Stewards/Historique

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 53% complete.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎dansk • ‎français • ‎македонски • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
historical pages Histoire des stewards
Cette page documente l’historique du rôle de Steward et le processus de leur élection, depuis la création du statut en 2004 pour s’occuper d’une partie du travail auparavant effectué par les administrateurs Wikimedia. Cette page a été fondée à partir de « Les élections des stewards à travers les âges » par Mike.lifeguard le 19 janvier 2010 (archivé).

Les stewards sont des utilisateurs ayant un accès complet à l’interface de tous les wikis Wikimedia, y compris aux fonctionnalités permettant de changer tous les droits et groupes des utilisateurs. Consultez la page Stewards pour une description actuelle de leurs responsabilités.

Historique

Stewards
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
Demandes
Pour les stewards
Tableaux d’affichage

Mars 2004 : proposition

Au début 2004, les droits des utilisateurs étaient définis manuellement dans la base de données, ce qui nécessitait un accès à l’interface système des serveurs. Dans un message sur wikipedia-l intitulé « Les développeurs devraient s’occuper de leurs affaires », Tim Starling proposa de séparer la gestion des droits des utilisateurs du développement du logiciel.

Tim avait déjà créé le groupe « développeurs » qui permettait de gérer la gestion de groupes d’utilisateurs. Il proposa que ce groupe s’occupe aussi du renommage des comptes et des modifications dans les historiques des articles lorsque ces fonctionnalités seraient codées (cela sera plus tard le rôle des bureaucrates et masqueurs, respectivement).

Il proposa que ces utilisateurs soient appelés « développeurs honoraires », choisis par candidature et vote « similaire au vote dorénavant orchestré sur la Wikipédia en anglais pour l’accès administrateur ». Les développeurs honoraires pouvait perdre leur accès à travers un vote majoritaire, une décision du comité d’arbitrage ou par décret de Jimbo Wales.

Avril 2004 : fondements

Les premiers « développeurs honoraires » furent élus en avril 2004 ; 8 candidats qui atteignirent 80 % de soutien dans un vote simple furent élus parmi 20 candidats. Il n’y avait pas de condition nécessaire pour pouvoir voter.

Le statut développeur honoraire a rapidement été renommé en steward, un nom proposé par Daniel Mayer (les autres propositions étaient développeur de la communauté, WikiGardien (en anglais, WikiWarden), gardien de la communauté, coordinateur, servant Wikimedia, secrétariat ou secrétaire et super-bureaucrate). La documentation initiale fut écrite ; la description originale indiquait « Les stewards sont des personnes qui peuvent définir arbitrairement les droits des utilisateurs sur n’importe quel wiki Wikimedia ».

Les politiques initiales sur les stewards furent aussi conçues pendant cette période, mais pas encore appliquées.

Toutes les actions des stewards étaient à l’origine prise sur la Wikipédia de test, jusqu’à ce qu’il fut proposé qu’elles soient déplacés vers Meta, suivant l’extension des possibilités techniques sur Meta. Le rôle des stewards à l’origine était très restreint, ayant uniquement attrait dans les domaines des communautés dans lesquels les développeurs avaient précédemment ajouter et supprimer des utilisateurs des groupes de bureaucrates et d’administrateurs à partir de consensus locaux. Les principes pour éviter les conflits d’intérêt furent discutés assez tôt, avec la décision que les stewards qui étaient aussi arbitres ne devraient pas utiliser leurs droits pour appuyer les décisions sur comité d’arbitrage.

2005 – 2006

La seconde élection des stewards s’est tenue en mai 2005. Il y eut 10 candidats et les votants écrivirent simplement « oui » ou « non » pour chacun. Quelques opposants donnèrent de courtes explications, mais la plupart du débat s’est tenu sur la page de discussion. Ces élections montrèrent la version finale des exigences en matière d’activité et des conflits d’intérêt avec des stewards agissant sur des projets où ils étaient membres de la communauté. En ce temps, il n’y avait que Wikipédia — le principe sur les conflits d’intérêts dissuada les stewards de retirer des accès privilégiés pour leur propre langue. Sur les dix candidats, neuf furent élus, avec une large majorité. 2005 fut aussi l’année où il y eut une tentative de seconde élection en décembre, avec un candidat qui désirait qu’on l’envisage pour le rôle. Cependant, la communauté à ce moment là se mit d’accord sur le fait que les élections pour les candidats individuels ne devraient pas avoir lieu, et une autre élection fut organisée pour commencer plus tard en décembre de cette année.

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.

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

There were no elections in 2008, though significant changes occurred in steward access. The CentralAuth extension was implemented during 2008, and this involved the creation of the steward global group, which granted global access to sysop and oversight rights, as well as access to the CheckUser log - this access would later be removed after an internal steward discussion in 2009. Prior to centralauth, stewards exercised rights through adding and removing themselves to local user groups through meta using the userrights-interwiki permission; for example, to delete a page, a steward would need to add themselves to the local sysop group. After 2008, this was only done for using CheckUser and oversight permissions. This was also the first year in which global accounts could be locked, preventing them from logging in. 2008 also marked the creation of additional global user groups managed by stewards, including global rollback. At the time, requests for global permissions were handled through the steward requests page for permissions.

Also implemented in 2008 was the global staff user group, for paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, trustees, and others acting in an official capacity for the Foundation. As a result of a request for comments, the global group was created and managed by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and gave global access to the wiki interface as with stewards, except with full global access to CheckUser and oversight permissions as well. While membership in this global group was initially managed by Wikimedia Foundation staff, that responsibility has since been delegated to stewards, who assign staff rights to global accounts as needed.

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.

Global sysops

During 2010, a very controversial proposal to create global sysops was voted on. The vote had 1802 total votes, of which 1385 were in support (76.9% support margin). This proposal created a global group to act in a specific area of steward activity - namely performing routine maintenance and counter-vandalism on small projects without active local admins. This had previously been a role of stewards, but it was felt that more help was needed in the area. The initial proposal would allow global sysops to globally block IP addresses as well; however, a substantial number of users opposed this function during the vote, so it was not added to the final group which was created. 2010 also saw the first election of new global sysops, done as-needed at Steward requests/Global permissions.