or when it is obvious to anyone. I think this is to prevent stewards from distorting the community, and I believe this is the foundation of stewards policy.
    In the first case, stewards cannot intervene in local affairs without grounds. Thus, Meta's RFC process exists and stewards can take action based on the consensus. However, in this complex case, it is thought that all stewards, not one, would have had internal discussions and would have followed their conclusions.
    In the second case, I think it's about the relationship between WMF and the community. WMF exists to support the Wikimedia Movement, and sometimes acts in the community for office execution. Communities and offices can share different perspectives. There are these differences, and what WMF does can make mistakes. But it's hard to expect to act as stewards. However, it is possible to express my opinion as a user participating in the Wikimedia movement. As a user, arbitrate between the community and the WMF, or become a participant, will be able to support or oppose either side. --Sotiale (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such concerns should really be addressed collectively through RfCs, ArbComs could secondarily attempt to resolve any complications, as happened in the second case, but the steward role is generally for maintenance and upkeep of wikis, not the establishment of norms or resolution of conflicts. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally stewards should not intervene in local wiki affairs but there are some cases like the ones mentioned in the first point above where I think a discussion among Stewards is necessary to discuss the necessary actions. For the second point, I don't think there is much stewards can do except expressing their opinion as a user or as Tks4Fish mentioned: pass on the community concerns, after a consensus, to the WMF. Thanks--BRP ever 03:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • About wikis like azwiki and hrwiki, I may express my opinion during global RfCs as any wikimedian would do. However, local projects are extremely complex. Chances are we can find issues on both large and small wikis, some of which are very difficult to address. That doesn't mean stewards are supposed to be qualified or privileged users who can avoid or ignore RfCs by having internal discussions about assuming control over projects. Provided that there is clear evidence of certain people abusing their rights, harassing, and such, surely stewards can help. But there is no way stewards who are just trusted users and do not know all languages nor are they part of every community may solve local projects' deep-seated problems by their own. I think the best we can hope for is that the overall participation in global RfCs would somehow lead to positive results.
      About WMF, I would definitely take the chance to express concern about their decision-making. Media Viewer is far from being a necessary feature, and from what can be gathered from publicly accessible diffs Fram's conduct had to be discussed by local community. I believe WMF should assist and cooperate with us instead of claiming that they know better what is good. That is not helpful and risks making us lose faith in our relationship with them.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As others have said, stewards should generally not get involved with local affairs. The local processes of individual communities should be respected. Of course, sometimes the community is unable to resolve issues on their own, or they are severe enough that they need to be escalated to here on Meta. That might result in steward action, but depending on the situation (certainly with examples you give), this follows a community discussion showing support for steward intervention. Meanwhile, if there are violations of the terms of use, WMF involvement may be warranted. I'm going to assume all of these examples are relatively rare events, and also that there is internal discussion among stewards before any contentious action is taken.

      I, too, am unsure what stewards could have done regarding the two conflicts with WMF that you point out. Both were very unfortunate and hopefully extremely rare events. Ideally they could be resolved through polite discourse. In that sense, yes, stewards could advocate for the community, just as anyone could. Taking technical action however is a different matter that frankly I don't enjoy speculating about. I would not be the one doing it, that much is sure. I hope this is a satisfactory answer to the question. I know there are very strong feelings about these two cases. I do not feel the need to take sides either, except to offer reassurance that there is no detrimental crossover between my engineering and volunteer roles.

      Overall, any controversial actions would require considerable thought, and I don't think it would make sense for any one steward to do this unilaterally, barring a complete emergency. MusikAnimal talk 05:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stewards should not interfere in local affairs unless there is consensus to intervene. Consensus can be established through global discussion (requests for comments). Requests for steward intervention by local communities in this context should not be taken lightly and the steward team should collobrate to reach a decision on how to proceed. Short of an emergency, these situations, which often have been ongoing for quite some time, do not require immediate action which allows for the steward team to take a unified approach. Ultimately, steward intervention for local affairs is a last resort once all other options have been exhausted.
I think it's important to remember that stewards serve the Wikimedia community, and not the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a strong relationship in place and everyone works together, without a doubt, but when those situations occur it is important to understand that each group has a different mission and perspective. Ultimately, WMF will make decisions and the community will not always agree with them. Large organizations often struggle with change management and communication, so this should be no surprise. As we know based on previous incidents, each community is generally quick to speak up and consensus becomes quite clear. While stewards don't have a direct line to the Foundation or any other special access (communication wise), stewards like anyone else can advocate for communities based on consensus they have established. ~riley (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • What are your personal core principles as an individual, and how do they crossover into your work as an editor and member of the Wikimedia Community? ~riley (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I have any special core principles as an individual. If I should name a guideline that is true in the Wikimedia universe as well as in real life, this would be Don't be a jerk. Complying to that is a good idea in both worlds. --Krd 08:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I view myself as a fair person - I wouldn't do something that's "not fair" to whoever it affects. That means I consider IAR to be a very important part of Wikimedia world. Obviously, stewards needs to pay much much closer attention to proper procedure, but even them should (not) take an action if doing otherwise would be "unfair" to the project – because anything we do should benefit the project, that's what we're all here to do. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eager to learn and to share knowledge, quite often doubtful and searching additional evidence in order to have "neat and honest" information published on Wp and other. As a counterpart, a transparent control of abuses should be performed. That's why I started working as an admin, and now climbing up. --Jfblanc (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So ~riley, I don't see personal core principle important as a Steward who must principally help communities in technical task. If I have to express some principles, I use my personal user account. Also, I don't want to have fix "core" principles. I prefer to stay more open mine and able to change my point of view in any specifics cases. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 13:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think patience is very important for me. In my life, I contact with many people which shows me every time the importance of it. Patience prevents biting and helps understanding each other, which is very useful in this community (especially when I interact with someone in English). I believe “be patient” can be seen as a principle. Bencemac (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say I'm a calm person who can handle well under pressure, while keeping my calm. I can also learn quickly, and like to search for knowledge, which can be useful when presented with new tools. I also try to mediate conflicts instead of actively fighting. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to answer you AGF. Since you are an admin, you may have seen a lot of malicious users. When we meet a lot of abuse users, we become sharp without knowing ourselves. I don't think this joke happened for no reason. Perhaps in my first year of administrator, I had this experience. Since then, I have always had AGF in mind. And I do it in every request or contact with users. Most users participate in the Wikimedia movement in a good faith, and only a few of them are different. --Sotiale (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the individual that asked this question, I will be abstaining from answering the question as I do not view responding to my own question appropriate. If you would like me to answer a similar question, or principles-related question, please ask one in my section. ~riley (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I often say "Smile and assume good faith." and I believe thinking positive and enjoying the things you do is very important. When we take everything too seriously, we often make a big deal out of small things. Yes, there are times when we need to take things seriously but even at that time, we should remember to assume good faith. Thanks--BRP ever 01:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My most relevant principles are to avoid drama, be respectful, and stay productive. This is how I see myself as a steward; I'm focused on protecting the wikis and providing technical assistance. I want to have a meaningful impact on the mission, but not let anything stress me out or ruin the fun, or worse, ruin the fun for others. MusikAnimal talk 05:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I try, although often fail to be efficient (and at times end up oblivious to certain specifics that enable this efficiency, per se, as last year showed me so spontaneously... but still, I try). --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolution to do the right thing. As an editor, it helps me move beyond my own perspective, understand and consider other views, have trust in consensus, and change my mind over time.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think are the qualities (both personal and in-wiki) that a steward should have? Esteban16 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question... Can I give you my answer after experimentation ? It will be easier . Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 13:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same as an admin, but more of each and in a global scope: Technical and personal qualification, having shown continuous work in relevant areas, need for additional rights for doing additional work. --Krd 11:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal, I'd say being fair and impartial, so as to take the right decisions. In-wiki, having knowledge of the tools available and how to work with them, so one can make the best use of them while handling crosswiki issues. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to the qualities that steward needs, I think it's prudence. Due to the nature of steward action, it can affect multiple wikis, and it has a literally global effect. Therefore, they should know what they are doing and press the button carefully. Also, steward theoretically has access to all CU/OS logs. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the protection of personal information particularly important. --Sotiale (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a steward should be calm, careful and considerate. I think these qualities will help them both as a person and in-wiki. Thanks--BRP ever 01:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The qualities you would look for in a steward are similar to that of an admin and bureaucrat as qualities are scalable (i.e. more responsibility, more cautious). From a personal perspective, a steward should be insightful, composed and cautious. From an onwiki perspective, a steward needs to know when to seek/weight opinions and have good judgement to identify consensus. Only a small portion of steward requests are urgent, so being able to seek/weight opinions rather than making hasty decisions is important. ~riley (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An attempt to try to be objective, which ties in to the neutrality pillar in content. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Competence and responsibility, while at the same time keeping in mind that no one is perfect, that being a steward is not an easy task, and that there is always room for improvement.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Competence, maturity, and fairness. This is in line with any position of trust, they're just perhaps more essential with stewardship. Experience matters too, particularly as an admin. Stewards should know how the community works, broadly speaking, and how to respond to abuse. MusikAnimal talk 17:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • What is your approach to determining consensus? ~riley (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such long questions (and references) need some time to answer. I'll have a look this week end. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have difficulties to answer this question without context. There are several different kinds discussions, from sole votes where everybody eligible to vote will count, to discussions where well-founded arguments will outweigh unreasonable comments. If there a specific policy for the case, it should be followed where possible. --Krd 10:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This answer isn't absolutely clear (examples would be a plus), but I'll do my best to answer your question. First of all, it depends on which matter we are talking about. Is it a sysop confirmation at a developped wiki (that can't remove the flag itself, obviously)? Well, most probably, that wiki has policies on what consensus is in that case. Because of that, a steward should make sure wiki's procedures to determine consensus were followed. Is that an addition of a gadget at a very small wiki (<10 active wikimedians) with no IAs? Well, announcing the proposal that wasn't opposed is enough in this case. Let me know if you want my answer on something specific. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless there's a specific policy for that at the wiki where the consensus is being determined, my rule of thumb is to evaluate the arguments and their content. However, as Krd and Martin already mentioned in their answers, sometimes this type of approach is not valid, due to the type of discussion that is taking place. So, depending on that, I'd follow different approaches, always following the policy of the wiki. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe like you ~riley consensus I my personal conviction about the way to take a decision in a group. But one more time, I won't have the right as hypothetical Steward to impose my point of view. A wiki project could properly works with an other decision system. That's the choose of it community, not mine if I am outsider. I don't think also than the movement should impose the consensus as unique decision system. If the consensus come to a project that will be better in a historical and natural way. Also, impose consesus is not very consensual . Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 13:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes local bureaucrat is responsible for judging consensus on their local. It's not a general that can be applied to every case, but I'll talk about the process of thinking that I generally follow. I first figure out what the proposition is, whether the discussion is well known, and whether users have had the opportunity to participate. Then look at how the direction of opinion was formed. I seek to see if there are enough pros, cons to reverse them. If I apply this to SRP, I will look at how many people are involved and whether this is a true opinion. Sometimes it's important to see if they are members of the editors community. --Sotiale (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the individual that asked this question, I will be abstaining from answering the question as I do not view responding to my own question appropriate. If you would like me to answer a similar question, or consensus-related question, please ask one in my section. ~riley (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it all depends, but for instance if we're talking about a traditional RfC survey, you probably wouldn't be counting votes but rather the weight of the arguments. I believe the Steward Elections are an example of where the number of votes really do matter, so as I said, it all depends on the nature of the debate. The important thing is to be unbiased in your assessment and follow the established protocol for whatever sort of discussion it is. I think "no consensus" is in many cases a valid closure. MusikAnimal talk 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationales generally contribute to consensus, which should ideally reference pre-established policy with evidence (e.g. in AfD discussions on enwiki providing reliable sources that prove notability if the article initially lacks them). This then would hopefully change the preconceived consensus, thereafter. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus is the natural way users agree over something thanks to reasonable and convincing arguments put forward by everyone. Sometimes it may take the form of a compromise. As such, my approach to determining consensus is to read discussions and see how they actually evolved. To avoid any misunderstanding, I'm also used to clarify that consensus doesn't equal majority voting, and suggest reading the essays Don't vote on everything and Polls are evil.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a predetermined policy of determining consensus in the discussion like some votes where a certain percentage of support is required to pass then it's logical to follow those. But if the discussions are not votes then the consensus should be determined based on the arguments presented in favor or against.--BRP ever 07:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

  • (For paid staffs as well as for volunteers with affiliation with the WMF): Let's say WMF creates a proposal and after some time when the consensus is near, they ask an uninvolved steward to close the proposal. What would you, as a WMF staff and, an uninvolved steward would do? Please explain clearly what approach you would take considering your conflicts of interest. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 14:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good question Masumrezarock100 ! Personally, I think that the accumulation of mandates can be considerate as a problematic issue in the Wikimedia movement as much as in the offline political sphere. This is a point I would like to debate one day, if it hasn't already been done, within the Wikimedia movement. So, facing your question, my position is clear, I currently hold two mandates. One is administrator on fr.wikiversité and other board member of Wikimedia Belgium. If I am nominated to be a Steward, I will leave these two positions precisely to avoid any conflict of interest. If in the future, I'll be selected for an other responsible position, i'll probably leave my Steward one. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 10:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very plainly would defer to other stewards who don't have an affiliation with the Foundation. If my colleagues wanted my input, I would happily provide it, but I don't see a need for me to be the closer when there are many of us who don't have any potential conflict of interest, and depending on the nature of the proposal it may be best for me to recuse myself entirely. MusikAnimal talk 22:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since providing services to the Foundation can be reasonably viewed as a conflict of interests, which is always better to be avoided, I'd simply leave it to other stewards to close. If asked, I would obviously provide my own point of view. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home wikis[edit]

Boilerplate question that was not asked yet: Where do you identify as your home wikis? — regards, Revi 13:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not meta? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meta has some de facto leniency in the homewiki rule since otherwise it would mean that almost no stewards could do any steward actions on Meta. --Rschen7754 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see Meta as a service project, and I thought about the question as home (content) wikis. Plus, what Rschen says. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why I asked meta is last year for this same question Base added meta in his list of homewiki. As well as also partly to see if candidates knowing MSR. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the intent of the Q. Where is your home wiki under the provision of SP#Avoid conflicts of interest? — regards, Revi 13:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ho, sorry -revi. fr.wikiversity where I'am now administrator and mostly active as editor. And I leave an answer just above that can give you an other point of view concerning conflicts of interest. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 11:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local disputes[edit]

  • Should stewards interfere in local conduct / content disputes or they shouldn't per "stewards are not global arbcom"? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your question. Definitely not - stewards aren't arbitrators nor mediators, local procedures are to be used for that. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stewards should only apply the community decision for such a case. The local community should discuss internally what should be done, and, if it's the case, present to the stewards the decision that should be taken. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank Camouflaged Mirage, as stewerd giving a hand on a local place I just apply the decision of community. But if I'm personally concerned by the local conduct as a user (I won't stop editing if I start to be steward) I will express my point of view and ask to an other steward to deal with community request. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 11:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The perception of the role of stewards to date is that they are not "global arbcom." The community may require the stewards to take some action on the basis of consensus, but if the stewards intervene arbitrarily without such a basis, it may even worsen the condition. --Sotiale (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, stewards should not interfere in local conduct or content disputes. This is not the role of the steward in relation to local communities; conduct or content disputes should be resolved locally within the community. Interfering in local issues not only puts that specific steward between a rock and a hard place but can negatively impact the trust of the community and respect of stewards globally. ~riley (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The short answer is of course, no. I think of stewardship as merely a toolkit, not a hat or position of authority. We're here to assist the communities on a technical level that either needs to be done globally to protect other wikis, or to take local action when the community is unable to do so on their own. Moderation of conduct and certainly content is not part of the role. However, there are times when local disputes can escalate to here on Meta (such as the cases Rschen7754 points out above), and I suppose that could result in steward action, especially if the community is too small to resolve the issue autonomously. I'll elaborate more on my thoughts in my reply to Rschen7754's question. MusikAnimal talk 00:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, Stewards shouldn't interfere in local conduct / content disputes. The local community should discuss it themselves and resolve the issue within the community. Thanks--BRP ever 11:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, even local sysops should not be involved in content disputes (with their tools that is, discussion is what should happen). --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not interested in interfering nor should stewards be.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy violation[edit]

  • You may be aware of this incident which led to a steward and a global sysop losing their status. Now assume that you are (a) the offender and (b) the victim. How would you react? If you are an uninvolved steward, what action would you suggest against them? Leaderboard (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit: I've noticed several users complaining that this question is inappropriate. At this time, I do not believe that this question is unsuitable. I've recycled this question from last year's elections and no one complained then; in fact, I don't see any reason why they should. Yes, it is a difficult question, but if this can happen to two highly trusted users, this can happen to anyone. That being said, you are free to share any concerns on this one with me via talk) Leaderboard (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: I strongly object to drawing more attention to how someone was harassed and using them as an object lesson. Real people edit Wikimedia sites and we should not further affect their ability to edit by unnecessarily bringing up this incident ad infinitum. That also goes for anybody trying to recycle this question in future years: it's bad judgment. --Rschen7754 06:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're seriously asking to assume to be the offender? --Krd 06:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Krd that this is a highly inappropriate question, as no community member should EVER do something like that. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, the reaction as an offender is hard to think. As a local OS, I have experience with sensitive personal information. So I won't do that because I fully understand the threat the victim has felt. If I make that mistake, so if I become an offender, I will resign from stewards and leave Wikimedia directly. If I were victim, I would have informed T&S via emergency@wikimedia.org or reported to the OC. Basically it is desirable that this does not happen again. If I'm uninvolved steward, I should consider urgent revoke so that they don't have access to more personal information in case of emergency. --Sotiale (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank Leaderboard for letting me know that story. Well... Something that is clear to me in this story is that wikimedia projects can be considered, why not, as a playground for some editors, but certainly not for people in positions of responsibility. I personaly, even as simple contibutor, never fell in a game when I'm acting on Wikimedia movement. And I don't play game in my global live if we don't consider than live it self is a game as some sociologist do. So, I realy can't put my self in such a situation as a guilty steward. I the other hand, it's also difficult to me to put myself as victim. I don't hide my real name and even my phone number and space where I'm living and every body is welcome to my house for spend some days after a request on BeWelcome. Also, I don't change my beavior between my online live and offline activities. In both situation, I take care about what I say, what I do, and what I share. I like to be transparent about myself but not at all about other people. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be abstaining from answering this as I do not view it as an appropriate question. If you rephrase the question, that brings it back up to a level of appropriateness (i.e. not have us assume to either be the victim or offender in a highly sensitive case) and have us focus on handling privacy concerns, I am happy to return to provide my perspective on the importance of privacy and private information. ~riley (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's hard to envision myself as the offender. I view it sort of like the common practice on English Wikipedia of having conditions for recalling your adminship. I opted out of this, since I believe if my actions met that much backlash, especially if they were violating the site-wide terms of use, then I would naturally resign from my role. Fortunately I have no plans to engage in real-life harassment, or any form of harassment for that matter. This is an alarming story. As others have said, reporting the issue immediately to Trust and Safety and the ombudsman commission would have been the right move as the victim. MusikAnimal talk 06:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think such an RfC would be appropriate (or the local ArbCom if there is one). --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Under what criterion will you consider rejecting a checkuser proposal? More precisely, if there is a serious dispute on some wiki that develops into a SRCU request, how will you decide whether the checkuser proposal is actually valid or just a weapon of personal attack? --Midleading (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I understand the question. It depends on the case. In general all CU checks have to be in line with CU policies. --Krd 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checkuser policy says checkuser should be done to stop vandalism while it must respect privacy of users, even that of users that currently vandalizes a wiki. There is some room for stewards to decide if a user should be checkusered simply because he vandalized a wiki. Imagine if User A is an old account and user B is a new account. They disrupt the same wiki in the same way and people are requesting SRCU. Will you choose a) Checkuser is performed to determine if they are linked to the same IP or another possibly innocent user, and these users are blocked, or b) Checkuser is not performed because we already know their behaviour is similar, we only need to block these users, or c) Checkuser is performed and the IP addresses of these users are published so that administrators could block their IP. If another steward uses checkuser on a user simply because he vandalized a wiki and somebody files a checkuser request, what action would you take? ––Midleading (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume that you speak of zh.wikisource, so it is unlikely that I could handle the request at all, or could out of own initiative make a call about the check being against policy, because of the language barrier for the relevant edits, even if the request was in English. --Krd 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the policy, checkuser should never be used to solve content disputes, and the request needs to have a solid base to be executed. As SRCU is a global venue, the local community must have already agreed on checking the user prior to a check being done. If the community agrees on a check that is not valid per policy, or a request is made without community consensus, it'd be denied.
      Regarding your scenario, option "c" is out from the get go, as no connection between IPs and accounts should be publicized. The choice between options "a" and "b" would be related to the potential of the user having another account besides the (presumed) two. If it's possible that he has more, a check would be valid to check for sleepers, if not, a check shouldn't be done. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 03:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your question. Speaking generally, I would want to see an answer to question "Why should we check this?" – in another words, I would want to see how the project would benefit from the check. I would also want to know why the user thinks the two users are socks of each other. If I see the users are in dispute with each other, it would flag the request as suspicious, and I would consult with others - more experienced stewards and/or uninvolved users from that project. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I assume a wiki without CU) There is a wiki that requires a consensus for SRCU, and a wiki that does not have that requirement. If wiki does not require a consensus, there must be a valid reason. For example, the abuse of multiple accounts, vote-staking, would be the case. And there should be evidence to prove it. If a request is intended for only personal attack, it is unlikely to explain sufficient evidence and valid reasons. If I suspect that the purpose of request is intended for a personal attack, I can go through a separate process of listening to local opinion before proceeding. --Sotiale (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CheckUser should be used only to assist in abuse prevention, and when there's sufficient evidence of such abuse. Perhaps this "serious dispute" involved accusations of sockpuppetry. Maybe this could result in a check, but anything meritless would not be considered. Midleading gave a more specific example above (see comments). In that situation, my willingness to perform a check is still based on evidence. If the behaviourial evidence leaves little doubt there's a connection between the accounts, then there's probably no need to run a check. If it seems technical evidence is the only thing lacking in the admin's decision to block, I would be willing to investigate, but again there should still be sufficient evidence that a check is warranted. MusikAnimal talk 04:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it seems that an edit war is happening... an indicator of a content dispute, and otherwise doesn't seem like it's useful to know whether one is the sock of another who is attempting to fabricate a consensus on what the article version should be, then a dispute should be the default assumption. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is no good reason for the check or if sufficient evidence is not provided showing why it is believed that the accounts are related then I would consider rejecting a checkuser proposal. If the request is in the language that I am unfamiliar with or if I am unable to read the evidence provided then I would not handle the request and let someone else who is more familiar do that. Thanks--BRP ever 07:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question concerns a serious dispute, so I suppose it goes beyond trivial duck tests. A SRCU request is valid for example if it provides proof of plausible vote-stacking or evidence of a specific behavior shared by users who have violated local guidelines in a similar way. As long as the suspicion is well-founded and local community wants it to be confirmed since it would lead to further considerations, I would just say whether A is a sockpuppet of B. I would reject requests based on a weak/generic reason, or put them on hold until more information is given.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You receive a request for checkuser on a wiki that has no checkusers. You receive this request off-wiki (this does not include the stewards OTRS queue), via a private email or a third party platform. This request contains no personal information at all, so do you direct them to post the request to m:SRCU or do you just handle it privately? Disclosure: I am a member of the Ombudsman Commission, but this is not something that is covered by policy, and I'm not trying to trick anyone. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd initially deal with it by sending the user to SRCU. In case the user prefers for the request to not be public, due to fear of retaliation, for instance, I'd deal with it in the same way I currently deal with private requests at ptwiki: I'd post the request on a venue where all stewards/checkusers have access (such as checkuserwiki, stewardswiki or cu-l), ask their opinion on the matter if needed, and proceed, if there's merit to the request, with the check. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 03:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on if the user just doesn't know where to post it, or if they have any privacy concerns. In the latter, the request perhaps should be handled privately. --Krd 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally don't have issues with handling private CU requests, althrough my exact response would differ by context. For instance, a CheckUser needing a check at another wiki for their local investigation would be more likely to have their request granted. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, I think it should be handled publicly by SRCU if there is no problem with personal information. CU requests can sometimes be exploited to attack other users. I've seen such cases before, so I think off-wiki CU requests should be handled carefully. Therefore, if there is no personal information problem, I will encourage him to request it from SRCU. --Sotiale (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not yet familiar with CU operation, that's some think than I have to be well informed and advised before acting. And I don't see that like a problem until Stewards, as volunters, are never obliged to respond to a request or task it does not wish to carry out. But somethink is clear for me, private message for CU are welcome, but will always be treated by me in the same way as a public one and in the respect of all policies concerning CU. As a result, the request is either processed publicl SRCU or transferred to other persons more competent than me concerning touchy cases including privacy issue. And I'm glad to already know a member of the Ombudsman commission than I can eventually contact in this situation. I mean, if the Ombudsman commission is the appropriated group to deal with this specifics issues. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest the user to send his/her request via OTRS. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say a valid reason why it wouldn't be applicable. OTRS is a transparent and discrete alternative of SRCU if the user has any concern in connection with making a request publicly. Please let me know if you know a reason which would show the question from a different perspective. Bencemac (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally, checkuser requests are handled onwiki at Steward requests/Checkuser. If a request cannot be handled onwiki due to privacy concerns, the next appropriate venue would be through the stewards OTRS queue. While private requests are not wrong per say, I believe it should be avoided when there are venues available to process these requests. Documenting and tracking requests is also important for checkusers and stewards to work collobratively. ~riley (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if the practice is different for stewards (it appears to be undocumented), but at my home wiki it's not uncommon at all to handle CU requests privately. Typically I do this only for trusted users who have presented very straightforward (but not DUCK-like) case. If it is a complicated case, I wasn't given enough convincing information, or I think other CUs should have eyes on it, I would ask they open a formal case at SRCU or through OTRS. Basically, in my experience private CU requests are usually for quick assistance (say for an admin who just needs technical confirmation before blocking), and not for anything controversial that could benefit from proper documentation or broader discussion. That said, I've only dealt with CU on English Wikipedia, and a private CU request for a wiki I'm unfamiliar with (or in foreign tongue) might give me pause. Until I'm more comfortable, I'd surely be consulting my fellow stewards first. MusikAnimal talk 04:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many reasons why a checkuser/SPI request could be rejected but I don't think you will benefit much from me making a list. I would approach this no differently than one would approach blocking a user; is there justification/rationale for this action, is there consensus for this action and is the action in line with policy? We have seen time and time again that logged-out editing or sockpuppetries are a risk factor in community discussions and votes, especially one that involves controversial topics like user or admin conduct. If there is behavioral evidence to support a check, and consensus from the community to check the account, an investigation would be appropriate. Quite frankly, I would not touch this request as an inexperienced/new steward. I am humble enough to know when to defer to a more experienced indivudal (likely a senior steward) but I would still remain involved so that I could learn from their experience. ~riley (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The public forum should be tried first, but if there are privacy concerns mailing lists or otrs could be used. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CU policy allows private requests without placing a specific limit on stewards. However, I wouldn't process any request on third party platforms as it's safer via private emails. I don't see myself doing that any time soon, but I would need to know the identity of the requester and the proper reason why they do not want their request to be public. Users in good standing may reasonably ask for additional data (e.g. ISP, country) in private, and in that case I would direct them to more experienced stewards familiar with their projects and with the ISP providing Internet access to the users under investigation. In general, the less is handled privately the better.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are no privacy concerns then I would direct them to SRCU. If there are such concerns, requests can be made via steward OTRS queue. The request may be for a wiki with language that I am not familiar with so if possible these venues would be better. Thanks --BRP ever 11:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You grant admin flag to an user after local consensus. After a while, you suspect that the user used sockpuppets on the RfA, and you want to know whether you're right or not: a) how would you handle this case? b) if sock puppetry is confirmed, what actions would you take? Esteban16 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (If I have granted him admin flag, it's a wiki with no bureaucrat, so there's probably no CheckUser) I think that's why I need to be careful before I process the request. It is important to note that this is after granting, not before. It is difficult to revoke his permission with only my suspicion. a) The general practice I remember is that the local checkusering that stewards can do without a request should be for LTAs or spambots. So unless it's the two cases presented, I think it's hard to do local checkusering without a request. Therefore, I have to post a CU request with sufficient justification to SRCU, or request a discussion for checkusering locally. After that, the actions I take will depend on the results of the CU. (If something urgent happens in the meantime, emergency revoking is possible.) b) The flag was granted because he had a legitimate consensus, so if it turns out to be false, my personal thought is to revoke his flag. But I'm not going to decide it right away, but I'll follow the conclusions from the discussion at stew-I. Indeed, because there are many variables such as the actual effects of multiple accounts in RfA, and discussions about locally flagged users, I think it is reasonable to discuss them in stew-I and follow their conclusions. --Sotiale (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit hard to answer because the example can end in many ways. But in general, I can say that my suspicion should be based on a valid concern or some kind of proof (from your question, I assume it's valid). Also my concern should be handled by local CUs, and later bureaucrats, if there any. If there aren't any, I'd make a SRCU request. If I'm right, the main question would be that how serious is the problem (how many voting/votes were affected, etc.), what to do. The removal should be placed at the local noticeboard or SRP. The reason why I believe that acting myself wouldn't be appropriate is that I'm highly involved in the case (I granted the right and also have the suspicion), therefore I think other stewards/CUs/bureaucrats should handle my concern in the first place. Let me know that if my answer was not clear. Bencemac (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would need to be discussed on cu-l, and then a decision based on consensus taken that would likely lead to the de-flagging and a re-open of the discussion if desired. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd take my concerns to stew-l/stewwiki, so we can deliberate on whether the concerns are solid, and if the suspected sockmaster should be CU'd or not. If the consensus is that yes, the user should be CU'd, I'd CU them, and take actions depending on the outcome of the check. If the candidate is the sockmaster, I'd initially check the local policy for removal of perms. For instance, at ptwiki, my home wiki, if a sysop is caught using socks, he is desysopped automatically. If that is the case, I'd proceed with the removal of the flag, and would present the results to the community, so they can discuss which actions to take (such as a block). If that is not the case, I'd again present the results to the community, so that they can discuss whether to remove the flag, block, or any other action they want to take.
      If the sockmaster is not the candidate, I'd check the local policies, again, to see if the user should lose their flags when a sockpuppet has decisively intervened on the election, which is the case at ptwiki. If there is, I'd remove the flag, if not, I'd again take the results to the community. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have certaintly double checked the result of the RfA before granting the flag. Therefore, it would mean that at that time neither I nor local community found any anomalies. Let's be honest here, it is unlikely that a stranger to the project like me would be the first user to have a sensible suspicion about sockpuppet abuse in that RfA after a while, so even if I had a slight suspicion, I wouldn't do anything on my own. Local communities know better.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally, this would have been noticed prior to granting the flag. I don't think closing local RfAs is an area of interest for me, but if the RfA was closed as successful then I would instinctively trust the community's assessment, and not be suspicious of sockpuppetry. But, let's assume I did have strong reason to believe the RfA was gamed. I'd first privately consult other stewards and perhaps someone in a position of trust within the local community. If we collectively decide there is enough evidence to suspect sockpuppetry, and that a check is warranted, I'd seek confirmation from a local CU or through the checkuser-l mailing list. It is unclear to me whether SRCU would be the more appropriate route, prior to running checks, and this is exactly why I would consult other stewards first. The gravity of the situation may mean we don't want the case to initially be completely public. It all depends. Technical confirmation may then result in removal of the rights, but I would refrain from doing this myself since I granted them. The community would need to be informed of the CU confirmation as well, in case they feel a block is appropriate. There are many different ways this situation could be handled. I see it as a rather serious matter requiring careful judgment, and the important thing is that no decisions should be made unilaterally. MusikAnimal talk 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could you give a brief overview of the current spambot situation we are facing and what are your take in ways to deal with spambots in the year ahead?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stated in my application that I'm not very skilled in vandal and spam measures, so this is a field where I would have to improve after gaining more insight. It is definitely a topic where I want to learn, but I cannot say in advance how this will develop. So, at the very moment I cannot give a overview of the situation. --Krd 15:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are being "attacked" by lots of spambots on multiple wikis, faster than we can counter them. Unfortunately, due to that smaller projects with no active community are becoming honeypots for dealing with them. We have useful tools, such as SpamBlacklist and AbuseFilters (native) or COIBot (external) to help fight them, but all of those end up needing a human input, be it to reconfigure it (adding entries to the blacklist, or improving the filter), be it to go over the pages and clean them from spam. Lately we have also been facing, albeit in a way smaller scale, domain hijackings, a huge problem for which we have no way to easily fight it.
      My take to dealing with spambots would be the same as today, going over recent changes to find them, check for additional ones on the range(s), and lock the accounts, and coupled with that reconfiguring the blacklist for domains that have a larger rate of insertion and/or adding it to the filters. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 03:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Wikidata, spammers are focusing mainly user pages where it's much easier to add promotional content and links. RfD requests show me that we cannot catch all of the spam, especially from smaller projects and we spot them sometimes after weeks/months. I find AF a very useful tool which can help in many cases (on huwiki, I guided admins to create and modify filters) but I think that involving more users in patrolling and fighting spam are where we could evolve. As a steward, firstly I'd like to learn new efficient ways from the others to improve my skills and help in the problem. Bencemac (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spambot is automated, and it's appearing on a number of separate projects. It is important to consider that although they appear in large quantities, most of them are produced for one place. That's why large wiki filters properly to prevent it. In addition, there are already types of spambots. Due to this, some types of spambots are being identified through global filters. Rather, the problem would be to manually cross-wiki spammer instead of bot. They should be captured through a COIBot or monitor, etc tools. As I wrote in the statement, I'm going to try to find the spambots' farms. Of course, there are limits to this method, so basically I think I should find the type of spamming that is not caught in the filter, and go with the modification of the filter. --Sotiale (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Camouflaged Mirage, fight against Spambots seams to me a very global and technical issue that must be deal by a group. In this frame, I can give a hand as a person more aware about human behaviours and give comment or certain point of view coming out of the box. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is what we know:
      • In the last two years, the number of locks have rose 50% per year with an average of over 100 bots locked daily (ref).
      • CAPTCHA is bad at letting humans in and keeping spambots out with a human failure rate of 20-30% with an estimation of 2,000 to 10,000 spambots missed per month. CAPTCHA technology improvements are needed. (ref).
      • Tools to cleanup spam have been developed by members of the community (see SWMT/Tools), but new tools to prevent spam are long awaited.
      • Existing tools to prevent spam include the title and spam blacklists as well as local and global abusefilters. We also have tools to find/identify spam that is primarily through IRC on the central and local CVN channels (including -spam), the external links channel as well as the new meta/global abusefilter channel. These tools are resource expensive in terms of volunteer support as they rely on regular additions and adjustments to maintain.
    • My involvement with fighting spambots would be focused on investigating and locking spambots as well as blocking the IP ranges being abused. I would continue my involvement with prevention through improving global abuse filters. ~riley (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recently Spambots are active in numerous wikis and some of them are successful in creating pages. As riley mentioned above, CAPTCHA technology improvements are needed to prevent spambots from creating accounts. Last year I have deleted many spambot pages and blocked many spambot accounts in wikis which are within GS scope or where I am an admin and will continue to do that. The ability to lock the Spambot accounts and block the IP ranges they are abusing would make the work a lot easier. Thanks--BRP ever 10:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say I'm 100% in the know (yet), but I am aware of a spambot problem. This is nothing new, just perhaps more widespread now. AbuseFilter and using automation to prevent any form of abuse is very much in my realm of expertise. I would definitely be interested in building tools to assist with this effort. Global Search is one relevant tool I recently authored, which can help with cleanup of spam. As I become more familiar with the situation, I will work with fellow stewards, spam-fighters and interested parties to see what I can do to help. Of course the ability to lock/block these spambots would be helpful, and I look forward to finding ways to improve this workflow and reduce whack-a-mole. MusikAnimal talk 05:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's been a dire situation for many years now, and ideally a systemic, MediaWiki solution is implemented (or perhaps abuse filters?) - personally, I could do what I did in the past, which is simply locking the initial ones, and then check to see whether a farm is present on that address or range. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spam is everywhere on the Internet. The main tools at our disposal against spam (i.e. blacklists, abuse filters) have already been listed. Additional tools exist to find open proxies, perform mass deletions, etc. An important stewards' task is to maintain global abuse filters in order to prevent and detect spam on small projects (large projects are autonomous). Even though most of such spamming is carried out by bots, it's not that easy to foresee their behavior, especially due to the technical limitations that restrict our faculty to do extensive checks of any kind. The problem of spambots requires much attention and will persist as long as developers won't find an effective solution in this regard.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional communities[edit]

How would you deal with problems on wikis with tiny dysfunctional communities? Let's say there are 2-3 people who cannot agree on anything, because one or both sides won't listen to arguments. Or there are 1-2 people who assume wiki ownership and they won't listen to newcomers. If no action is taken, power play (admin rights, revert wars, time/nerves to fight) will decide matters. What if one side (usually the losing one) asks for your help? What will you do? — Robert Važan (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I know, stewards' practice is that if disputed admins are at war with their powers(=continuous repetition of block and unblock, delete and undelete, etc), stewards should temporarily revoke their flags. If only one side has admin rights, they will go through Meta's global RFC process. The same is also true when the permission of the disputed administrators is revoked and the local community cannot resolve by themselves. Indeed, problems that are not solved in the community go through Meta's global RFC process. The steward's role is to intervene if the disputed administrators continue to war with their admin toolset. As individual may be an arbitrator as an editor, but by default this is not a steward's scope. This is what an individual does, not a steward. In summary, if I am a steward, I will intervene in cases where admin toolset is abused for war during disputes and encourage the requestor to go through a global RFC. It is the individual's choice to assume the role of arbitrator with abstaining the steward's toolset. If this is a range of issues that I can solve, arbitration may be possible, but I think it is not the recommended direction(in steward's scope). --Sotiale (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfCs should ideally be used in such situations, but in such small wikis there aren't usually many flags in play beyond the capability to rollback, in which case a third party mediator would still be the only logical possibility. --Lofty abyss 23:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think such communities need to solve the problem in the long term. I would advice both sides to stop arguing against each other, open a global RfC, and hopefully learn from it how to improve their conflict resolution skills. If they're unwilling to listen, I would bring the matter to the attention of all stewards and ask their help to understand better the situation instead of taking for granted that someone's story is right just because it seems more convincing to me. Since there is a lot to consider and the circumstances described above do not concern an ongoing emergency, I wouldn't take any immediate goofy action as per stewards policy.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's there Robert Važan a case story than I can feel confortable with. If members of a small community even only one personne ask me for help in this kind of situation, I'll propose to him or them to give my answer in a talkpage where all stakeolders can take part to the discussion. Ifher, he or they agree, I will inform all project éditors about examples of other projects that have been successful in overcoming this kind of crisis and propose to them to debate about it. If the debate does not result in a resolution, I will inform them about the global RFC process. In the specific case where some editor was abiousely and arbitrarily blocked by a local admin, I'll ask to the admin to unblock the editor for making the debate possible. If he or she don't want, I'll inform them again about de global RFC process. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those cases are normally dealt with by Requests for comments. Unfortunately, in these cases, stewards should only revoke the rights in the case of gross misuse of the tools (the Til Eulenspiegel/Codex Sinaiticus case comes to mind). Stewards are not a global ArbCom, and should only apply the community's decision. For a power play case, the community won't have much of a voice, which means this will have to be discussed by the global community at the RfC's. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is merely a content dispute, I don't think stewards should intervene (but it's okay to provide your opinion, as an impartial editor). Disputes are completely normal in a collaborative environment. Regardless, the easy answer to is to seek broader discussion. A local RfC (or whatever the appropriate forum may be for the project) would be my first recommendation. That hopefully would involve more than just the same handful of participants. If needed, particularly if there is "power play", it could be escalated to a global RfC. If there is outright admin abuse, such as blocking accounts solely because they are on the opposing side, this would invite attention apart from the core dispute. A global RfC I think is probably still the best way forward, unless the admin abuse is so severe that it is deemed an emergency, in which case I'd consult my fellow stewards and decide whether we need to take immediate action. MusikAnimal talk 22:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a community is unable to establish local consensus through a community discussion and exhausted the community's dispute resolution options (i.e. arbitration, mediation, etc.), the next step is to go through the global request for comment process here on Meta. If I am asked to help, I would outline the venues available for the user and help guide them in the right direction; I would only intervene after consulting with my colleagues in an emergency situation. Once a global request for comment has run it's course, stewards can collectively identify what consensus there is for how to proceed/resolve the issue and where possible, implement that consensus. ~riley (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an abuse of tools like the "power play" you mentioned and the local discussion is no longer helping since one or both sides aren't listening to arguments then I think this needs to be taken to an RFC. If there is an emergency like an ongoing wheel war then immediate action may be required. I have seen some small communities with similar problems so the best thing I think for the communities to do is to establish some proper written policies and procedures to prevent such things from happening in the future. Thanks.--BRP ever 10:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre situations[edit]

Stewards have to often face bizarre situations to handle. Now assume that a user tries to convince you that 1-2=1. How would you react? Your mathematical skills is not the main focus of this question. Leaderboard (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please forgive me, but I don't quite understand how this specific example will welcome a useful answer. I probably would not entertain such a user. Presumably I would have more constructive things to do than argue about basic mathematics. If I suspect there is a deeper problem with the user, I might investigate. I can say that I have faced many bizarre users, trolls, and harassment over the years, and this is not something I'm afraid of or worried about. MusikAnimal talk 05:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Leaderboard, let's talk about number again . I would love to experience this situation with the idea that if this is not a joke or a psychic disorder, I could spend hours understanding the reasoning that will lead to this equation. As an anthropologist, I feel very open-minded about cultural variations and passionate about the discussions and learning that this brings me. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What MusikAnimal said. --Krd 17:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is too broad to answer, but I hope this is the answer. Bizarre situations always happen, but they are generally summarized in three contexts: a) my misunderstanding b) counterpart's misunderstanding c) troll. If someone convinces me that 1-2=1, it would be b) or c). The most important thing is to distinguish whether it is a troll or not. The trolls want attention and love the admin. So I should not give them chocolate. If it's not a troll, I need to explain why it's not. Based on experience, if someone tries to convince me of a claim like 1-2=1, it's likely to be a troll or a gamer. Because they are forest friends often seen, they are expected to be treated according to principles of DENY. --Sotiale (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore them and advice other people to do the same. Unfortunately, I do that frequently on my homewiki. Trolls seek for your attention and enjoy making you lose your nerve and time. Whenever I'm sure a user is saying nonsense in good faith, I explain them why, and usually/hopefully they understand at once.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case you presented is a plain troll, which shouldn't be fed. However, for bizarre situations that could warrant an answer, I'd try understanding from where the user has come up with that, and try to present reasonable arguments for why it is/isn't like that. However, that may be not enough, and you shouldn't just keep trying to convince someone when they don't want to be convinced. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can only let facts speak for themselves, gravity can be denied in the imagination, but in the end its effects are still palpable. --Lofty abyss 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is quite broad, but I'll do my best to answer. The particular example you mentioned isn't Wikimedia related at all - hence, I would politely advise them to stop discussing that matter at Wikimedia project(s), or take some sort of restrictive action as needed and allowed by policies (what exactly I would do depend on exact case, and can include deferring to local admins, global blocks/locks and other actions). In case the topic discussed is Wikimedia-relevant, especially if they're arguing about an action I took, I would politely (re)explain what I did, and if I have the feeling I have said everything that has to be said, I would politely say that I've explained my opinion and action, I still think the action was right, and if they want to appeal, direct them to standard appeal procedures. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would begin by reviewing the user and their recent activity to determine if it is likely they are a troll. If it is likely a troll, I would not feed the troll and ignore their message. If I'm wrong, and they aren't a troll, they can always message again with more context or seek assistance of another user. If there is no indication that the user is a troll, I would assume good faith and proceed to ask the user how the question is relevant - they will likely respond with context and offer clarity which would allow me to effectively answer their question. I'm not going to pretend that I would spend time breaking down this equation for a user, I would sooner refer them to a mathematics wikiproject. ~riley (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late answer. I agree with the others, plus I would like to mention that these situations happen often on (at?) OTRS. For example, there are some well-known users who send us complains and nonsenses tirelessly. I'm always trying to be patient because there are cases when the person just doesn't understand the situation, but I know that there is point when it's clear we cannot assume good faith anymore. I think if it's the case and she/he is harmless, I should just ignore her/him. Bencemac (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender gap[edit]

What would you say about the gender gap in Wikipedia, and would it affect your approach to users as a Steward?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The gender gap in the Wikimedia movement is a problem - I won't pretend that I have big ideas to fix it, because I don't, but I do recognize the first thing I can do is look in the mirror and reflect on my interactions and behaviors. We're all human; this means it can be easy to lose perspective at times but we should all work to hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure we aren't contributing to a toxic environment. My approach as a user, rather than as an admin, steward, etc (we don't have to be in a position of authority to do this), would be to: 1) recognize that my own perspective can be limited, and even biased at times 2) reflect on my interactions with others from a personal development point of view 3) hold myself [and others] accountable to the founding principles.
  • While I may be reading into the "Wikipedia" part of your question too much, but I feel I also help close the gender gap on the English Wikipedia by writing articles about women. To date, I am proud to have taken nine articles about/involving women to the front page through the Did You Know process and one article about/involving women to Good Article status. ~riley (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never experienced any gender or orientation related harassment against myself or anybody I know in real life, so perhaps I cannot fully comprehend the amount of problem that exists especially in Wikipedia. Assuming good faith and treating everybody as respectful as possible is always a good approach, which I think I practice quite well. But as an admin or steward it will not always be possible to satisfy everybody at every time. --Krd 07:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that trying to address the gender gap by making people "out" themselves as a male/female, such as by asking whether there are female candidates, is not a good way forward. The gender gap exists, but we need to address it by being impartial and dealing with the user the same way, regardless of their gender. Many women are treated differently due to the sole reason of being a woman, which in turn results in them not wanting to say that, and addressing this different treatment is a good beginning. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 01:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gender gaps appear as bias. Studies show that male interest topics are edited mainly because many editors are male. In my memory, in a paper, less than 15 percent of editors was reported as women. This can generally be seen in Wikipedia editing, but it can also be seen in behavioral patterns. I understand that this is an issue that WMF is also interested in. But at least for stew's work, I don't expect this difference to have any significant impact on my work. Steward work is largely structured through request and processing. It is likely that behavior is primarily about communication in the process of request and processing. It is basic to listen to and understand requests regardless of how they are described, and to respond properly should be the same for everyone. Yes, smooth response to requests should be common to all users. As for the request, it doesn't matter whether the requestor is male, female or LGBT. I just have to listen to the request, think it in a good way, help if I can help, or explain why I can't. --Sotiale (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to be more welcoming to new editors who are female or non-binary when I see them. This is not to say I'm unwelcoming to others; I think everyone deserves the same treatment, but the gender gap is obviously a problem and to close it I think we need to attract more diversity through retention. Part of this is also the gender gap in content, whereby fewer non-male topics are covered due to the predominately male editing community (as Sotiale explains). Programs such Art+Feminism and Women in Red have seen huge success but there's still plenty of work to do. I do not think this effort has a strong correlation with stewardship, given it is more of a social problem, and my work would be chiefly technical. The gender or background of someone asking me for help would have no effect on my willingness to help them. MusikAnimal talk 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tks4Fish. I don't think any candidate would like to be voted for or against on the sole basis of their gender identity. Gender is much more than biological sex, and I'm glad to see that this very year the Wikimedia community takes a further important step towards addressing gender issues by organizing Queering Wikipedia. This is not a matter particularly related to stewards' approach to users. We all should always treat and respect each other without prejudice and without assuming that other users are male until they disclose personal information.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 13:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless otherwise stated it is usually unclear, and I try to approach everyone from such an objective, neutral view. --Lofty abyss 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Under what circumstances would you create a hard rangeblock? What steps would you take to avoid collateral damage?

I ask from personal experience. In 2018, I was twice caught up in hard rangeblocks which left me unable to post anywhere. (I have since been told that there are a couple of places where I might have been able to post. Although I had made more than 100,000 edits, I did not know of them.) On the first occasion, I never got a reply to my email to the blocking steward. On the second, the email of the blocking steward was closed (I have just checked, and that steward's email is still closed). Narky Blert (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Range blocks should be used as rare as possible, but are sometimes required to stop abuse. It is always possible to contact stewards by e-mail via stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org. --Krd 12:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I regret the inconvenience you have experienced. Malicious users exploit open proxies or VPNs, and sometimes exploit common IP bands. If this is too severely abused, there is only a hard block. If it's not an open proxy or VPN, I know it's rare for it to be blocked for a long time. And I know that stewards understand the consequences of hard rangeblock, so they wouldn't have made a decision easily. There are not a lot of means to solve the problem, so sorry to not give you a special solution. To prevent collateral damage, I will try to set a minimum period of time to prevent abuse as much as possible during hard rangeblock, and will respond well to queries(private email or talkpage, IRC, etc) about block. There will be more inquiries sent to OTRS than to steward individuals. Global IP block exemptions can help, including long-term blocking, especially in the case of open proxies or VPNs. Through OTRS, I expect to be able to help users who are experiencing these problems. --Sotiale (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Krd and Sotiale mentioned, sometimes range blocks are required to stop abuse. I've already hardblocked some ranges at ptwiki to prevent that, but I am always open to reply to an user that's being caught by it. Recently, I had two users requesting that, one on my talk page, and another one via e-mail, and besides that I'm always available on IRC. As soon as I saw the requests, I proceeded to give them the IPBE right, as they are good users being caught by a block that is not aimed at them. As a steward, I'd deal with it the same way, giving GIPBE where needed. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for sharing your personal experience as part of asking this question. Global range blocks are a last resort and are only considered after local blocks or other preventatives are not successful. I would only hardblock a range if a softblock hasn't worked in the past or there is clear indications that a softblock would not be preventative enough to stop the abuse from that range. To minimize collateral damage, global range blocks by default do not impact Meta wiki which allows users to request GIPBE. The Mediawiki block notices have had some improvement but I find there is still a level of confusion for where to find assistance (SRGP or stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org) in my experience helping people at ACC & OTRS. The checkuser tool can be used through loginwiki in some cases to check for collateral damage and assess if users will be impacted by the range block, but loginwiki is limited in what data it collects and it's only an indication of how busy a range is. This is more important when blocking significant ranges or blocking for a signifcant period of time. ~riley (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should affect only the range which recent abusers have been using, and then only for as much a minimum time as possible, as I've done recently. --Lofty abyss 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. I thank the candidates for their responses. Based on my experience, I would like to make the following suggestions:
  1. Stewards must have open emails.
  2. Stewards must respond to emails, even if a problem has already been fixed.
  3. I had never heard of SRGP or stewards@wikimedia.org until they were mentioned in this thread - despite having twice been caught up as collateral damage in rangeblocks. How is anyone supposed to find them? I didn't, and I had some five hours in which to try. No-one expects (OK, I don't expect) individual stewards to respond immediately at every hour of the night and day. Therefore, stewards should display links like those prominently on their userpages.
  4. The first time I was caught by a rangeblock, it took eight or ten hours, and the help of two or three admins, before I was able to edit again. As an experienced editor, I had at least some idea of who to ask (by email); but that admin, who has over 14 years experience and over one million edits, did not know how to lift the block. Think about that.
  5. By the second time I was caught, a non-admin had told me about w:WP:UTRS, and I was back editing within an hour or so. That was satisfactory; but it shouldn't have needed a non-admin to tell me about it; the admins who had helped me didn't seem to know it existed. Every steward should prominently display that link also on their userpage.
Frivolous appeals should, of course, be summarily dismissed. However, it is essential that filing a serious appeal should be simple and straightforward. Hear it from me: it is not. How many honest editors may have been driven away by such rangeblocks? Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For each candidate[edit]


  • A wiki, around the size of 200 active editors, and having 12 permanent admins, voted with the vote 16/0 in favour of one of the admin to become a bureaucrat. The wiki have a RFB (Request for Bureaucrat) page stating that 10 supports will be adequate to promote. In addition, the admin asked for support from rest of the language group projects, and 4 of the voters have less than 10 local edits. How will you determine whether the user will be granted bureaucrat-ship or denied? Thanks for volunteering. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'd check the policies of the wiki and also expect that at least one local bureaucrat election was already held because of the RfB page (are there any current bureaucrats?). The wiki has 12 elected admins, which means there must be a policy about the requirements of voting (minimum activity/edit level), therefore I'm pretty sure about that those users (less than 10 edits) wouldn't be eligible for voting. If there is no bureaucrat, the elections took enough time and those remaining twelve voters were truly eligible, I'd grant the right. Although, I'd be careful because of the mentioned canvassing. If I have doubts about that it also affected the remaining valid votes in any way, I'd not act until I ask the others' opinion. Bencemac (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think stewards should be open to assisting large wikis when something falls within steward scope, such as a well known cross-wiki LTA that has only edited on a large project on the current account? TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although I'd say that large wikis can handle most of them in general. In my opinion, if that something is in their scope and their help is needed, stewards' help should be offered. LTAs are always different and so I don't want to generalise, but if that LTA's edits are destructive, I'd expect a quick response from a large wiki. If that (singe wiki) account is okay, the community should be informed and involved because then the case isn't that simple (like in a clear vandalism-only account would be). Bencemac (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Bencemac, I am very happy that you are there and I could set up my question public in. I would be very concerned to known why have been You banned me – at least forced to restrain my Wikipedia activity to minimum? – Also why forced me, You and yours supporters, to step out from Hungarian Wikimedia Chapter, even I was one off the founder this organization.
I am wikipedian more as 15 years, with more as 26 thousand edit and organizing in the past a lot on- and off- Wikipedia events. Some from this:
Hungarian Wikipedia conference 2011, GLAM project in 2014,Commons:European Science Photo Competition 2015, very successful Science Photo Competition in 2015, lecture on Free Software Conference in 2018 etc.
In addition I have made a lot of technical stuff Lua programs, templates, maps, etc in the Hungarian Wikipedia.
I will be very thankful for answer to you, sincerely yours Texaner (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, it's nonsense. I surely did not “forced you to step out from Hungarian Wikimedia Chapter”. I do not even know that you're a member or not. I have never banned or forced you to do anything. I opposed your bot approval because all of your seven test edits were wrong or had problems, and you had no bot experience to accomplish the complex 20k+ edits task without failure. These are fully false statements. Bencemac (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever asked stewards to suppress (hide) any edits on huwiki? If your answer is yes, would you list each instance, explain (in general terms, without revealing sensitive details) why you didn't turn to local admins instead, and let us know how you notified the huwiki community of your actions? Thank you! Malatinszky (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Malatinszky: Could you be more precise, please: do you mean RevisionDelete operations, which are available to admins, or revision suppression that is available only to the oversighters (nobody has this right in huwiki) and stewards? The first case suggests misuse of steward rights, while in the second case your question is inappropriate (if there is a valid reason to supress an edit, the local admins can do nothing and info about this action should not be revealed to public: you should contact another steward and ask for verification, if you think it is not OK). Ankry (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ankry: I apologize for the vague nature of my question. When I said "suppress (hide)" I meant suppression: the action performed by users with oversighter rights, during which a revision becomes inaccessible to ordinary editors and even admins. I strongly dispute the assertion that the question is inappropriate, although I do agree that it is possible to give an inappropriate answer to the question. For example, imagine that someone posts Donald Trump's cell phone number in an article about him; a serious privacy violation. Bencemac notices this, reverts the edit and asks a steward to suppress the revision. The request is granted, and members of the community only see that there is a suppressed edit in Mr. Trump's article. In most instances it is not clear who did the suppression or why; only that some content has disappered. "Who did this and why?" is a totally appropriate question in an instance like that. "A steward did this at my request because someone posted Trump's phone number" is a totally appropriate answer. Revealing the actual phone number would, of course, be inappropriate, and no-one is asking Bencemac to do anything like that. I hope this has been helpful. --Malatinszky (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, maybe a few times. For example, because you asked about my user page on my talk page, I can tell you that it contained personal details which weren't wise to share publicly. This is the reason why my user page has hidden edits. I cannot list all of my past requests because I don't remember, but if I asked and got OS help, they were valid requests. In general, suppression requests' details should not be posted in public (WP:OS says that). Bencemac (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this Wikidata discussion you are asking a fellow user to rephrase a comment using simpler wording because you do not understand him "correctly." In this Huwiki ArbCom case a non-Hungarian editor complains about discrimination against foreigners because of your unfortunate choice of words in an English-language response to him. (There was clearly no actual discrimination, I hasten to add.) With commendable modesty, you note in your introduction that you only have a level 2 command of English. Your Hungarian is flawless, but it is not a widely used language. Can you reassure us that you will not have trouble communicating, should you become a steward? --Malatinszky (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My English is better than level two, as some people from Wikimania can tell you. But it doesn't mean that everything is always easy for me (e.g. learning a new wikijargon). I know my limits and I don't try to do what I obviously cannot handle. If something is not clear for me, I ask. Please note that I translate on Translatewiki, which is very difficult sometimes. Of course I make mistakes, but I think that my work can prove you that I can deal with even complicated and contextless texts too. Others from IRC or IRL can tell you their true experiences, but I think my communication with them is fine. Bencemac (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • 1. What do you do if you get a request to delete a test page in brwiki? 2. What do you do when you get a request to delete a test page in alswiki?--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your question. Whilst I do not understand these languages unfortunately, first of all, I would try to ask reasons why a person who requests a deletion does it and why a person who writes such an article edits it. I would make a necessary decision after discussions with them.--Bletilla (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested in your language skills as it is hard to have a zh speaking steward, could you answer the following question both in English and Chinese. WMF withdrawn CU access for zhwp, what are your take on this and will the community ever regain the CU access? If elected, will you handle CU requests by the zh community on SRCU? I just need short answer for the 1st one. Thanks so much for serving. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your question. I cannot answer in Chinese because my skill about Chinese is in beginner's level. Situations that WMF is withdrawn CU access are very regrettable but the community hardly regain it under current Chinese situations in my opinion. If elected, I would do it.--Bletilla (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think stewards should be open to assisting large wikis when something falls within steward scope, such as a well known cross-wiki LTA that has only edited on a large project on the current account? TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that you have a zh-1 level in Chinese. Will you help CU requests from zh.wiki? --5LZ 08:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. Do you have any opinions about comments of user Marine-Blue, Jianhui67 and etc on vote page? - こんにちは。voteページのMarine-BlueさんとJianhui67さんなどの意見について反論などの何か話したいことがありますか? --Garam (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very happy to see you run for SE. Here are a couple of questions. Recently SRG is quite backlogged, and in general SR boards are backlogged, do you have any suggestions to make the workflow more streamlined and will non stewards closure helps? All the best! :)--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to SRG I think sorting out the urgent request and acting on them and then acting on non-urgent requests can help to minimize overall abuse. In Steward request pages such as SRUC and SRM, non-steward closure are seen often and they help to reduce steward workload while in others like SRG, steward tools are needed to process the requests but experienced users can help by closing unreasonable SRG requests. Thanks--BRP ever 01:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from fellow candidate: Could you explain why are you currently indefinitely blocked at Spanish Wikinews? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was an error. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think the greatest need Wikimedia projects face is? For clarity I’m referring to things that occur on-wiki that volunteer editors such as stewards can assist in. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards can help the communities in dealing with spammers, spambots and LTAs which are active in various wikis. Steward can also assist by responding to requests from various communities and volunteers which falls under Steward scope. They can also help in hiding Oversightable content on wikis where there are no Oversighters or where stewards are allowed by the local policy under special circumstances. I think Steward assistance can be needed in these areas. Thanks--BRP ever 02:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen that even experienced candidates get oppose votes in SE. The passing criteria is 80% support. It ks mormal. No one is perfect. Taking that into account, how do you anticipate the oppose votes? As in, why some voters would oppose you? How would you prove that their claims are not of a concern and you are qualified for Stewardship? I am not talking about the explicit criteria written at Stewards/Elections_2020/Guidelines#Candidates.Masum Reza📞 02:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it’s as you say, everyone has their strengths and flaws. I have realized that doing the things you are sure about and asking for help when there are things that you are unsure about leads to better results. There are things that I would like to take it slow like SRCU, since I lack experience in it and there are cases where I would like to ask for help from someone more experienced. I believe one of the important qualities to have would be to know when to stop and ask for help. I don't think this exactly answers your question regarding oppose votes but what I mean to say is I am willing to work on the concerns. Thanks--BRP ever 08:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you going to balance steward and local projects sysops responsibilities? I am especially interested in Simple English Wikipedia role. Thank you. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to go into details but last year I had to go through many changes in my life but I remained active and this year things have finally settled so I think I can balance those responsibilities easily. I am also active in IRC which helps me with the patrols and I try to respond there as much as I can. If I remain healthy (which I hope I do) I think I can easily balance the responsibilities but if at some point I am unable to remain active, I will not keep these tools. Thanks--BRP ever 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


There is no doubt here that I have less activity, but as I explained above the reason that I applied is to help the community. FitIndia Talk Commons 06:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding onto the first question, you said you've gained more experience in the last year and a half but your edits show very little cross-wiki work. Your statement also doesn't give any insight as to what you need or would use the tools for and your most active project is also largely automated or semi-automated edits. You are registered only on roughly 13% of all projects and have edits on even less than that. Stewards generally should have a presence cross-wiki and you have no experience in areas that we typically expect candidates to have, so how will you engage with the bulk of these communities where you've never interacted and how will you change your lack of cross-wiki work? Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question, I have always looked at the project as where I could better it and try and help out in any small possible way. Before I put forward my candidature I was aware of my lack of cross-wiki work but as I said above I am happy to help the community. FitIndia Talk Commons 02:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many might say it is a leap from having no global permissions (exc. OTRS) to being a steward. Did you consider re-applying for global rollback after your first attempt? Is there a reason you didn't re-apply? ~riley (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question, To be honest while putting forward my candidature it did look like a stretch with my cross-wiki experience but as I said above I would like to help out, also I did not re-applying for global rollback as nothing had changed since my first application. FitIndia Talk Commons 02:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, if nothing has changed since your first application (which I assume means no change in relevant experience), what observable experience do you have in stewards areas? Vermont (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question, I am a trusted editor in two Wiki projects and I speak Hindi, Marathi and a bit of Punjabi so I could be of help in these projects. I am well aware of my lack of experience but as I said earlier I would like to help out the project. FitIndia Talk Commons 06:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I would like to thank all the editors who have taken out their productive time looking at my candidature.FitIndia Talk Commons 06:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Global rollback requires significant amount of crosswiki experience. And Steward toolset includes global rollback rights. Don't you think it implies that a Steward candidate is expected to (should) have more experience than a Global rollbacker? You said you didn't reapply for global rollback because "nothing had changed". I understand that you are acting in good faith and want to help English, Hindi, and Marathi projects. But all of these projects are just a small fraction of the whole Wikimedia community. Could you explain why you think the editors of all Wikimedia projects (over 800) would trust you because you are a "trusted editor" in just two projects? Trust is important, yes. But significant experience in relevant areas is too. Masum Reza📞 09:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • About being a trusted editor on just two projects. I think if you are a trusted editor then I think its safe to say that you would be trusted in other projects too. To conclude I would like to state my reason for my candidature was to help the community. FitIndia Talk Commons 06:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • In 2013 another editor on oc.wikipedia created several thousand stub articles based on Wikidata. I'm curious to know your opinion on this and if stewards should have been more or less involved in the matter. --Rschen7754 19:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I think this is out of the role of steward. As an admin, I was involved in the discussions and debates, and tried to reconciliate the creator, who was just willing to expand the number of articles, but used some methods harming the performance of the systems, and an external steward that just threatened to "nuke" the occitan wikipedia. It appears that both did not use the same English, and this is an issue we have to take care: be sure people understand each other. At the end, the editor just stopped editing, and the remaining few active editors started a long clean-up process to remove a good deal of irrelevant entries. To get back to my opinion on stewardship, for me any issue should be first solved at language community level, and stewards intervene only in case of escalation. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw you have never worked actively in Metawiki before. Are you trusted with the important pages for stewards in Metawiki? --𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the following situation (where is the number of days passed since they were first given adminship):
    • An admin X at a wiki of size . That wiki will grow pretty slowly in the first year and will remain at less than 4000 members in the first year, despite starting with 3000 members.
    • An admin Y at a wiki of size . That wiki started with practically no members but somehow managed to grow really fast, and will cross 40000 members within a year.
  • Now assume you are a steward, and X and Y ask you to give them adminship. At first (when ), what period of adminship would you give to X and Y? If they re-request adminship after one year, what period of adminship would you give then? When (if at all) would you give permanent adminship? You may make any reasonable assumption in your answer. Leaderboard (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, from my point of view adminship rules should be decided at community level. If there is no admin at all, I would grant two years as a first term allowing the admin to organise the community and set up two votes: one for the adminship duration and renewal rules, and one for the confirmation of his own adminship. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good steward would follow the existing consensus, rather than make up their own determinations. There is much practice in place, and learning what is in place, rather than making precipitous decisions can save anyone embarrassment, or have fellow stewards wonder what you are doing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, but if there is no working community, is it not part of the admins' role to try to make it work? In the occitan wp, we are a few number of admins, and I always tried to set up votes and commnity decision making tools to improve the operation. So as a stewart, I would first encourage the admins to help and improve their community. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at your answer to the question by Leaderboard, you are not very familiar of how steward work is done and the related procedures. Considering that, why should we trust you with steward tools? Vermont (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Big powers imply big responsibilities". I know that, I'm 58 and quite aware of my responsibilities. Believe me. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a nonanswer. I'll word it differently: why should we trust you with stewards tools when you have little experience in the areas that stewards work in? Also please remember to indent your replies. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. I'm applying for tha position, how could I gain experience before holding it? Please explain. Best regards, --Jfblanc (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples of areas stewards work in: cross-wiki antivandalism, global RfC's, anti-LTA work, anti-spam work, assisting on various small projects, renaming. It is generally expected that someone applying for steward (extremely advanced tools in those areas) would, at a minimum, have some familiarity and observable experience with them. It is not required to be a steward to help in these areas. I restate my question. Vermont (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • You have a lot of roles (and steward would definitely be more workload than OC). I'm not so much concerned about the conflict of interest part as the workload/time aspect, especially if you have a sudden life change that requires you to cut back on time for Wikimedia. Have you considered how you would manage all of these roles? --Rschen7754 19:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's not a place here where I should go into very detail, but people who know me perhaps will confirm that I had several serious life changes in the past three years, which for sure influenced my activity but didn't break anything. In contrast to groups with a limited member count and who act as a group, like OC or arbcom, the number of stewards is not limited and colleagues are able to take over incomplete tasks at any time, should there arise any need. All in all I see no real problem in the point you raised, and I can commit to giving back stewards rights as soon as I turn out to be unable to remain active. --Krd 19:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember you because you were responsible for alienating and purge a lot of members of the Dutch community from including myself from OTRS without even bothering to inform the affected people. Currently the Dutch OTRS queues are understaffed. Would handle this the same way today? Multichill (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not fair: Krd did this based on a policy the OTRS admins supported as a whole. You cannot hold him by himself responsible for that. Trijnsteltalk 20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The often quoted "purge" of members in the beginning of 2016 was the enforcement of the previously existing activity policy, not made by me (but supported by me), and all users have got reminder e-mails months ahead. Everybody was and is welcome to request access back at any time per access policy.
    It was agreed on later (also by me) that the wording of the reminder e-mails was not optimal, and rewording has taken place later on OTRS wiki. I have apologised at that time for some communication flaws.
    I still consider the enforcement of the activity policy correct. OTRS membership, like stewardship, is not a life time role but strictly connected to activity in that area. --Krd 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the differences between local CU and steward CU? Do stewards check the necessity of CU requests? If yes, how do they check it (especially when they are not familiar with the language)? Thanks for your time.--Tiger- (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All CU check must be within boundaries of the relevant policies, and I think in most cases, if not all, it will be required to understand the request before performing any check. --Krd 16:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are elected as steward, will you be adding granting OTRS global group to users rather than making requests on SRGP?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there will be enough other work, so this can remain with other stewards. --Krd 14:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two question. First question, what has changed since this mistake User_talk:Bonaditya#idwiki_contact_address, will you do the same mistake with other language? Second question, I notice you have no relevant SWMT-CVN-Smallwiki experience, and I still think you are inexperienced in this area, like understanding why LTA Isechika (Japanese LTA) is doing something terrible on every wiki and why we have to be serious when addressing this one particular LTA, and special case LTA like LTA Kage (Chinese LTA) and why we have to take this one particular LTA seriously just like isechika, and I think you probably clueless what this two LTA did. And I will ask this to you, do you have confidence that tells you that you have experience in global Countervandalism works on language you have no clue at all? You said this line "which could be easily revolved by completely abstaining from the issue" on your statement, did you notice you can not evade this responsibility to handle serious case as what this two LTA did as stewards, what can you do to convince me that you have enough experience in CVN to handle this kind of problem? Thank you.--AldnonymousBicara? 08:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the first question, I said I made a copy&paste mistake there, and nothing has changed since then, mistakes still can happen.
    For the second question, I don't have any intention to convince anybody. My application is, as stated, an offer to assist at some areas and perhaps to develop into related areas. If you are uncomfortable with that, or there are better candidates, please oppose. --Krd 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are elected as a steward, how will a typical day of your stewardship be like? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ask a bit more precise. --Krd 15:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the prompt response, I just wish to know what exact steward tasks will you be likely doing? I deliberately make this open-ended as to give more space to answer --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a gave a sharp description in my Statement, so please specify what you are missing. --Krd 15:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am sorry I am vauge. I mean you said "My activity as Steward would likely be a little bit of everything with some focus on steward requests at meta and the stewards queue on OTRS. ", can you elaborate on the 1st part what stewards requests you will be handling as well as you mentioned you will be doing some CU. The bulk of SRCU are from languages you don't understand, will you be comfortable with handling those? Thanks for your answers.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I said already that I can only handle requests I understand. That is not a question but a natural principle. In the history of the last month I see request I would be able to handle on nearly all Stewards requests pages, and I'd intend to work into any of them, as time permits and until a natural specialization starts to happen.
    I have been involved in crosswiki CU requests and participated in related case discussions on IRC and the cu-l, I have requested global locks on LTA socks and asked for additional checks on other wikis. I don't say this happens too often, I don't say I'm in the top-10 with such issues, but I still think I can be of some use in that area. --Krd 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Scheepmans[edit]

Questions are welcome in English, French or Portuguese - Les questions sont les bienvenues en anglais, français et protugais - As perguntas são bem-vindas em inglês, francês e português.

  • How do you exactly plan to contribute if you are a steward? That is, what areas would you most likely work in and why? Leaderboard (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's say there is a local CheckUser on a project who is copying the CU data on a cloud-sync notes (i.e. Evernote, iCloud Memo, etc etc), and you just heard about it on local meetups. What would you do in this case? — regards, Revi 14:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that strengthens trust considerably. Theoretical question or serious background? -- Toni Müller (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Leaderboard, thanks for your question. As I am not English native speaker, neither accustomed as you to Stewards affairs, could you please avoid using English acronyms ? I don't know what do you mean by "CU". Best, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 10:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lionel Scheepmans: CU is short for CheckUser, I hope this helps you answer the above question. ~riley (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh thanks ~riley ! Sorry, It was so obvious. I was thinking about specific computational information named "CU" close to "CPU" acronym or other ... Well, for the first question, coming from Leaderboard, I'll take my time and continue as I'm doing right now to read all information about CheckUser rule and task and I will also checked behaviours and discussions of previous people who did the job for a certain time. I'm quite well inform about sysop admin task and rule in practice, I pretty know well the task and rule of all statues of Wikimedians actors in theory and through various observations. But I still have to learn in practice lot of thinks before to feel really comfortable on every circumstances. The second question is a good example about a case than I'll seek about information advises and help before acting anything. In this specific case, my first reflex should be to share the information on private chanel with other persons involved in the management of such situation and see after discussion how can I help as (new) Steward. So the previous step is to know about private chanel and specific place where I can found advises and help when I'm front of a new or very touchy situation. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider two wiki projects A and B, where is the number of days passed since admins C and D (respectively) were first given adminship. You may assume that 80% of all users support the candidate at any given time.
Wiki A has members, with members supporting or opposing the user at any given time.
Wiki B has members, with members supporting or opposing the user at any given time.
Now assume that C and D come to you and ask them to give adminship. At first (when ), what period of adminship would you give to X and Y? If they re-request adminship after one year, what period of adminship would you give then? When (if at all) would you give permanent adminship? You may make any reasonable assumptions in your answer. Leaderboard (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionel Scheepmans: Yes, why should I not be? (If you have difficulty understanding anything on what I wrote, please let me know). Leaderboard (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is clearly unanswerable if a candidate doesn't have good grasp of maths, I will hope a graph be given alongside the equations, that will be easier to understand. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Leaderboard, so let's start a mathematical workshop . The indication is not clear to me. What's 1.2 and 1.4 mean and come from ? Also, I don't know how to deal with natural logarithm. That's out of my curricular background. But I'm always interested to learn something new ! If you can guide me a bit, I'll be happy to give you and answer to your mathematical problem. But before this, I can already tel you than if 80% of all users support both candidate A and B in respective projects, that's a clear position in favour of their nominations and It could probably only happen on small projects. From a certain size, just a small or restricted part of all project's users participates in the vote of adminship designation. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionel Scheepmans: I'll provide some values then, would that help? A starts with 50 members and has around 1230 members after a year, while B starts with 25 members and has around 4000 members after a year. Only one member gives an opinion on C for wiki A at first, but there are around 38 members that will give an opinion after a year. Correspondingly, for D in Wiki B, while 3 users comment on D at first, 7 users comment after a year. Please let me know if more information is required. Leaderboard (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leaderboard, either we do some mathematics and you give me an equation to solve (it's weird but why not), or we talk about a concrete situation that must necessarily be intelligible by any internet user, otherwise it already poses a first problem in terms of project governance than a steward needs to solve before doing anything. But so far, things seem very confusing to me and I don't see clearly what you are getting at. I don't think that an online editorial project governed by people communicating, building rules and making decisions based on mathematical formulas is something that could never happen in the Wikimedia movement. And I'm candidate to be Steward on the Wikimedia movement not in a secret mathématic society .
So, give me the rule of the community concerning the adminship (here an exemple : Incubator:Administrators ), give me the situation and what you want to know in words understandable by all Internet user, and it will be a pleasure to give you my answere. Best regards, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty abyss[edit]

  • I guess I'll start with the elephant in the room. Stewards/Confirm/2019/Mentifisto - what would you do differently during that confirmation? Do you believe that your activity during the last several years of your steward term was adequate? --Rschen7754 01:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, clearly I should have let it take its course more than turn it into a discussion necessarily, but I desired conversation (and still think some is needed) for the reason to your latter question, as there does not seem to be an existent indicator of what is adequate, i.e. how long a piece of string is. --Lofty abyss 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote back then that There is much more work for stewards to do than there is time to accomplish it... For me, the question is what you are contributing and what you want to do with the steward tools. Once you have the answers to those questions, the activity comes naturally. What are you going to contribute? What do you want to do with the steward tools? Does this make sense? --Rschen7754 02:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but of course that implies relativity, which is subjective, and so not everyone will agree that what individuals want to do is adequate, which is why I think a conversation should be encouraged that forms a consensus on such adequacy. There is more than enough to do with spambots alone, but I think it's LTAs that should really be stopped as soon as possible... --Lofty abyss 02:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you going to balance steward and local projects sysops, oversighter as well as checkusers responsibilities? I am especially interested in Simple English Wikipedia roles. Thank you. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I monitor various RC feeds and respond when appropriate mostly, so I'll continue as I did in the past year with the keyword additions from the years previously. I usually check the speedy deletion category on simple after checking a recent ping. --Lofty abyss 05:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain and/or change your language abilities? As I have understood you are not a clear native speaker in Maltese. Trijnsteltalk 20:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only as much as I don't specialize in it, perhaps -n needs to be levelled too, as people would inevitably have varying abilities, native familiarities are strange (also with regards to reading/speaking differences). --Lofty abyss 05:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, back then you said you could only speak it, not read it. So that doesn't make you a native speaker. In fact, I doubt if you understand it at all. With this babel list you give people the impression you speak more than one language other than English, while you're in fact a native English speaker. That's why I ask you to either remove it or change it to something like mt-1 or mt-2. Thank you. Trijnsteltalk 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-wiki they explained the situation. I still feel the babel should be changed a bit, but it makes much more sense now. Trijnsteltalk 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This ultimately revolves around the conception of nativity, which is never spoken about just like the above situation with regards to the adequacy of activity. As it is people simply state that they're either native or not, with no qualifications as to the degrees at which they're proficient... while I wouldn't mind appending some number it would be a oddity, surely, if only I did it, and while I (humbly, but as you also mention) think I might have a native-level understanding of English (which 4 seems to be about, with 5 pointing towards a professional usage, and not native, which pushes native speakers outside of this numbered system) my accent would sadly give me away... so, to re-iterate, in the end, this seems to be a systemic issue, and if people generally seem to think it's a problem (but otherwise, how else is the babel system verified? I guess we could have tests to see if people pass at a certain point), but in the end, as it is, people have numbers and, as with the adequacy of activity above, they're relative, and even different people's babel systems are distinct based on how those people see their skills as (e.g. personally too, in once thinking that I even had a -1 level of Latin, when in reality I could only understand where a few words came from etymologically due to my slightly more advanced knowledge of Italian, which in turn allowed me to understand other Romance languages including Latin, like Spanish and perhaps a few words of Romanian, but I'm not sure it even qualified as a 1, as otherwise even the few words of Japanese I know would be that, so instead I put that note about Romance languages generally, which I suppose could even be applied just a slight bit to Arabic, considering the etymology of mt, but it's spoken at a much faster rate, so can barely even understand the few words I perhaps can with French or so).
    So, this is why I suggest it's a systemic problem if indeed people generally think it is a problem, but otherwise I'm merely following the format of the pre-established system, although I wouldn't be opposed to some form of testing to find out a more accurate representation of people's knowledge of languages. --Lofty abyss 19:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Question: Why did you change your username last March? Taivo (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply tired of it, thirteen years is long enough for most things... --Lofty abyss 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Urbanec[edit]

  • The WMF has come into conflict with the community lately on some large wikis. How do you plan to handle any potential conflicts of interest in this area? --Rschen7754 19:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are one of the few users that I know of who became a CU as a minor. What is your opinion on that - should the minimum age remain 18, be lowered or removed entirely? If it should remain at 18, what do you think should be needed if an underage user wants to become a CU? Leaderboard (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your question, Leaderboard. For the record, let me state I haven't participated in figuring out the process outlined at Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy/Underage_exemptions, and all what I say here is my personal opinion. I believe the limit should stay at 18, as it is now. The exemption, among other things, splits responsibility for CU use among minor checkuser, their parents and the Foundation. To answer the second part of your question, I believe the current process is well-made. It mandates careful scrutiny by both the Foundation, and the community (in usual election/selection process), and it is quite unlikely both would accept a candidate who is not to be exceptionally trusted. Does that answer your question? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think stewards should be open to assisting large wikis when something falls within steward scope, such as a well known cross-wiki LTA that has only edited on a large project on the current account? TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the question, TonyBallioni. Even if a cross-wiki LTA is (with their current account) editing (and abusing) only one wiki, they're still a hot candidate for a global lock. If their edits at the other project appear constructive, I would think a hundred times before doing any kind of action, and ping regulars of that particular project, and/or consult with other stewards. Does that answer your question? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think your role concerning WMF will have a conflict of interest with your steward career? --5LZ 08:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello 5LZ, thanks for your question. Not in day-to-day work. As I said in my statement, my role at the Foundation is to communicate with members of Czech Wikipedia. That project is my homewiki (which means no steward actions should be made by me there). The Foundation has its own teams for doing things on-wiki (Trust and Safety and Office IT), so they don't need to make their staff members to do things on-wiki in their volunteer capacity. Does that answer your question? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Martin Urbanec: Would you be willing to resign from your position as a Steward if you were to ever receive a promotion or the nature of your employment with the WMF ever changes substantially? –MJLTalk 23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello MJL, thanks for the question. I would like to mention that I'm not on a full time – my actual workload is about 5 hours a week, and the contract permits me to bill up to 10 hours a week. If that changes, I would update my WMF user page, and notify the stewards, as well as the community. I don't see a reason why I should resign as a steward upon taking a fulltime position in the WMF, like a software engineer. There is no crossover between the roles of a software engineer and a steward, and also the community doesn't seem to see that as a problematic thing. On the other hand, if offered a role in the T&S departament, I would feel obliged to choose to be either a steward, or T&S employee, since T&S indeed does "governance" (meaning "not forced by technical circumstances") on-wiki actions, just as the stewards do. Other positions within the WMF sometimes do need to do an on-wiki action, but those are forced by some technical circumstances, like a protected template is slowing down the site, or the format of the Spam blacklist changes, and needs to be updated - those aren't really governance actions, but just technical ones, without which the wiki usually breaks in some way. With regards to a possible promotion, the same applies - I don't see how even being the CTO brings a conflict of interest, as no one from the technology dept touches the wiki for governance actions, merely technical, uncontroversial ones, and even that is rare. I hope this answers your question. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • The WMF has come into conflict with the community lately on some large wikis. How do you plan to handle any potential conflicts of interest in this area? --Rschen7754 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully there's little risk of COI given my role as a mere engineer, but if I were to run into this I'd simply refrain from taking any questionable actions, engaging in relevant discussions, and so forth. I don't expect many problems as my focus has always been counter-vandalism, where there's little to be questioned. MusikAnimal talk 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you think your technical ability can help in improving steward workflow? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I touched on this a little bit above. That aside, I haven't experienced the technical frustrations stewardship can bring, so I don't know exactly what I would work on. I have unfinished work on some steward tools that I hope to revisit, though I was planning to do so regardless. I think part of the slow turnaround is that I haven't fully appreciated the value of these tools as someone who doesn't use them. To be clear, I'm not implying I should be a steward solely for software I might write, and I can't make any promises either. But I certainly enjoy writing automation, and stewardship would bring some motivation to find areas for improvement. MusikAnimal talk 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Glad to see you run. Some may think the quick progression from meta sysop and GS to stewards all in less than 6 months is too rush and you may lack in depth experience, what will you say to allay their concerns? I quite like your general questions above, let me give you a personal one. What is the policy in wikimedia projects that is your favourite and why? All the best :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the direct question, Camouflaged Mirage. Concern for quick progression is certainly valid; trust is earned and usually not in a short period of time. I view global sysop and meta admin as a package; meta is the hub for coordinating wikis and unlike local admin on other projects, meta admin rights have global effects (edit the title and spam blacklists, modify global abusefilters, send mass messages globally and more) that integrate seamlessly into the toolset of global sysops.
    • While you can view it from a "rush" and "lack in depth experience" perspective, we have to remember that it is common for stewards to go from local admin to steward, often without Meta admin, global rollback and global sysop experience. By holding meta and global sysop, I will have more crosswiki experience in deletion and blocking than any other candidate runnning by the time voting starts. By subjecting myself to going through the election process for these user rights, rather than trying to skip right to steward, I also have demostrated that I am qualified and have both the local and global community's trust and respect as it pertains to those rights. I also draw from years of experience as a content admin, like other candidates, that I bring to the table.
    • It is hard for me to pick a specific policy or guideline, as they usually only pertain to one specific project. If I had to pick one favourite, it would be the Founding principles. No, this is not a policy, however, the founding principles guide the creation of policies across all projects. For those who are not familiar with them, they have a good amount of overlap with the English Wikipedia's five pillars. At the end of the day, there is not always going to be a policy or guideline in place (especially with smaller projects). That said, if we edit with the founding principles in mind, which act as an "overarching goal", we should all get along just fine. ~riley (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can you cite GS experience when you've been a GS for two days? Vermont (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My wording is not misleading, it is clear and intentional. To repeat, the only reference I have made to GS experience is "I will have more crosswiki experience in deletion and blocking than any other candidate runnning by the time voting starts." BRP has since applied for steward, but the statement stands true if we look at the other 11 non-GS candidates. ~riley (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards are one of the most trusted users who can edit all user rights. They deal with requests for advanced permissions such as CU, OS and manage global rights. Let's assume a scenario where an user is applying for an advanced right without having any/much prior knowledge and experience about the right whatsoever. He/she has high statuses on some Wikimedia projects, and apparently they barely meet the criteria of applying for the advanced right. It is clear the requestee is not a hat collector and they have clear intention of helping out. Some fellow experienced contributors have tried to communicate with the applicant, and asked him/her questions about his/her request. But the requestee was unable to understand their words and answered with vague responses. The request ended up holding opposition by the majority. As the closing Steward of the request, how would you deal with it? How would you explain the reason for declining the request for right to him/her while not discouraging the requestee from applying for the right in near future when they will have more experience? I am not referring to any specific permission, you are free to assume as you want. To be honest, I myself do not know the answer to this question I am asking, since I do not usually deal with permission related requests. Masum Reza📞 10:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not uncommon at SRGP to get applicants that either do not understand the role or the requirements for the permissions they are requesting. I think it is important to be mindful when closing these requests because while they may not be ready today, they could be our future global rollbacker, sysop, steward, etc. Ultimately, I am not one to sugercoat, however, I would ensure that while closing the request, I am intentional in my wording. For example, a closure statement such as "There is no consensus to grant this permission at this point in time. User is recommended to follow the recommendations/advice outlined below by the community and re-apply at a later point in time once enough experience is gained" seems most appropriate. It is objective, neutral, but not critical. At the end of the day, any failed request is going to be disappointing but we can reduce how discouraging it is. ~riley (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What have you learned from your 2013 incident? Do you think it is the time that the community will trust you again?--GZWDer (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a mistake seven years ago and what I learned from this incident can be summed up in one edit. The community demonstrated that any loss of trust was restored four years ago when I returned to working with the Account Creations and OTRS teams. While you are more than welcome to ask this question, I think it is worth mentioning the last two admins that made the same mistake as me went on to run for steward without their same mistake being brought up as it just wasn't relevant. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the English Wikipedia, you have a bunch of rights that when collectively considered, are not far off from that of an administrator. Why is that (i.e, why not just apply for adminship)? More generally, do you approve of users and wikis (in general) having/allowing multiple smaller rights that when pieced together, would constitute a significant portion of the administrator toolset? Leaderboard (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I don't have a clear use case for permissions, I don't believe in applying for them. While I am involved in a few areas on the English Wikipedia such as content creation, account creations and countervandalism, I don't currently have a need for access to the full admin toolset. If that changes in the future, I will apply for adminship there but for now, I have what I need to do the job.
    • Permissions are assigned to users on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it is more appropriate a user have the admin toolset, and in others, it is more appropriate they have multiple smaller rights. I support allowing multiple smaller rights over adminship as often a user has the need for multiple permissions but does not have the need, activity or community's trust to hold the full admin toolset. By allowing multiple smaller rights, we can still enable non-admins with the tools they need to do their work. ~riley (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think stewards should be open to assisting large wikis when something falls within steward scope, such as a well known cross-wiki LTA that has only edited on a large project on the current account? TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, stewards should be open to assist any project, large or small, when something falls within their scope. Stewards are a collobrative group and this collobration extends to other functionaries (i.e. CUs) on other projects. Keywords to highlight are "within scope", the example you have provided is in scope due to the LTA's cross-wiki nature. ~riley (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your statement, you tell that you became comfortable helping editors that speak many different languages as it is a diverse multi-lingual project. Can you provide one or more examples where you helped someone in another language than English? --AFBorchert (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi AFBorchert, as I know you speak German, here is a short example of a ticket helping a German speaker in the commons OTRS queue. The most complicated ticket I brought to a close, involving both permissions verification/unblock, was in Russian. I was requested to help as a Commons admin for the unblock aspect when the ticket made no progress for a significant period of time. That request can be read here. I am rather proud of this one because it's been three years and the user is still editing. There is also a french one here from last week, I have yet to get a response back on that one though. Another complicated ticket that I was requested to be involved in was this one in Dutch, I was happy to be able to bring it to a close after lots of research and consultation. I always preface that the language is something I am weak in (out of respect for the client) and if at any point there is a communication disconnect or misunderstanding, I seek a native user to assist. I think it's also important to note that I throughly read through all aspects of a request, as a non-native reader can easily find themselves handling a request they do not fully understand. I think I have spent enough time digging back to find examples, but I think as a Commons admin you might agree that it is also an active part of the job when handling Commons:[un]Deletion requests to assess votes/arguments that are sometimes in different languages to assess their weight/validity. ~riley (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for responding ~riley. I just checked the German-language ticket. It was a nice response but unfortunately you misunderstood the problem as it was related to de:wp but not to Commons. Unfortunately this ticket was moved to the wrong queue. I've taken care of it now. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears there was problems on more than one project. As all indicators pointed to Commons (subject line references commons, in commons queue, corresponding admin action on commons), I only dealt with that concern as there was no indicator that there was an outstanding issue on dewiki (i.e. blocked, etc.). If they followed up with questions regarding dewiki, or linked to their dewiki user talk page (which I am reading now), those issues could have been addressed as well. Thanks for helping the client, AFBorchert, as they work to resolve the dewiki concerns. :) ~riley (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @~riley: I don't know how to put this without sounding mean... but you took a few actions at Sco.wiki that I'd like an explanation for:
    You requested deletion for w:sco:Scottish Seabird Centre. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the effort, but you could have just restored the article.
    I also would like to know why you didn't give a warning in response to their three article creations (all of which you deleted). The same thing with TV_Tokyo because that user went on to create the same nonsense article a second time.
    As for Hoist_(device), why did you manually request deletion for the article only to then just delete it yourself later?
    I don't know. I appreciate the help with anti-vandalism work, and nothing you did was wrong. I know you have been a great local admin on Meta, but I would like to know what I should expect from you as a Steward. Kindest Regards, –MJLTalk 21:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi MJL, this doesn't sound mean at all! While the most appropriate place to ask about GS actions is on my talk page, I am happy to have this conversation here as well. In regards to the first article, I interpretted the text "See Scottish Seabird Centre entry" to mean there is another article for it elsewhere (duplicate) and therefore the page was eligible for deletion. I am happy a local admin was able to investigate and identify otherwise. In regards to the edits by - SWMT rarely leaves warnings as we do not speak the local language (unless we are using a tool like SWViewer that has the warnings built int). We leave this to local admins because if the user does respond to our template warning, we probably won't be able to understand them anyways. As for why I tagged an article and then proceeded to delete it? This was before I had a script enabled that displayed if it was a GS wiki or not. After confirming it was a GS wiki and eligible, I proceeded to delete. I rather tag it and then come back to delete than make a hasty deletion on a project where I am not permitted to use my tools per policy. As a steward, you can expect me to be cautious using my tools as there is already a great enough risk for human error. ~riley (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear ~riley, I know that you have a busy life, but I feel that a long time attacking trolls has made you someone who only writes to scold others. How could you convince me that this situation could improve?. Thanks for your answer --Wilfredor (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Wilfredor, I realize our experiences haven't been positive and I can't expect we would have a positive relationshop after the block I placed against you for editing at over 1,000 edits per minute. Let me start out by saying thank you for giving me the chance to answer this question, rather than immediately opposing me based on our recent interactions. I am not known to have a reputation for "someone who only writes to scold others", and I try to exemplify otherwise through my work helping users between noticeboards to IRC to OTRS. We all know that tone is lost through text, and this is something I know I struggle with at times. As I am so straight forward and to the point, it can easily come across more negative than intended. Combine that with being disappointed with your actions, because you are so experienced and trusted, I can understand how our interaction came across as scolding. This would be an instance of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" where the more you trust someone, the more you are disappointed when they screw up. I don't make promises, but I can assure you that I will remember this interaction moving forward when confronting experienced editors and will be able to take from what I learned in our interaction and apply it. ~riley (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ~ryley, nice to see a fellow British Columbian on here, and running for Steward. I really have no idea what sort of question to ask, but I've noticed that on the Commons, particularly, there's a significant backlog of deletion discussions and image tagging to be reviewed. What do you think would be the best way to clear the backlog?
  • Should the Commons, or other wikis other than popular English Wikipedia, consider unbundling the delete user right to non-admin experienced editors, to help clear the backlog?;
    1. Should we streamline the RfA process at the Commons somehow?; or,
    2. Something else?
And, secondly, if you don't mind me asking, from what region of British Columbia do you hail? --Dmehus (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dmehus! While I do have my opinions on improving processes on Commons, which I am happy to discuss on my Commons talk page in my role as a local admin, this is something that is outside the role of a steward as it falls on local community consensus to improve community processes. As Commons is one of my homewikis, the conflict of interest clause noted in steward policy would also be something I would have to consider here. I hope you can understand and respect that it is most appropriate that I am not commenting on this further in my role as a steward candidate. It is nice to meet another BC'er! I was born in Metro Vancouver, but currently live in Northern BC. ~riley (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ~riley Fair enough, and I can completely appreciate there would be a conflict of interest policy for Stewards in terms of separating their role as global stewards and administrators on local projects, so I'll reach out to you separately (are you known globally as ~riley?) on your Commons talk page. Thanks for letting me know from which part of B.C. you are in. I was born, and still live, in the Kelowna area. That said, I see no reason to oppose your nomination so will support it. I'm kind of surprised, though, how little profile these annual Steward elections get relative to English Wikipedia ArbCom elections. Dmehus (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Apart from Global Renamer, what other global experience you had which can justify us handing you the trust to be a good Steward? Such edits will show that you may not be really familiar with global work. You said the worst thing is being inactive removed, will you forsee yourself being inactive in this year?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question. First of all, I don't plan on being inactive (and I've never been), otherwise it would have been quite silly of me to offer an unexistent help. However, since I believe no one is born a steward or anything else, I take into account the possibility that I could perform an insufficient amount of technical actions and not fit the role as much as the community would like me to do. I would rather be removed for that reason than frantically do stuff in order to appear confident and competent as other stewards are. Apart from global renamer, I fear that I cannot show you proof of consistent involvement in global activites. Main reason being my impatience in dealing with vandals without proper tools. It's very hard for me to be online and wait for stewards' or local sysops' intervention while, for instance, someone shifts their focus on me and exploits tools to undo hundreds of my edits on Wikidata per minute, constantly increasing my ping counter and spamming at the same time sexual pics on my talk pages. Global experience should stem from the knowledge of local projects and their necessity to cooperate without interfering with each other for a one-sided benefit. Provided that one has the right perspective, more experience can be safely gained along the way. About that diff, I warned the user that they underestimated an extremely gross username about a Japanese voice actress that I was in the process of reporting on IRC per instructions. If that username grosses me out, I can't imagine how gross it would appear to the Japanese who are renowned for politeness. I accept criticism, but I think that diff should be hidden and not given more visibility.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thankful for your willingness to serve. For the pings, I will suggest you to disable pings, I also hate the countless pings. About the diff, it is perfectly fine to report such names to SRG as long as the parameter |hidename=1 is there, we do report such username regularly there, there is nothing wrong for it. I think the user is also significantly well experienced globally not to make such a mistake as he is a Global Rollbacker and Global Sysop. If your idea is that you are impatient and want vandals to be stopped, I suggest applying for GS, GR or meta sysop which will help awaiting sysops. I hope you don't take my question and this follow up negatively, as all my questions here, I am not faulting any candidate but just wanting to know the candidate better. Regards, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, don't worry. I just disagree. At the time, I didn't know the user was a global sysop, but even if I had known I would have done it again. The instructions are very clear about this matter and say not to post grossly insulting usernames on that page. If that name isn't, then I don't know what a grossly insulting username would be. It is recommended to report these accounts privately, not even on the public channel. Also, the parameter hidename exists on local projects, as well. It is useful to hide colorful language, but it doesn't prevent stuff from casually coming up during searches, possibly now or in the future also as cross-wiki results on Wikimedia sites. We should follow best practices rather than what experienced users do.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, however, I need to put on record I am not satisfied with this answer. Just to be clear, I clearly deal with ISECHIKA socks quite regularly, and I am quite aware of the modus operandi of the socks. I had personally reported many of such accounts to stewards (both at SRG as well as personally, and had asked for oversight for their content across several wikis which are granted). I clearly know what danger this LTA posses.
    The usage of hidename parameter in SRG clearly suffices, we had people attacking stewards, admins, and global users reported with this parameter. We routinely have derogatory / even death threats account being reported with hidename parameters. We cannot possibly use a steward ping for every such account, nor personal message as if you are monitoring how often this kind of username appears, it's overwhelming.
    To the point that we should follow best practices rather than what experienced user do, yes, I agree. I do not shy away from correcting any other users irregardless of whether they are experienced or not. However, we must know what the best practices are, which comes from experience. At times, a lack of experience will make us think it is the best practices where it isn't.
    To be fair, the instructions can be clearer, but there is nothing to the point that the report is overtly inappropriate that needs a warning. If the person did not use the hidename parameter, yes, I will warn also and ask for RD. With all respect, I just feel that your experience in this area is lacking. Regards, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that there is a huge difference between insults to us users and insults to public figures, basically you are saying that we should deliberately keep gruesome, disgusting usernames on that page just because that is the common practice of some users that you claim to be 'experienced' and apparently know what's best. As I disagree and comply with instructions, to you that would be a sign of inexperience. Well, I guess that's one way to put it. To me it just seems you're highlighting another issue to address. Since you think that the amount of such usernames is overwhelming, have you tried to ask for help and discuss about it anywhere? As a convenient solution, we could make it possible to easily report these accounts by their user id. Or, we could see if someone else comes up with additional ideas. There is no reason to resign ourselves to the way things currently are. Let's start a discussion in the near future :-) Regards,--Sakretsu (炸裂) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that we should keep these names, I am saying hidename parameter is sufficient enough for most situations. We had attack names on public figures too but not hidden (SUL) at times. I am not saying we deliberately put these names there, to be crystal clear. To be honest, we had so much global work to be done, and asking for help for an issue that the hidename parameter sufficiently address it will just take up time for other issue. Your user id idea is good and novel, however, not all users will know how to get user ID or and it will just make the lock process even more complicated. I am willing to start a conversation soon, nonetheless. Yeah, we do not need to resign ourselves to the status quo, but at times there is a fine line of balance between efficiency and protection. Well wishes and I appreciate this conversation with you Sakretsu. Appreciate the time you spent in this. :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steward toolset include global rollbacker rights. Doesn't it imply that a Steward candidate should have that right? I wonder what you think. Could you also clarify the reason for not running for global rollbacker? Are you saying that you don't have enough crosswiki experience? Masum Reza📞 02:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thanks for the question. In my opinion, the rollback feature itself is no big deal. Everybody can have it and achieve the same result on any project by putting their global common.js to use. Ironically, the most valuable rights which make the flag worth asking for are the other ones currently assigned to the group. No, rollback doesn't require any particular cross-wiki experience. As a sysop on a large project, I know how to use it, and I'm very annoying to other users on my home wiki whenever they misuse it. Moreover, it doesn't take long to read and understand the global policy (this section included), which is based on common sense. Unfortunately, these rights are only useful to clean up vandalism, and do not truly help fight the distracting amount of harassment you gain from such activity. A steward is not necessarily a full-time global patroller but rather a trusted user who can make good use of multiple tools to work and provide assistance on several fronts.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • To answer all questions, let me sum it up in this one answer. Firstly, pardon my English. I want to be steward is not because I want to make trouble or to get overpowered. Well I am in good condition in Malay Wikipedia and it is easy for me to manage things because I am supervisor there. But what I am concerned is I want to upgrade the condition of other Malay-related Wikimedia projects (such as Wiktionary). The Malay community is becoming bigger as we put our effort to invite them to edit Wikipedia and other related project through out meetups and collaborations we're done offline. And also more social media users now take interest to actually edit Malay Wikipedia as it first started in 2002 and it's peak on 2008 before it's downfall around 2010. So as I am seeing this increasing popularity in Malay Wikipedia, why not I am promoting other Wikimedia-related projects. Me as a vice president in Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia, this is why most of the members really want to take the next step by making all Malay incubators and small projects to its standard, so I need to take thier concern into action. But the OG supervisors (they are not in our community user group) not really into our movement so I have to take any chances to get myself atop and help flourishing this community, especially Malay community.

    Most supervisor there are not very active or some not active at all (some stated they already leaving Malay Wikipedia and discarded their admin rights but not in other small Wikimedia projects such as Wiktionary). So to actually get promote in small projects are really a hassle because the community is very small or none at all (If I am not announce it in Malay Wikipedia, no one will know). I know this promotion thing can be done by requesting in Steward_requests but for only 3+ months were very short to actually do cleanup and upgrade any systems in the project (I already requested it as stated here: Steward_requests/Permissions/2015-05#SNN95.40mswikt). And I need to do the same process all over again so then I can get the access to the rights again. Well it is really like I am broke the rules and regulation to the steward rights. But the lack consensus and involvement from the community make this supervisor/bureaucrat rights a hassle to achieve. I hope I am not making this as bad as you all thought. I am really want to help my community in small projects that they already not in care. If I got this steward access, I can give access to any of potential users that really following our movement, the Wikimedia 2030 movement. SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 10:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SNN95: So it sounds like you want to become steward to get around the rules for becoming bureaucrat on your homewiki? --Rschen7754 19:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: It is sound kinda fishy, but trust me, I don't have the intention to do bad things using steward rights. I am just want to do what I can't to my homewiki especially small projects. I read thoroughly of what steward can and cannot do, and what their main job other than helping small communities. SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 06:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SNN95: Have you read Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest? You are basically stating that you are running for steward to violate the steward policy. --Rschen7754 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: As stated in the policy, I am not intented to do such things. I have no blocked in other wiki for now, and about changing rights on home wikis – I will do this only in non-active community projects, and I don't know if this need consesus or voting (and granted the rights within certain amount of time as I got in mswikt); OR that statement meant I can't changing their rights after certain consesus or voting. I might misunderstood this, but if that statement means that I can't do anything after consesus or voting, well I can't say anything more. But as long I can do that in other project languages, it's ok for me. SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 08:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well lets look at your userpage on ms.wp shall we? ms:Pengguna:SNN95, I can see one unfree image there being used for userpages that image is main character from en:fairy tail isn't?, why do you think this is not a violation for fair use rationale? Now I have to assume you have no knowledge at all for file licensing, and assume that you are copyright violator, what can you do about this? Second question, It seems to me you have no experience at all on global related communities (This is not even asking if you have global CVN experience), your statement didn't make any sense since it point to malay-centric attitude, what can you do about this? Thank you.--AldnonymousBicara? 08:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • A devil's advocate question/test: Write an imaginary oppose position and an equally imaginary rebuttal to your candidacy. Masum Reza📞 16:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be honest, you're a global rollbacker, but I'm not sure you have enough cross-wiki experience. By my standards, I think it should be at least a global sysop. I wonder what you think. -- Best regards, advocatus diaboli.
    • Of course, as you think, global sysop is a good standard for cross-wiki activities. Perhaps cross-wiki activity you mentioned primarily means knowledge of LTAs or anti-vandalism. Even though I don't have the same experience as current global sysops, I think I have experience of LTAs or anti-vandalism. Through SWMT activities, I have informed global sysop of the case and seen other cases reported on the #stewards channel. I may meet a case I don't know well. If I meet these cases, I can ask GS for their knowledge. LTA cases are so numerous that they cannot be fully understood, this is the same for GS. And in stewards work list, LTA or anti-vandalism is part, not all. I think I have an understanding of global rename and experience in personal information tools(CU/OS). Also, I believe I have a sensitivity in dealing with personal information. --Sotiale (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. What do you do if you get a request to delete a test page in fr.wikiversity? 2. What do you do when you get a request to delete a test page in it.wikibooks?--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 15:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I do before I request SRM. steward has technical permissions on all wikis. But that doesn't mean stewards can use permissions on all wikis. frwikiversity is not GS wiki(GS wikiset). Also, 3 custodians(sysops) edited on 23 January, and 5 custodians edited on January 2020. There was also a log action yesterday(2020-01-23 12:12). So if this is a test page, I should ask the requestor to contact local sysops or tag it with {{delete}}. itwikibooks is GS wiki, but 2 local sysops edited within a week. the latest edit is 23 January(2020-01-23 16:52), last log action was at 2020-01-22 18:02. Therefore, it is expected that local sysops can handle enough. Same as above, I should ask the requestor to contact local sysops or tag it with {{delete}}. I should not use permissions unless it is very urgent and exceptional, especially if the reason for the request is a test page. --Sotiale (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • You say you want to assist in LTAs. But why aren't you a global rollbacker (this is something I would expect to see if you're on that track)? And if you "plan on helping with the rename requests", why aren't you a global renamer already? What in the steward role would you not be able to do currently (other than locking accounts)? Leaderboard (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been fighting LTAs without the need for global rollback as a checkuser, together with fellow CU's from other wikis and stewards. I've helped track down socks from SacredGeometry333 (talk · contribs), LegolasRoyale (talk · contribs) with help from CU's from enwiki; Carlos Eduardo1989 (talk · contribs) with help from eswiki and stewards, among other LTA's. For that, there was no need for GR. Although lately my SWMT activity dropped, due to personal reasons that dropped my activity in general, when I was active I mostly fought vandalism and spam, for which GR would be useful, but I didn't request it before the drop. However, the reasons for which my activity dropped are no longer in place, and my activity levels will rise to their previous levels again.
    Regarding rename requests, I am not a global renamer due to there being no need for it at ptwiki, my home wiki, as we already have 4 renamers to deal with few requests. As renaming is on the steward toolset, I plan on helping at the queue since I will have the access. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. What do you do if you get a request to delete a test page in tumWiki? 2. What do you do when you get a request to delete a test page in barWiki?--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 09:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At tumwiki, since they have no sysops, I'd proceed with the deletion if I saw that there is merit on the request, such as using a machine translator, or checking if the requesting user is a trusted one. If I had any doubts, I would not delete the page, asking a trusted user for their opinion and/or leaving it to someone who has more knowledge than me about the language.
    As for barwiki, I wouldn't delete any page, as they have active sysops in the last few days, unless it is an emergency that requires immediate action, or needs oversighting. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]