Stewards/History/de

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Stewards/History and the translation is 43% complete.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎dansk • ‎français • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
historical pages Steward Geschichte
Übersetzungen:Stewards/Historie/2/de

Diese Seite dokumentiert die Geschichte der Stewards und den Prozess ihrer Wahl, von ihrer Gründung im Jahr 2004 bis zur Übernahme eines Teils des Arbeitsaufkommens, das zuvor von Wikimedias sysadmins abgewickelt wurde. Ursprünglich basierend auf einer "Steward Wahlen durch die Zeitalter" von Mike.lifeguard, 19. Januar 2010 (archiviert).

Stewards sind Benutzer mit vollständigem Zugriff auf die Wiki-Oberfläche in allen Wikimedia-Wikis, einschließlich der Möglichkeit, beliebige und alle Benutzerrechte und -gruppen zu ändern. Siehe Stewards für eine aktuelle Beschreibung ihrer Verantwortlichkeiten.

Geschichte

Stewards
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
Für Stewards
Anfrageseiten

März 2004 - Vorschlag

Ab Anfang 2004 wurden Benutzerrechte manuell in der Datenbank festgelegt, sodass auf den Servern Shell-Zugriff erforderlich ist. In einem wikipedia-l Beitrag mit dem Titel "Developers should mind their own business", schlug Tim Starling vor, die Verwaltung von Benutzerrechten von der Softwareentwicklung zu trennen.

Tim had already created the "developer" group, which allowed for managing user group management. He proposed this group also take care of account renaming and changing article histories when these features were coded (these would later be done by bureaucrats and oversighters, respectively).

He proposed these users be called "honorary developers", selected by nomination and vote "similar to the vote now conducted at the English Wikipedia for sysop access". Honorary developers could lose access via majority vote, arbitration committee ruling, or Jimbo Wales' decree.

April 2004 — foundation

The first "honorary developers" were elected in April 2004; 8 candidates who achieved 80% support in a simple vote were elected, out of 20 nominated. There were no voter requirements in these elections.

Honorary developer was quickly renamed to steward, a name proposed by Daniel Mayer (other proposals were community developer, WikiWarden, community warden, coordinator, Wikimedia servant, secretariat or secretary, and super-bureaucrat). Initial documentation was written; the original description stated "Stewards are people who are able to set arbitrary user rights on any Wikimedia wiki".

Die anfänglichen Steward-Richtlinien wurden ebenfalls in diesem Zeitraum ausgearbeitet, jedoch noch nicht umgesetzt.

All steward actions were originally taken on Test Wikipedia, until it was proposed that they be moved to Meta following the expansion of the technical abilities to Meta as well. The original role of stewards was very restricted, operating only in the community areas in which developers had previously, adding and removing users from bureaucrat and sysop groups based on local consensus. The principles of avoiding a conflict of interest were discussed early on, with the decision that stewards who were also arbitrators should not use their rights to enforce arbitration committee decisions.

2005—2006

The second steward elections were held in 2005 in May. There were 10 candidates, and voters simply signed “Yes” or “No” for each. A few opposers gave short rationales, but most discussion was confined to the talk page. These elections show the finalized principles of activity requirements, and conflicts of interest with stewards acting on projects where they are members of the community. At that time, there was only Wikipedia — the conflict of interest principle discouraged stewards from removing privileged access for their own language. Of the ten candidates, 9 were elected, all of which held large majorities. 2005 also saw an attempt at another election in December, with one candidate who wished to be considered for the role. However, the community at the time agreed that elections for individual candidates should not be held, and another election was organized to begin later in December of that year.

The role of stewards further evolved in 2006, with further emphasis on the necessity of the steward role not evolving into that of a "wiki-cop", or other form of super-administrator. This was also the first year in which active participation at meta was considered to be an important factor in voting for new stewards. In the 2006 elections, there were 16 candidates — and again, the process was a straightforward vote, with very short initial comments from candidates, and short comments from opposers. The 2006 election saw a general reduction in elected candidates, with only 9 of the 16 being elected. Of those elected, most had over 95% support, with only one having 90% support and none with lower majorities than that. The most common opposition reasons for those not elected was a lack of experience, and unsuccessful requests had significantly fewer votes than those of the elected stewards. Another election was held in December 2006, with 15 candidates.

2007-2009

2007 sees the increasing formalization of the steward role and the elections. The 2007 elections saw a standardized header, organized translations, and sections laid out for questions, yes, no, and neutral. The questions section was not widely used during this election — in all, only 17 questions were asked for 18 candidates, and most candidates got zero questions. The talk page reveals a lot of discussion about administering the election, including on the organization and on how to increase question use during the election. This was the first year in which many serious candidates were not elected. In the past, those users with advanced permissions on individual projects who ran were typically elected; in 2007, the trend began wherein serious candidates who held advanced permissions on multiple projects were not elected, primarily due to lack of experience in steward areas.

The 2007 elections were in Nov/Dec; the next elections were in February 2009. The 2009 elections used a very formalized election process with subpages, templates, and transclusion to get as much as possible translated into as many languages as possible, and streamline the voting process for users. A separate questions page enjoyed much use: 150 questions were posed, many of them leading to protracted back-and-forth. No serious candidate was posed fewer than 4 questions. We also see in 2009 the first instance of so-called “generic” questions – supposedly asked to enlighten voters. Most of these simply ask for a rehashing of the candidate’s statement, and all were asked and answered in English (though most voters are not anglophone). These candidacy statements have been expanded considerably too – from a short introduction of a few sentences to a paragraph or two, translated into multiple languages. Because of the lack of requirements to put oneself forward as a candidate, 26 users ran in the election; at least an additional 5 candidates were disqualified. Most of the candidates lacked understanding of the steward role, and were demonstrably unfit to even run: 6 received less than 25% support. The 2009 elections also saw the institution of the #wikimedia-stewards-elections IRC channel to monitor and administer the elections, and a dedicated team of volunteers verifying the “smooth” operation of the election process. Of the 26 candidates, only 9 were elected, representing a further decrease in the number of new stewards elected compared to those who applied.

2008 — global groups

Im Jahr 2008 fanden keine Wahlen statt, obwohl sich der Zugang für Stewards erheblich geändert hat. Die CentralAuth-Erweiterung wurde 2008 implementiert und beinhaltete die Schaffung des Stewards global group, der globalen Zugriff auf Sysop- und Überwachungsrechte sowie Zugriff auf das CheckUser-Protokoll gewährte - dieser Zugriff wurde später entfernt Nach einer internen Steward-Diskussion im Jahr 2009. Vor der Veröffentlichung von Centralauth übten Stewards Rechte aus, indem sie sich mit der userrights-interwiki-Berechtigung durch Meta zu lokalen Benutzergruppen hinzufügten und diese löschten. Um beispielsweise eine Seite zu löschen, muss sich ein Steward selbst zur lokalen Sysop-Gruppe hinzufügen. Nach 2008 wurde dies nur für die Verwendung von CheckUser- und Oversight-berechitgung durchgeführt. Dies war auch das erste Jahr, in dem globale Konten gesperrt und die Anmeldung verhindert werden konnten. 2008 wurden außerdem zusätzliche globale Benutzergruppen erstellt, die von Stewards verwaltet wurden, darunter globales Rollback. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt wurden Anforderungen für globale Berechtigungen über die Steward-Anforderungsseite für Berechtigungen bearbeitet.

Im Jahr 2008 wurde für bezahlte Mitarbeiter der Wikimedia Foundation, Treuhänder und andere, die in offizieller Funktion für die Foundation tätig sind, deie globale Benutzergruppe staff ebenfalls implementiert. Aufgrund einer -Anforderung für Kommentare wurde die globale Gruppe von Mitarbeitern der Wikimedia Foundation erstellt und verwaltet und gewährte globalen Zugriff auf die Wiki-Oberfläche wie bei Stewards, mit Ausnahme des vollständigen globalen Zugriffs auf CheckUser- und Aufsichtsberechtigungen auch. Während die Mitgliedschaft in dieser globalen Gruppe ursprünglich von Mitarbeitern der Wikimedia Foundation verwaltet wurde, wurde diese Verantwortung seitdem an Stewards delegiert, die den globalen Konten nach Bedarf Mitarbeiterrechte zuweisen.

Appointment and removal of non-elected stewards

During the 2009 confirmation process, the interesting case of Jimmy Wales was raised. Wales had been appointed in 2006 by the Board of Trustees, who were still responsible for deciding who the stewards were, though in practice they followed the community wishes in all other cases. Wales was not confirmed during the 2009 confirmations, due to his inactivity in the steward role, and the suggestion that staff rights were more appropriate for him to hold. A compromise was reached, with Wales agreeing to have a global group created for himself. That global group would go on to have most of the active rights removed, following a request for comments regarding deletions that Wales performed on Commons in 2010.

2010 — 2011

The 2010 elections saw the most candidates out of all the previous elections, with a total of 74 candidates. Of these, 8 were elected, 21 not elected, and 45 disqualified. 2010 saw further institutionalization of the election process, with time for submissions, questions, and a three week voting period. The elected-to-qualified-candidate ratio further decreased in 2010, though a few of the candidates who did not pass in 2010 went on to become stewards in subsequent elections. During the 2010 confirmations, detailed summaries of the arguments presented for and against each steward were given on the talk page for the final steward decision; this format of decision on confirmations was discontinued from 2011-2015, when it was re-introduced during the 2016 confirmations.

There were two elections in 2011; the first saw 112 candidates; of which, 91 were disqualified, 10 were not elected, and 11 were elected. This was the last election during which CentralNotice banners advertised the nomination process to all users; starting in the 2011-2 elections, only those eligible received notification to cut down on the number of ineligible candidacies. The second 2011 elections saw 17 candidates, of which 8 were elected. There were only confirmations at the time of the first election in 2011, and these were handled in two stages, with the community providing input during the first, and the election committee evaluating consensus in the second. This method would be used until the 2016 confirmations.

Globale Administratoren

Im Jahr 2010 wurde über einen sehr kontroversen Vorschlag zur Schaffung globaler Sysops abgestimmt. Die Abstimmung hatte 1802 Gesamtstimmen, von denen 1385 befürwortet wurden (76,9% der Stimmen). Mit diesem Vorschlag wurde eine globale Gruppe gegründet, die in einem bestimmten Bereich der Steward-Aktivitäten tätig werden soll - nämlich Routinewartung und Vandalismusbekämpfung bei kleinen Projekten ohne aktive lokale Administratoren. Dies war früher eine Aufgabe der Stewards gewesen, aber es wurde der Eindruck geweckt, dass in der Region mehr Hilfe benötigt wurde. Der ursprüngliche Vorschlag würde es globalen Sysops ermöglichen, auch IP-Adressen global zu blockieren. Eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Nutzern lehnte diese Funktion jedoch während der Abstimmung ab, sodass sie nicht der endgültigen Gruppe hinzugefügt wurde, die erstellt wurde. 2010 fand auch die erste Wahl neuer globaler Sysops statt, die nach Bedarf auf Steward Requests/Global Permissions durchgeführt wurden.