Stewards/Elections 2023/Questions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Warning

The 2023 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]

Uniqueness[edit]

The union of the abilities of all stewards is very large, while the intersection is practically the null set. Considering that you all are versatile and would be able to perform most of the work required, what do you think you can offer as a steward that would help the Wikimedia community the most? As part of your answer briefly comment on whether you think you'll be a generalist or a specialist if you do get elected. Leaderboard (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the question. As I said in my statement, All stewards should be flexible (so versatile) and this implies knowing how to act in various areas of interest. Personally, as a main activity (but obviously not exclusive) I will be more active in smashing spambots and LTAs, but of course I'd also be active in the other areas, as said in my statement, and in community discussions. So I believe all stewards are actually able to be generalists, although of course everyone has their own preferences and deals with a certain thing, so all areas of interest are covered! I personally think I'd be generalist but mainly focused on fighting spambots/LTAs (at least initially). I hope this answers your question. Best --Superpes15 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the question. I stand out most in the field of counter-vandalism, which is what I mainly plan to do in the future, but I will not plan limit myself on this. Of course, I want and am ready to learn something new and gain experience in other areas in order to benefit to the community. Therefore, I think that I'd be generalist, but everything with experience. --❄Mykola❄ 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good team work and a lot of dedication. I enjoy the collaboration and have lots of free time. I suppose every community can benefit from such qualities, Wikimedia included. As for Generalist vs Specialist... I'd like to say generalist so I could truly help wherever I can BUT I know from my decade-long involvement with Wikimedia that I always end gravitating towards mostly "technical stuff", things that tend to offer long term solutions to problems so I'm guessing specialist. — Klein Muçi (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect that I'll be a generalist. I'll work with the existing team to see about implementing any workflow changes to make processes easier to use for contributors. I've been working with abusefilters since they were invented, and may expand those skills in to small wikis that don't have local communities to help reduce project disruption. — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I will help more counter-vandalism and spam. In fact, I have been doing this for a long time, as a global sysop. I am also interested in the activity of small wikis and would like to work more on them. Of course, I will try to gain experience in other areas and help in general.--Turkmen talk 20:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case judgment question[edit]

  • You are looking around SRP. Please read the example below and answer how you, as a steward, will decide (including whether or not to attach the admin bit, if attaching - how long, and why you think so based on the article).

Really serious user@sotialewiki

Status:    In progress

Hi! 완뇽화쉐요! What a wonderful day. I love WP and I am very interested in and have expertise in sotiale language; This is the language of the fairies, which few know. I have a professional degree in this regard. There are over 50 pages with the delete tag here, but there is no admin here right now. This is a serious problem! So I hope you guys give me admin rights permanently. If not, all of this WP's mess is your responsibility! I'm the only editor active there right now. But I promise I will bring people who know this language. Although my edit count on the wiki is 20, I passed the full 14-day RfA, had no opposes, and met all the requirements of the stewards. I've satisfied your requirements, so why not? Thank you in advance. -- REALLY SERIOUS USER (talk) 00:00, 00 January 2023 (UTC)

--Sotiale (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a serious answer, but I need also this information to process the request) Dear Really serious user, I've some problems reaching sotialewiki right now, so could you please tell me how you passed the RfA? No users commented, or were there votes to support? Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Link added) See the newly added link above. --Sotiale (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Oh thanks for your link, now the situation is clearer (no comment in the RFA), so, according to the MVR policy, I gave you the sysop flag for 3 months. To prolong your adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
log: Superpes15 changed group membership for Really serious user@sotialewiki from (none) to administrator (temporary, until 11:14, 16 April 2023)
Semi-serious explanation: In these cases, in projects with few or no users, it often happens to receive requests for admin right on SRP. Generally it's enough to see if the user has global experience or if they already have flags (perhaps on projects in the same language) and are a user without problems of past blocks or history of sockpuppeting. If the user has not flags, not even on projects in the same language, the assessment should also be made on whether they're a recently created user (so it would be potentially dangerous to give them flags) or whether they're an established user who has always globally contributed in compliance with the policies. However, in this case, considering Really serious user as a user with some experience in other projects, even without sysop flags on these projects, imho the benefits of allowing the flags would outweigh the disadvantages, since maintenance and help on little projects like sotialewiki - with no user - is essential, and in any case we could always monitor the user to check if they're abusing the tools. But, since the principle of good faith applies, also especially since the flag would be given only to users who have demonstrated a certain experience and knowledge of the policies, I don't think we will revoke the Really serious user 's rights on sotialewiki. Regarding the local edit count, I'd consider the absolute value of the EC partially, it's very simple to make several continuous minor fixes and reach good numbers in the edit count even in just one hour. In borderline cases, decisions are made by discussing it as a team, there is no rush. Superpes15 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minimum voting requirements guidelines does not provide that there should be votes in support, therefore, if no against votes, temporary rights can be granted for 3 months. Assuming this user has good experience in some other project, it's easier, because I know that the rights were granted to a user who had less than 10 edits, but had a lot in another project. If this is a new user, then if such a request happened to me for the first time, I would not refuse to consult with other stewards, because need to be prepared that there are many illwishers who like to vandalize small magical projects, as SotialeWiki. I witnessed several times that new sockpuppets applied for SRP. Considering this user as experienced in another project and assuming good intentions, as I already written above, temporary administrator rights can be granted for 3 months. At the beginning in would be good to visit sometimes to make sure that Really serious user work are going well --❄Mykola❄ 03:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: Assume good faith, give the minimum temporary adminship you can give (3 months seems like a good start), monitor closely and act accordingly.
Long answer: As some users may remember (press F to doubt), I have had a small number of discussions here on Meta regarding stewards and the language barrier. I'm a strong believer that decisions should come organically and we shouldn't be following orders/policies blindly/bureaucratically. In many small wikis policies tend to be buried down and forgotten with time. Communities move past them, they evolve new ways of dealing with their problems and they never bother to change the policies accordingly. Decisions taken by stewards by following such policies in these cases tend to appear alienated to the respective local communities. The best way would be to engage organically with those communities and then take decisions. It is at this moment that the language barrier presents itself as the biggest hurdle as in the example presented here. Keeping that in mind I believe, as a global project, we should be developing better tools to tackle the language barrier while also creating a stronger inter-language infrastructure/collaboration between all wikis. (Currently, the only tool that we basically have is Google Translate.) Most small wikis tend to stay out of "global matters", only coming at Meta for local requests. These projects also tend to have big cleanup problems, sometimes even more than the FairyWiki above. Sure we can just follow the rules and we can hope some really serious user takes the mop and does their job as they should but in most cases that won't be a long time solution. Keeping an eye on their admin actions is one part of the job, trying to make the said community more active/engaged in general should be what we should ultimately be striving for. — Klein Muçi (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be looking for some more information first. For this fake wiki, I'm assuming it is one of the WMF SUL wikis; but what size is it? Does it have a local community? Does it have local crats? Does it have non-tempoary local admins? Regarding the requester, do they have any experience and or privs on other WMF projects? I'd also be interested to know why there is a large backlog there, if this is a small project are the SWMT/GS's ignoring it for a special reason? — xaosflux Talk 19:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To oversight false vanishing[edit]

I would like to kindly ask all candidates about any users who vanish but still condemn anyone. In case of no local oversighters, how would they respond as stewards?--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. If there are no local oversighters in the project and the content of the page violates one or more of the four points of the Oversight policy, then of course it should and will be suppressed regardless of the right to vanish. --❄Mykola❄ 04:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, according to point 2 of oversight policy, the user created some potentially libelous content to be sudpressed/oversighter and the case is clear, and if no local oversighter (if any) is available, I'll proceed by myself. This applies in any situation stated by policies and not only in the specific case. Obviously any request for a vanish (username anonymization) would be handled by the GRN/STEW. Thanks for this question. --Superpes15 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vanishing" is primarily a courtesy (even when we try to extend it to certain local laws). If I was dealing with a request from a small wiki without a sufficient community for administration, I'd handle the vanishing in accordance with the normal renaming practices - for vanished users this means no longer making contributions with a vanished username, and enforcing that with a block if necessary. As far as any suppression is concerned, I'd handle that in accordance with the oversight policy - that the removal came from a renamed user or not isn't much of a consideration as far as suppression is concerned. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, libelous content should be handled as libelous content, no matter in what form or situation it comes from. But I'd personally refrain myself from dealing with such a situation if I wasn't absolutely forced to do so, choosing instead to find less complex situations to begin with as a new steward. — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to intervene according to clause 2 of the Oversight policy. But I generally think of it as Klein Muçi.--Turkmen talk 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of administrative actions[edit]

In what situations do you think a steward should reverse the actions of a local admin, in their capacity as a steward? What would you do when you see another steward reversing a local admin's action? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 09:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverting sysops action should only happen for real abuses and are generally issues to be resolved locally. In case of very small projects, we should try to talk with the admin and then, eventually, the case could be escalated to the whole team. I don't think such an action should be taken without internal discussion, unless it's an emergency, because the decision-making process of local communities should be preserved. Thanks for this question --Superpes15 (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the question. Stewards should not interfere with the actions of the local administrator. In large Wikis there are other administrators, who can sort out the local situations, except in some emergency where Steward intervention is required. In small projects, where, let's say, there is only one admin and they did some unacceptable action (for example, blocked a user they didn't like), need to talk to the admin himself to understand the situation, or open an RfC, if there is no agreement succeeded. But again, if there is no emergency. --❄Mykola❄ 21:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that the situation seems a bit extreme. Generally speaking, stewards' policies more or less prohibit local actions when there are local admins. Reverting an admin action without first passing through other steps like thoroughly discussing with the local community itself or other stewards would feel like an abuse of power in my moral compass.
    What would you do when you see another steward reversing a local admin's action?
    It depends on what steps were taken before the reverse, how the steward came into that conclusion. If the decision was taken in an organic manner, after thoroughly studying the matter at work and discussing with the local community, I wouldn't do much. If however the decision looks hurried or was taken in a rather bureaucratic manner, I would bring it for discussion with other stewards. — Klein Muçi (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only think of a few rare situations right now such as: emergencies where a local admin may be compromised and causing some major disruption; a situation where the "local admin" is a temporary local admin on a very small project. As a new steward I'd likely consult with my peers first if the situation wasn't causing immediate wide-scale harm. — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am mainly against interfering with local projects. I think it is necessary to respect the experience of the local admins regarding that project. The decision to intervene is best made after a general discussion with the stewards and the local admin, if necessary.--Turkmen talk 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SRG[edit]

What are your views regarding the state of SRG? Since this is a vauge question, these are some of the example responses but do note that the brevity of the responses are intentional to keep this question space nice and trim manageable. (1) SRG is great, there isn't backlogs at all, yeah! (2) Sigh, another long page for me to look at, would expect people not to report every spambot, spambots are irritating. . Thanks for the responses in advance and I thank you for volunteering to run for the thankless noble role of stewards. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this question. In general, there are periods when a page can be really long. But it doesn't annoy me (probably because I also can report spambots one at a time), on the contrary, it makes me want to go and clean up. Maybe it would be good to reform this page a little. For example, make a separate section where urgent requests will reported, so that Stewards can better see what needs to be responded to immediately. --❄Mykola❄ 20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say (3)! SRG is one of the most useful page but, since it contains global (un)(b)lock requests, should be handled with caution. There are more obvious cases, such as spambots and obvious LTAs, while others need to be investigated. Some backlog could be created, due to the amount of requests and the fact that not all of them can be processed immediately. Obviously, it will be one of the pages I'd be active on and I'd try to decrease the backlog, to keep the page as blank as possible, and to process new requests as quickly as possible. Thanks! --Superpes15 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It requires constant attention, and is the type of work that can be easy to burn out on. Having many stewards willing to work on it is necessary. — xaosflux Talk 01:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sure is a long page... But what to do? Police departments can't really tell crime to take days off and neither can we tell vandals (humans or bots) to pause their activity. I believe there isn't much to do beside working on solving those requests. Maybe if we want to go the extra mile we can help some of the communities develop better edit filters and similar tools so some requests could potentially be solved automatically but I'm not sure how much would such an approach really affect the list's length. — Klein Muçi (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen your signature for a long time. Nice to see you again. I think like Xaosflux.--Turkmen talk 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is enormous. So it needs attention 24/7. The great number of stewards to work on that page is required I think. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question - what is your opinion on the following statement: "Some users are overusing SRG by overreporting of minor issues & reporting accounts for "crosswiki abuse" that have edited two major projects that can handle the blocks on their own. This is why some of the backlog exists." -- Amanda (she/her) 01:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that it does happen and am more concerned with the waste of time from the reporter and the stewards than the impact on the backlog. I would be interested in working on some worflow improvements - could be something as simple as a preload form, edit notice, etc - to help guide reporters to be best place for their report. — xaosflux Talk 01:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd partially disagree: SRG contains global (b)lock requests, if a user needs to be g(b)locked (cross-wiki abuse on already 2 projects in this case, and supposed to be active, otherwise they don't need a lock), it can be reported there. Perhaps, the fact that it's not an urgent request in our opinions, could be given by the fact that the request was made some time before, when it was actually more priority. A g(b)lock is always a g(b)lock, whatever the reason. For immediate requests, it's good to use the IRC channel, but for all the others imho it's fair to use SRG. SRG could surely be improved, e.g. to catalog the type of (b)lock required (spambots/LTA/CWA). Obviously, many "borderline" or bad requests can cause some backlog, but I wouldn't blame mainly this situation for all the backlog. Thanks! --Superpes15 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be happening but nevertheless I think Meta is the global cooperation project. If something goes outside the local project we can't really "blame" users for not solving that "on their own"/involving Meta. I fully agree with Xaosflux though. As I mentioned in another answer, the whole infrastructure can use some changes of that sort. Maybe the said notices can mention the "if the issue is minor, try solving it with the local admins" part and see if that makes any difference. — Klein Muçi (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here I can agree and disagree. I've had situations when anonymous vandal seriously vandalized various projects, because of what i made request an SRG. But the stewards did not always immediately block them, so I myself after a while marked these requests as "Withdrawn". Therefore, as Superpes15 already noted above, there is an aspect of priority. Most of the requests can lose the need for actions over time, but for some reason they remained on the page for a long time. --❄Mykola❄ 03:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home wiki[edit]

Recurring question here: Which wikis do you consider your home wiki?--BRP ever 12:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation[edit]

What motivates you to keep contributing or to become a steward?--BRP ever 12:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely the idea that we are helping, in our small way, to spread free knowledge, which is accessible to everyone without any distinction and/or limitation. Becoming a steward would be one more way to help spread free knowledge, making e.g. my resources available to counter attempts to alter content and consensus (such as spam or trolls). I'd also like to lend a hand on VRTS, to help manage also the IPBE requests, for all those people who cannot edit due to various limitations! I'll work with the hope that even in the future all knowledge will always be accessible to anyone from anywhere in the world! --Superpes15 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a feeling that I'm really doing something useful. Helping to build a place where free knowledge will be available to everyone. Also, every day there is an opportunity to learn something new. I enjoy contributing, being a part of our community and help others as much as possible. --❄Mykola❄ 21:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to run a few times, but haven't had the cycles and wanted to ensure that I didn't stretch myself to thin, some more time has opened up for me so I'd like to volunteer to help because I think these are some of the most important information projects on the planet that deserve the attention. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've written in my statement, this decade of involvement with Wikimedia has been a good relationship for me. I've had the chance to be part of welcoming communities, learn tons of transferable skills in general, technical and social terms and, most importantly, received recognition for my work in different areas quite a few times by different people. Being valued for your work and seeing that what you're doing is actually making a difference is the most motivating thing. During these years I've tried to help wherever I could being sure that there will always be new things for you to gain from such symbiotic relationships. Stewards are just one of the areas where I've offered my help. — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on Wikimedia projects for a long time. Sometimes I'm very active and sometimes I'm less logged in. But I love working here. This right will help me with small wikis and help me more effectively in the fight counter-vandalism.--Turkmen talk 19:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I am doing very useful things for humanity. Although being on Wikipedia for 3 years, I think that I can do that. Also, I have a big ambition. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns[edit]

What are your preferred pronouns? --Sininen Delfiini (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency actions[edit]

Let's say a wiki with local oversighters has some libellous stuff that needs to be removed ASAP, what are the steps that you will follow if none of the oversighters are contactable? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is really a "it depends" situation. I took a look at a couple projects with only 2 oversighters (fiwki and fawiki) - both of these projects have many administrators that I'd expect would be able to revdel whatever this situation is, reducing the urgency from "ASAP" for something like libel. I don't think I'd otherwise personally act on a libel item like that without consulting some of the other stewards first. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all I'd ask another steward who is proficient in that language for help. If no one is there, I'll try to understand the seriousness of the situation, even talking to some admin if necessary but, if there is a suppress to be done ASAP for severely libelous information, imho it's necessary to act, so that the diff can only be visible to those who signed the NDA and have viewsuppressed right. I'd then leave a note to the other stewards, to the local OS (so they will check my action) and, if requested, on the local village pump. Of course, this happens very infrequently, since OS requests to stewards nearly always come from projects in which the are no OS at all. Thanks! --Superpes15 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If really an ASAP situation, act and notify. Damage gets reduced and if deemed necessary later, actions can always be reversed. That said though, I'd refrain myself from getting involved in this situation if other more experienced stewards were available. I think that's a rather complex situation for a new steward. — Klein Muçi (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better to consult with other stewards first. Of course, if the situation requires a quick decision, action can be taken by informing local bureaucrats and oversighters.--Turkmen talk 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this question. If I will be able to understand that there is really something urgent, which, for example, can seriously damage someone's reputation, or even health, and the local oversighters are really not available, it is quite possible that the Stewards will have to suppress it. After that, need to notified about this action to the local oversighters. Of course, if this happens for the first time, I will consult with the other Stewards. --❄Mykola❄ 19:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather consult with other experienced stewards. However, if the situation is urgent, action could be taken by informing local bureaucrats. In my opinion, it is a hard situation for a new steward. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone[edit]

A bit of a niche question, but I find this super useful: what time zone are you based in, and what time(s) are you most active on? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopedianism[edit]

As an editor, how have you been interacting with content, and how do you expect this to change after becoming a steward? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm more of a metapedian so don't expect much change in this aspect. I expect to touch more projects administratively, but not content-wise. — xaosflux Talk 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steward duties obviously involve dealing with a more technical side, although the work of fighting spam/vandalism/COI/POV is also important to have clean content, but currently, when I need a little break from the constant fight against vandalism, writing on ns0 is one of the ways to continue my work, so I don't expect the future situation to be different from now, absolutely. I'm not a great content creator tbh but, when I can, I improve the pages or create new ones. Thanks for this interesting question! --Superpes15 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge content creator, although most of my edits is in the main namespace. Most of this is the fight against vandalism, spam and other abuses in articles. Therefore, I don't think that anything will change much in this aspect. --❄Mykola❄ 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a few years now that most of my edits are outside the article namespace (except for reference fixing). Every once in a few months though I return to that namespace and it is a joy to rediscover it. It feels rather cozy just writing about something you are interested about and sharing it with the world. (Although in my homewiki 98% of new content is just translations from EnWiki and no one bothers to write from scratch anymore apart from the promo-articles that eventually get deleted.)
    In terms of Wikimedian philosophy, I'd identify as Mediawikianist, the group's whose description relates more to my type of activity, even though I'm not very active on Mediawiki hacking per se. I suppose the ratios would remain the same, even if I was elected as a steward, with a bit more antivandalism incorporated (and the occasional article writing every once in a while). — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spend the majority of my time editing Mongolian and Buryat Wikipedia. I think that I will become less active in these Wikipedias. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have many wiki articles available. History is my interest. I work both in the technical field and in the field of creating articles.--Turkmen talk 12:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account security[edit]

Steward accounts can be dangerous in the wrong hands. How have you ensured that your account and the private data it can access will stay secure? Taavi (talk!) 15:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apart from the password (which I keep in mind and, if not, in a secure app with 2FA), I always use 2FA here/on private wikis/phab/mails, through an app that requires fingerprint/a complex passphrase to log in. Security tokens are stored in a hidden and encrypted file. In any case, I only use wiki via two devices, both of which are only in my possession and protected with fingerprint/a complex password, which I often change, I use trusted connection, and a browser only for wiki stuff, with an ad-blocker and some privacy settings. Even if LTAs sometimes try to access my account, it's practically impossible that they can succeed! I've also a committed identity. Thanks!--Superpes15 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a strong, unique password and two-factor authentication here and on the mail linked to my account. I don't edit from public or other people's computers, only from my devices, which are also well protected and which only I use. Thanks. --❄Mykola❄ 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a current functionary I already am required to use WMF's 2FA. I also use a 2FA set up on the email accounts that I use with WMF projects. When logging in via the API I usually use a unique complex Botpassword and set it to only have access to the functions needed - then delete it when no longer being used. I will look at adding 2FA to my VRT account if elected as it will have access to even more queues. — xaosflux Talk 21:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been some years now I have WMF's 2FA active on my accounts (here and WikiTech). The scratch codes for both of them are saved only on a physical paper and 90% of my edits come from my home PC (10% are from my wiki-tutoring where I might have to correct/demonstrate some edits publicly on projector screens with my laptop for teaching reasons). Also there are times (for example when travelling) that for security reasons I log out of my account from my cellphone, as a preemptive measure if it gets lost/stolen, even though I rarely edit from there apart from answering any short questions on my talkpages. — Klein Muçi (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Election process[edit]

Do you think the steward election process could be improved and, if so, how? --Ferien (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything can always be improved imho, but I'd say that the current process seems stable and balanced. 80% of support ratio is fair, maybe the minimum number of voters (30) could be raised. The procedure is great, because it's not automated, so it still attracts volunteers by the whole community, who verify eligibility, and can feel more involved into it. This should always be a period of "ferment" for the community, because it's one of the greatest demonstration of its decision-making power. So I wouldn't automate it (while I'd automate initial ElectCom tasks) and I hope it always remain a joyfully participated process! --Superpes15 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the electoral process works well. Of course, everything can be improved somehow, but I can't think of anything that could improve something that already work well. Didn't notice any big problems in process. +1 to mentioned by Superpes15 about raising minimum number of voters. As far as I understand, this criterion was invented when the global community was not as large as it is today. Thanks. --❄Mykola❄ 17:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking at Stewards/Elections 2022 as an example, I think there is room for improvement in the confirmation component, it seems to be much less attended then the new candidate component. — xaosflux Talk 01:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subpages infrastructure can definitely be improved in my opinion. I happened to raise some questions about this last year (Link) but it never evolved into a fruitful discussion. Generally speaking, I believe quite some meta pages that deal with steward actions can be updated technically and enrichened with some minor features, be those on the practical side or on the interface aspect.
    That said, the process itself seems good enough. (The confirmation process feels a bit "too underground" though.) — Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for your answers :) --Ferien (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding small wikis[edit]

Stewards have a list of steward duties to attend to. Do you think they should/can also help in assisting small wikis in different ways apart from that list, not necessarily with stewards' tools (e.g. technical problems, making their voice heard, etc.) or do you think stewards' interference at "capillary level" should be kept at a minimum? - Klein Muçi (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I already do this kind of work as a GS. I've always said to local communities/sysops to ping me or other fellow GSs, in case of any need, from simple advice to technical or practical help. GSs and Stewards should never interfere with local consensus and discussions, but surely they can intervene by saying their opinion as users (which has no greater value than other opinions, but it simply comes from more experienced users) or in case of abuses/emergencies. We serve communities. --Superpes15 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in a special way related to being a steward, however as experienced wikimedians they certainly can help in this aspect - but so can any other experienced contriutor. When possible I think the stewards should help emerging communities by supporting them to move in to stronger self-governance models by encouraging their volunteers and providing support to the global sysop corps and SWMT while they grow. — xaosflux Talk 00:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, the stewards, and not only them, can help in assisting small Wikis if they can. They can saying their opinion or take part in local discussions, but not to do anything that goes against the consensus of the local community. --❄Mykola❄ 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the stewards can recommend small projects like experienced users. It is also possible to control as a global sysop. Of course, to the extent that it does not disrupt the work of the projects. --Turkmen talk 13:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted sysop but socking[edit]

You have found a trusted sysop on a project was terribly socking outside their home-wiki with numerous puppets, doing disruptive edits and something like that. However, there is no local Checkuser on their homewiki, what should you do?--Lemonaka (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there're no local CUs, check if they have active socks in their home-wiki: if not, notify the local community about socking in other wikis, so they can choose if asking for actions (e.g. deflag), but if they've some socks and there was a need for emergency interventions, they could be blocked and possibly deflagged. Then (it's not a steward duty) it should be assessed by community whether it's a matter of serious and prolonged abuses, which could require the opening of a global ban procedure --Superpes15 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Lemonaka (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I'm assuming at least the sockpuppets were blocked and publicly linked to the sockmaster on the other project already. Next, would depend on what type of local community is in place - the premise says that there is one, so this would be possibly for a medium-sized wiki. This community may not be aware of resources available to it, such as SRCU - assuming they have some sort of administrator's noticeboard I may leave a note there about the issue an invite someone from that community to follow up at SRCU if they wish. As a new steward, I would likely privately discuss this sort of situation with my new peers first. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Lemonaka (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid further damage to the projects, there is reason to carry out a check in the project where this user is a sysop. Depending on the level of this destructiveness, need to be ready to take emergency actions - block or removing of rights. Then need to inform the community about this situation. I will discuss with other stewards of this if i come across something like this someday. --❄Mykola❄ 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Lemonaka (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notify the community (and the sysop themselves) of what has happened and discuss the general situation with the other stewards. I would refrain myself from taking hurried steps in this situation not only because I'd be a new steward but also because it deals with local projects' autonomies. A thorough discussion might be needed by all involved parties. (Of course I'm assuming the damage itself has already been mitigated in the other projects.) — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Lemonaka (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar situation occurred in Commons. If this activity has been confirmed in other wikis, a discussion can be opened on the "Requests for comment/Global ban of X" page. Like here. --Turkmen talk 11:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Lemonaka (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lock reasons[edit]

As a more general follow-up to Amanda's question under #SRG: What is your understanding of the terms "long-term abuse", "cross-wiki abuse", "spambot" and "lock evasion" (if that is a valid rationale for steward action in your opinion)? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm taking these all to be in the context of account locking. LTA: generally related to sockpuppets of a locked sockmaster, with a pattern of repeatedly creating new socks used solely for disruption. CWA: An account that is being used solely to disrupt multiple local projects, typically moving from project to project as they accumulate local blocks. SB: account using semi- or fully- automated processes to solely add promotional material. LE: These may vary, an example would be if a person was globally banned and had their accounts locked, but has created a new account to bypass this control - LE locks generally aren't necessary for accounts that are solely being used to read/manage reader preferences. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • LTA: Same user, different accounts/IPs, persistent edits for a long time of the same nature, logically has also committed lock evasion. Could also be vandal users with a single account/IP that for whatever reason haven't been blocked yet and have had only their edits rolled back for long times.
    • Cross-wiki abuse: Same user committed vandal edits on a global scale. I suppose what exactly qualifies as "global scale" can be debatable and may even change on a case by case basis (some communities may lack the technical and human resources needed to combat the disruption a cross-wiki abuse brings even if the said abuse was done on only 3-4 projects on the same language).
    • Spambot: User doing disruptive edits of an automatic nature (a lot of the same edit everywhere fast). Reasons and scale may vary.
    • Lock evasion: Same user, different accounts opened for the reason to evade a block that was given to a prior account. Per the nature of the term, this may intersect with many of the terms above.
    — Klein Muçi (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi and thanks for this question. Notwithstanding that there are other reasons for lock, in general I think like this these cases: LTA is generally a user who has demonstrated highly abusive and destructive patterns, and recurrently returns to abuse via a sock or IP, we have many examples of LTA (but I won't mention it so as not to advertise them :D), which must be differentiated from lock-evasion, although it' seems similar. A lock evasion can in fact also be done one-off, by a user who doesn't have the pattern of an LTA, but has anyway suffered a lock (so it can also be a single evasion). CWA logically denotes a user who has done only vandalisms on 2 or more wikis, in the case of gblock it's one of the main reasons for gblocking with minimum duration, while in the case of lock it's a situation to be assessed on a case-by-case basis (verifying if they're an LTA, or there is a lock evasion, or if there are positive edits in some projects). Spambots are (semi)automated users who try to insert promotional content or links, they are easy to highlight and to be distinguished from a manual spammer, I block in GS-wikis and report on SRG dozens of them daily, I see characteristic features (crypyo, forex, but also news articles, spam introduction in UP, the characteristic <br> tag, the use of a language other than that of the project, the username with first and last name and numbers - or a proxy if unregistered - and the fact that it only logged into one project)! --Superpes15 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long-term abuse — sockpuppets/IP of previously locked user due to destructive, which are used to continue destructive actions. Cross-wiki abuse — account/IP that is used for vandalism or other destructive activities in various projects. Spambot — automatic or semi-automatic users whose contribution consists exclusively of promotional links or other advertising material. Lock evasion — the sockpuppet of a user who is not a LTA, but has been globally locked. Thanks. --❄Mykola❄ 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator or administrator for the Norwegian WikiQuote?[edit]

I am unable to find any active moderator or administrator for the Norwegian WikiQuote. If a person decides to create or sabotage his own WikiQuote article, there is seemingly nobody there to stop this, and I don't myself have the necessary rights to block persons who sabotage. Most of the updates on the Norwegian WikiQuote are done by one person, and he is only concerned with quotes from himself. Will any of the nominated stewards take action on this? Joreberg (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Joreberg, being nowikiquote a GS-wiki without active local sysops, both the stewards and the global sysops can intervene. I, as a GS, am personally attentive to any project without active sysops. As a steward I'd obviously continue to deal with this type of projects. Please note also that obvious and not doubtful requests (for blocks, deletions, protections, interface edits, and so on) can be posted on GSR, while less obvious ones should be made on SRM, to request the attention of the GS and stewards. Thanks for this question --Superpes15 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, not sure if you are referring to nowikiquote or nnwikiquote, however both appear to be sparsely administered. nnwikiquote has a local bureaucrat that is not globally inactive, so if that is the project you are concerned with you could ask them about becoming an admin there yourself; nowikiquote has one bureaucrat that appears to be mostly inactive globally. nowiki has many admins, some may be interested in helping there as well - you could try asking at w:no:Wikipedia:Administratorenes oppslagstavle if any of their existing admins would like to help cross-project. To answer your specific question, I don't plan on working specifically on these projects directly, but will provide general support for requests and to the global sysops that are already available to help as needed. If all the admins are inactive and there is routine vandalism (not the conflict-of-interest type of edit you alluded to above) you can report it to Global sysops/Requests today for help. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow on, it looks like nowikiquote's only crat/admin is scheduled to be removed imminently. — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small projects in which there are not enough active administrators are monitored by global sysops and stewards. Therefore, it is quite possible that the stewards or GS can take actions there if there is any destructive activity there. Thanks. --❄Mykola❄ 14:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short answer: Yes.
    As Mykola mentioned, small projects are usually monitored by global sysops and stewards. However making formal requests on any of the aforementioned pages could speed up that process. Meanwhile I suppose looking for cross-project help could be a very good idea from your side.
    If my personal story could be of any help, I was a SqWiki user for many years before I saw that SqQuote had no admins and no active volunteers. I decided to help and made a steward request to get admin privileges there and some personal messages to the most active users on SqWiki for cross-project help. I was granted the privileges I requested and 2-3 users also answered my request for cross-project help. Eventually we were able to update it tech-wise and increase the number of articles from 50 to 300 after the project being dormant for around 15 years.
    I've stated many times that stewards should try to engage with local projects organically instead of acting bureaucratically from afar and this request would be a perfect example to do that. — Klein Muçi (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response for a CheckUser Request[edit]

Please give your solution for the following case: There is a request for CheckUser from a Wikipedia with the following info

  • A registered user is attacking the admins repeatedly with personal abuses and the same/similar abuses were hurled by several IP addresses
  • The user is blocked indefinitely and the IP addresses are range blocked in the local project, after warnings and after minor blocks
  • The similar abuses are started by IP address users in other Projects like Wikidata and metawiki
  • The IP address users resumed abuses in the local wikipedia soon after the range blocks expired - since the range block shall ideally be for a finite period.

This case, imagine, came up for your attention after a consensus at local wiki. What action would you take to protect that wiki from the attacks? __Chaduvari (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chaduvari: Interesting question! So, if the abuses continue after the block expired, local sysops can extend the blocks. If the abuses continues cross-wiki, stewards can global block the IP or lock the registered users. Instead, we cannot link an account to any IP address, according to ANPDP/PP/CU policy, so I'd not express myself on any CU request between users and IP (but I'd do it only between registered users), and would reject it, in compliance with the policies. Thanks! --Superpes15 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming in this case the requesting project does not have any local checkusers, and this isn't related to an established Long-Term-Abuse (LTA) case. Unless I'm misreading something in the scenario above (please let me know if so) there are no longer any "abusive" edits happening by logged in accounts, anywhere - and the attacks are occuring from known IP ranges. As such I'm not seeing good cause for running a check. What to do then? The local wiki has admins that can manage their rangeblocks as they would like, both wikidata and metawiki have admins that can also handle this locally. Should the disruption start spreading to many projects, especially those without local admins a global IP block may be warranted. Summary: Decline the check, let the requester know that if the abuse continues under more registered accounts to re-file. — xaosflux Talk 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chaduvari, sorry for delay. According to policy, IPs cannot be publicly connected to accounts, so the request will be rejected. Ranges will be known without checks if vandalism occurs from IPs. Meta and Wikidata have local admins and CUs, so they will be able to solve it on their own. If the destructive activity continues, local administrators can carry out further blocks including ranges blocks. If this destructive goes to other projects, then the Stewards can apply global blocks/locks. --❄Mykola❄ 14:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, there is not much to do from a perspective of a CU side but there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the damage. If it has reached the global scale (more than 2-3 projects are involved simultaneously) global blocks and locks can be issued for finite and infinite amounts of time accordingly. If it hasn't, local admins can be notified to take action (extending expired blocks or setting up new ones as needed). — Klein Muçi (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your approach to the issue that (unfounded) blocks in one project interfere on other wikimedia projects?[edit]

An example: An account makes a few valid edits and gets indeffed for sock puppetry following a (bad faith) report with cross-wiki "evidence" which includes that both are active in sourcing in another wikimedia project. (Good faith would be both accounts were vandalizing for example, but in that report, the evidence included being active in sourcing). The account keeps editing and assembles thousands of edits and creates many articles elsewhere, but the block interferes with permissions like, lets say the Wikipedia Library access. After almost two years, the account then requests an unblock in the project they were blocked mentioning the issue with the Wikipedia library, which is denied with the interference of an WP:INVOLVED administrator. In the English Wikipedia Blocks are here to prevent disruption, yet the account didn't disrupt with the first 8 edits, nor before their unblock request. If an admin might be involved, they usually recuse themselves. What is your advice/approach? Aim for the removal of the barrier of one block in any wikimedia project or the removal of the block from the editor? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradise Chronicle (talk) 2023-02-19T06:16:26 (UTC)

  • In most cases blocks on one project won't impact anything but that project. Notable exceptions are shared projects such as wikidata, commons, and here at the meta-wiki. I do not see it as the place of the stewards to interfere with local blocks that are supported by active local communities, so there isn't anything specifically to do as a steward. That doesn't mean there isn't anything that can be done in such a situation. Regarding The Wikipedia Library specifically, it currently has a rule that use is blocked if there are any local blocks. There are at least two mechanisms that could be used to deal with such a situation. First, there is an existing appeal mechanism to TWL coordinators; their directions say If your account is blocked on one or more Wikimedia projects, you may still be granted access to The Wikipedia Library. You will need to contact the Wikipedia Library team, who will review your blocks., and they may be contacted here. The second would be to conduct an RFC to change TWL rules. My advice would be to start with the first method. — xaosflux Talk 13:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, a single and questionable block isn't a general reason for concern in many areas, especially if the block occurred after very few edits and that user continued to contribute to other projects in a positive way. From the point of view of the stewards, we'd can't do something, especially if we are talking about a big wiki with many admins and appeal methods, but I hope than, after the enforcement of the guidelines for the application of the UCoC, thanks to the creation of U4C, these problems will be solved more easily. In these cases I'd suggest the user to request another unblock, first of all asking to have it evaluated by a third-party sysop or a higher body and, if necessary, I would help them to do it, exactly like I do now, so it wouldn't be a steward action, but only an action made as a user who wants to help another one! In case of abuse by the involved sysop, the user can anyway send an email to another sysop, asking to evaluate the situation, or to open an RfC! Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Superpes15@Xaosflux Both answers are good and for me the question is answered. Very welcome. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Superpes15 A little update, the unblock request was denied pretty fast. There is a wiki that is not interested in democracy and voter rights or granting library access at their highest levels and thats the German one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the situation you described, I believe aiming for the removal of the block from the editor would be the first consideration. As mentioned, stewards themselves can't help much in that situation as they can't override local decisions but they can approach the situation as experienced uninvolved users and give their opinions on the matter. As for aiming for the removal of the barrier of one block in any Wikimedia project... I'm not exactly sure what factors have led to The Wikipedia Library adopting such a rule as the one Xaosflux brought above or what it serves for but in principle I would say that that would be a good aim towards free information and free knowledge. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For each candidate[edit]

Klein Muçi[edit]

  • You state that this is the third time in a row you are running for steward; the last two times have been unsuccessful. As last year, what have you learnt compared to your previous candidacy? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose you are a non-steward looking around SRGP, and you see four users each wanting to get different rights. Briefly explain what traits (i.e, technical ability, communication skills, sysop and crosswiki experience etc) you'd be looking for each candidate (if any) before deciding whether to support, oppose or be neutral on each candidate. If you believe the given role is not dependent on community support, state so explicitly.
    • Candidate A wants to become a global renamer.
    • Candidate B wants to become a global interface editor.
    • Candidate C wants to become a global sysop.
    • Candidate D wants to get GIPBE (global IP block exemption)

Leaderboard (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an addition to the question already asked by 1234qwer1234qwer4: could you please describe in your own words why you think your previous candidacies failed? Feel free to answer it simultaneously with the question asked by 1234qwer1234qwer4. Daniuu (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1234qwer1234qwer4, Daniuu, hello and thank you for the questions! As I believe it can be remembered, the most against/neutral votes about me stated the lack of crosswiki experience, especially in the antivandalism sense. Inspired by those comments, last year I found out SWViewer could be quite a pleasant way to do more in that direction, "without getting out of my personal environment" (as I've mentioned in my statement). This year is just a continuation of the same journey without any surprises and, if I dare add, I doubt it will have any more in the short future.

      In the statement (and questions/votes) of my first candidacy I have expressed more or less what I'd hope to deal with if I was elected as a steward, something I remain true even on this candidacy. It may very well be that that's something incompatible with stewards' duties per se. In that case, someone may argue that the steward position may not be the most suitable position for me and they'd probably be right, hence why I've mentioned that it's the last candidacy, at least in the short future. — Klein Muçi (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaderboard, hello and thank you for the question!
    An ideal global renamer in my eyes would be a polyglot for the simple reason as to have it as easy as possible in deciding if the requested name can be inappropriate in any way or no. Being a sysop in a wiki or more would help showing trust.
    An ideal global sysop would of course require sysop and crosswiki experience. Their global edit history would show them as having great communicative skills, considering they might have to engage with different communities, sometimes even with the help of translation software. Demonstrating a clear need or vision in regard of the admin tools usage would be a big plus.
    An ideal global interface editor would have everything mentioned above for a global sysop + demonstrated good technical abilities in tech-areas and preferably a lot of community trust. They would also have a clear history of account security problems (and of course 2FA enabled). It would help if they had some years of general unstopped activity.
    An ideal GIPBE would have a good reason for requesting the exemption. Giving some general idea on what they're trying to do where (in what project) would also help. I think this is the only role from that list which wouldn't be that much dependent on community support. (Even though I can imagine scenarios in which the community comes and complains about the actions of the said GIPBE user being abusive in the past.) — Klein Muçi (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since these are "ideal" examples, do you think there are situations when users without local sysop experience should become global sysops? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1234qwer1234qwer4, could instead of should. Part of why I've been involved with Wikimedia for this decade is because different communities have assumed good faith on me. I'm talking about concepts such as being given adminship, access at ToolForge, trusted to sometimes singlehandedly make big changes in the communities I admin, etc. On many of these cases, if the said communities would have kept asking for proof beforehand for any small detail that I volunteered to do, I would have most likely given up and maybe my relationship with Wikimedia wouldn't have lasted for half the time it has. I've made a lot of mistakes (technical and more) and learned along the way and carried on doing what I was trusted to do feeling obliged to complete it because of that faith the community had put on me. During this time I've seen many, not-so-fortunate users who were eager to help but were met with skepticism and had their every little detail scrutinized. Eventually they stopped volunteering altogether. This has made me believe that we should always keep our opportunities open and give chances where there is desire to help.
    Generally speaking, even outside the wiki environment, I don't like the cycle "you need experience to get a job but you need a job to get experience" which can easily turn into a vicious cycle in which the only way out sometimes is to lie on your resume. This of course comes because no one wants to "assume good faith" and increase their risk. (Thankfully risks in Mediawiki are mitigated by the fact that nothing is ever lost and everything can be undone, at least in the technical sense.)
    So, to answer "your" question directly: do you think there are situations when users without local sysop experience should could become global sysops
    In the infinite situations that exist and can exist, yes, I do think there are situations when users without local sysop experience can become global sysops, albeit the number of those situations most likely is very, very low. I hold the same opinion for many questions of the sort and I would always choose to keep the opportunities open and judge organically on a case by case basis. — Klein Muçi (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klein Muçi as a followup on your response to #Lock reasons, above, and your question about my vote, I think it would be helpfull if you were to explain, as you understand it, what a Global Lock and a Global Block is and how these two things difer. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Victor Schmidt, hello!
      A global lock is applicable to accounts while a global block is applicable to IP and IP ranges. Even though they tend to achieve the same aims using similar means, technically speaking, a global lock is not a block per se because from the perspective of globally locked users, they "unexpectedly" get locked out of their accounts and their passwords stops working, without much more information provided beside the general message that the account is now globally locked. They can be applied for crosswiki spam/vandalism accounts, ban evasion or accounts with offensive names as well as those whose owners were deceased or changed involuntarily (compromised accounts).
      Global blocks on the other hand are typical blocks which allow for specific detailed messages user-side, exemptions and appeals. They can be applied for crosswiki disruption (spam/vandalism) and for abusive open proxies after other measures have proven ineffective. Considering dynamic IPs and the fact that IP blocks always come with the increased risk of including innocent, uninvolved users, they should always start in the least "aggressive mode" possible that can be thought to be effective for the situation and increased gradually (putting a low expiration date or being considerate not to include registered accounts by using "anonymous only"). However, unlike global locks, they can't have an indefinite expiration date, again, because of the nature of dynamic IPs.
      Personally speaking, I generally tend to use both terms interchangeably in the general sense (they block the user with or without an account from editing on WMF projects) unless the situation requires more details.
      Only tangentially related to the question but I also think we should have let global locks be a thing of the past many years ago, unifying the "blocking-infrastructure". From a technical point of view they appear "inferior" to global blocks because of aforementioned reasons and a patch about that has been open for 15 years now. — Klein Muçi (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Victor Schmidt, I'm curious if my answers above were ever satisfactory to your question... — Klein Muçi (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (If an ElectCom member thinks this should have been posted in the lock reasons section above, feel free to move it)
  • Your username, in what does it translate in English...? I don't want to make some wrong assumptions, so I want to give you a chance to elaborate a bit on it how you chose it. Else, I believe you are a good candidate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola7[edit]

  • Hello Mykola7, thank you for volunteering! As you mention in your statement, you are currently on the Ombuds commission. What do you think about the relationship of those two roles (stewardship and OC membership)? Do you think that experience on the OC would be helpful as a steward? Should/Can stewards serve simultaneously as an OC member? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Martin Urbanec, thanks for the question. I think this roles can be connected. There are not many cases of abuse by stewards. If this happens, accordingly, there is a conflict of interest. There are enough other OC members who can take on the relevant case. At that time the steward should abstain from any action in this case. Stewards can perform many of their tasks without conflicting with the OC role and likewise serve in the OC without participating where they might conflict. But this is a high trust and, accordingly, a great responsibility. Yes, I believe that the experience gained there will be useful in the work of a steward, because during this time I was able to better understand global privacy policies, in particular, see things that I did not pay attention to before (for example, that local policies conflict with global policies). Can stewards serve in OC? As history shows, they can. Should they? I believe that it depends on the person theirself, they human qualities and experience. --❄Mykola❄ 02:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer! Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine that you are an admin at wiki X, and a visibly confused user asks this question to you on your meta-wiki user talk page. Help them; if possible, give one possible value of X with justification. Leaderboard (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been accused of being a "sockfucker" by admin Z in wiki X, but my attempts to ask this user has been unsuccessful, and I've lost access to my talk page as well. Please unblock me there.

Thanks for this question. If I'm an admin of the same wiki and it doesn't seem obvious to me, I'd discuss this action with the admin to understand why they consider this user a sock. If Wiki has ArbCom and it directly accepts unlock requests, or a VRT unblocking request system, or some other method accepted by the local community, I would advise the user X to contact there. If it doesn't, and I still have doubts about this block, I would bring it up for discussion with other admins and together we would make some kind of decision. Steward's tools do not apply here. --❄Mykola❄ 01:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Mykola. Would you respond to what NickK posted in his vote? Emufarmers (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Emufarmers. 1. When I checked, I found that users were using the same address at the same time. I once asked a local internet provider I know about the specifics of dynamic addresses, and he assured me that one dynamic address cannot be provided to multiple clients at the same time, so that's what I thought until this day. Therefore, taking into account that I have not yet encountered such coincidences, unfortunately, such an error occurred. 2. This is an old conflict that has subsided. Therefore, I would not like to comment further on this, if possible. 3. I vaguely remember what it was and how it happened, but it was early in my experience as a CU. It is logical that I made mistakes at beginning while gaining experience. In any way, I draw conclusions from my mistakes so as not to make them again in the future. Thanks. --❄Mykola❄ 14:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superpes15[edit]

  • As a Wikimedia Steward, you will have the ability to perform a wide range of actions across all Wikimedia projects, including granting and revoking user rights and performing global account locks and unlocks, etc. How do you plan to approach these responsibilities to ensure that you are making decisions that are in the best interest of the Wikimedia community, and how will you handle situations where there may be conflicting opinions within the community about a particular action? —MdsShakil (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this question, it's is very interesting and allows me to explain my point of view, since I'm very sensitive to advanced permission and community votes/discussions. I'm not talking about the obvious cases, where there is little doubt about it, but I believe that my approach is very reasoned. In fact, before clicking also for a simple block, I check several times, to avoid making mistakes, and when I'm in doubt, I always ask for other opinions before acting. So (b)locks of clear sock/spambots wouldn't be a problem. The question is when an action could conflict with the community opinion: in this case I believe that a steward must act absolutely outside his own convictions, and think objectively to do the good of the community, also trying to balance the desire of local communities. Fortunately, practically always, the good of the project and the desire of the community coincide, since each community knows what I do best for it, and we aren't active users in those projects, but if this were not the case I'd certainly act only after acquiring opinions by other stewards and I'd never take a decision that goes against policies, my duties or the good of the project, just to satisfy my beliefs. The most important thing is to keep projects healthy, and that they are an environment that everyone can populate, keeping the respect for consensus, local policies and equilibrium as a priority. Kind regards, --Superpes15 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine that you are an admin at wiki X, and a visibly confused user asks this question to you on your meta-wiki user talk page. Help them; if possible, give one possible value of X with justification. Leaderboard (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been accused of being a "sockfucker" by admin Z in wiki X, but my attempts to ask this user has been unsuccessful, and I've lost access to my talk page as well. Please unblock me there.

Thanks for this question too, this is actually a common request, I've seen similar requests several times. The first point of contact is always the local community so, after having quickly seen that it's not a very serious abuse (for example massive blocks of good users by a perhaps compromised sysop account), and after making sure the user is not a cross-wiki abuser or LTA to be locked, I'd ask the user to contact the structures that the community already provides. So they should write to other admins or to the ArbCom (if available). If, on the other hand, we are talking about a small project, in which there are not many active admins, or there is only one sysop, I'd get in touch with the blocking admin (I already did this now, as user/GS, when asked for help). In general, steward actions should never override local ones, unless they are abusive, because the centrality of the local community decision should always be maintained. So, in case I realize that the block was wrong and the local sysop has no intention of changing their action, I'd escalate the matter to the team and we'd make a decision together, aimed at the well-being of the community and compliance with policies. When the UCoC is fully enforced and the U4C is operative, as stewards we will surely cooperate with this body, in order to resolve all disputes in the best way. I hope I've answered you exhaustively and I apologize if the answer was too long, but obviously it refers to a situation to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, there is no standard for everyone. Best regards --Superpes15 (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Superpes15:, I'm not sure if you realised that you are an admin at wiki X. Leaderboard (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: Oh I'm sorry, actually I misunderstood the fact that I was sysop in the X wiki, so let's see this case (which also happens a lot of time): imho the outcome doesn't change a lot, except that I wouldn't step in as a steward. In this case I'd analyze the matter with the other sysop(s) (we probably had ML, IRC, and so on). Obviously I'd suggest the user to contact the appropriate local structures to appeal the block (if any). Then, assuming we are only two sysops, I'd ask the other admin to unblock them (if I thought the other admin was wrong), and if they don't want, I'd start a local RfC to avoid a wheel war. But I think that surely we'd find an agreement. If, on the other hand, there are other sysops, it's even easier to reach an agreement. Even if there was a need to intervene with a steward action, for example in the event of abuse or with a deflag, I'd never intervene as a steward, because it would absolutely be an action in conflict of interest, therefore I'd be available to translate the message to the other stewards, if necessary, but I'd not intervene or I'd not recommend actions. Obviously I'm always referring to the case in which the action of the other admin is wrong, even though in the majority of cases that have happened to me, the block were imho valid. I also receive a lot of emails (or VRTS ticket), since on itwiki the talk pages are automatically blocked for blocked users/IPs, so they usually complain via mail. Obviously it happens to receive such requests from LTAs but sometimes also happens to receive correct complaints. Thanks and sorry again for the confusion --Superpes15 (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmen[edit]

  • In your own words, what happened on azwiki a few years ago? --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem was with long elected and rooted admins. They did not respect the decisions of the newly elected admins and tried to suppress them. Also, because most of the discussion goes outside wikipedia and some admins gather support from there, such problems have arisen. Now the situation has completely changed. Now the community has grown and we have created new policy to prevent all violations. The writing of new policies continues. We have removed several sysops. Turkmen talk 07:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was something resembling situation at Croatian language Wikipedia, which lasted there for many years but was eventually resolved with a hard work of some editors and lots of discussion here on meta.. s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 21:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine that you are an admin at wiki X, and a visibly confused user asks this question to you on your meta-wiki user talk page. Help them; if possible, give one possible value of X with justification. Leaderboard (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been accused of being a "sockfucker" by admin Z in wiki X, but my attempts to ask this user has been unsuccessful, and I've lost access to my talk page as well. Please unblock me there.

Of course, you should discuss this with the admin who first applied the block. As much as I try, I respect other people's decisions. Of course, if there is a wrong decision, action can be taken after discussion with the responsible admin.--Turkmen talk 10:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I am an admin on the Uyghur Wikipedia, a small Turkic-language wiki. In your view, what are the greatest challenges faced by the smaller Turkic-language wiki-communities, and how will you support those Wikis in your role as a Steward? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the main problem in Turkic-language Wikipedias is activity. Unfortunately, there are few users. I work in small Turkic-language wikipedias and help as a global sysop. From now on, I will work in this direction as well. Also, since the languages are close, it is possible to better understand the discussions there and to investigate and answer faster. For example, on the permission and checkuser pages. Turkmen talk 10:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux[edit]

  • You are an [enwiki] admin since 2006, [...] a current bureaucrat and oversighter, [...] a bureaucrat, oversighter, and checkuser here on the Meta-Wiki, [...] a member of VTRS (mostly in info-en\tech-issues) [and] a global abuse-filter maintainer. Could you please briefly summarise how you have been using each of these roles, and how steward permissions specifically would help to expand your performance with maintenance functions such as updating local abuse-filters, interface pages, etc (which is your goal but also something you already do according to the nomination statement), considering you can use your AFM tools for the former and could request GIE to deal with the latter? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     09:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would have no change on my activities at enwiki, as it is my home wiki I would not make use of steward tools there. It may prompt me to run for local checkuser there if I find that it would help in global activities. On enwiki I'm very active in interface administration type tasks, such as working the edit-request queues - I think this would equate well with requests that are currently handled by stewards and GS's on small projects. I also do a lot of the bureaucratic "maintenance" functions such as periodic bot activity reviews and am the primary processor of w:en:Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (something that I think will equate to AAR processing as a steward). While I hold AFM, globally AFM's are only expected to use their access for technical management or for specific assistance requested from local rights holders, as a steward I would be able to extend this to proactive filter management that could have functional effects. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elsewhere I wrote: Much of what stewards do (including much more consequential stuff) is not bound by formal policies, and stewards are expected to operate in this area of discretion and good judgment. Do you agree? What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 01:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, with a big side of "but": I agree that there is not a formalized policy for everything that the stewards have to do - a quick look at Meta:Policies and guidelines#All Wikimedia projects illustrates major areas without a formal policy: there are not global blocking, deletion, etc policies that affect all projects (and especially those without local administrators more likely to be handled by stewards and GS's). As far as the big side of but: Don't override consensus is a very broad policy component that governs most every thing a steward does. Sometimes that consensus is explicit (e.g. a discussion or vote occurred, a local policy precedent exists), sometimes it is implicit and must be interpreted from historical norms. The discretion comes in interpreting these norms and acting in novel situations. As far as good judgement - actions should better the movement, the projects, the contributors, and the readers. I can't promise I'll never make a mistake - but I can promise that I'll accept feedback and defer to consensuses, even if they are established after the fact. — xaosflux Talk 02:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine that you are an admin at wiki X, and a visibly confused user asks this question to you on your meta-wiki user talk page. Help them; if possible, give one possible value of X with justification. Leaderboard (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been accused of being a "sockfucker" by admin Z in wiki X, but my attempts to ask this user has been unsuccessful, and I've lost access to my talk page as well. Please unblock me there.

For X=enwiki because it is where I do the most of my admining; I would leave them a reply on their meta:user_talk referring them to review w:en:Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and calling out a note to the UTRS portion of that page. — xaosflux Talk 21:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enkhsaihan2005[edit]

  • Suppose you are a non-steward looking around SRGP, and you see four users each wanting to get different rights. Briefly explain what traits (i.e, technical ability, communication skills, sysop and crosswiki experience etc) you'd be looking for each candidate (if any) before deciding whether to support, oppose or be neutral on each candidate. If you believe the given role is not dependent on community support, state so explicitly.
    • Candidate A wants to become a global renamer.
    • Candidate B wants to become a global interface editor.
    • Candidate C wants to become a global sysop.
    • Candidate D wants to get GIPBE (global IP block exemption)

Leaderboard (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raafat[edit]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2023/Questions&oldid=24929755"