|このページではスチュワード制度の沿革とそれ以前のウィキメディア システム管理者から職責を継承するに至るまで、またその選出過程を記します。このページは2010年1月19日時点の"Steward elections through the ages" (文責Mike.lifeguard、アーカイブ済み) を下敷きにして記述するものです。|
2004年3月 — 提議
2004年4月 — 財団
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".
The initial steward policies were also drafted during this period, though not yet implemented.
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.
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 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年 — 2011年
2010年選挙の立候補者は合計74名で、顔ぶれの大部分はそれまでの一連の選挙と同じでした。当選8 名、落選21 名、失格 45 名という内訳でした。同2010年には他にも選挙プロセスの 制度化を実施、立候補の届け出から質疑応答と3週間の投票受付期間を設定しています。立候補者数に対する当選率はこの2010年も低下傾向を示したものの、落選した候補者から数名はその後のスチュワード選挙で当選しています。2010年の権限付与の確認過程ではスチュワードの最終選考に先立ち、スチュワード各人について支持と不支持の議論を詳細にまとめてトークページに公開しました。2011-2015年は付与確認にこの形式を採用せず、2016年の付与確認で再導入しました。
2011年には選挙を2回実施、最初に候補者112名を得て失格91名、落選 10 名に対して当選 11 名でした。この選挙を最後に、利用者全員への一斉告知バナーで候補者推薦プロセスを知らせていません。2011年度の選挙以降は資格外の立候補を制限するため、立候補資格のある利用者に限定して通知しています。2011年の2番目の選挙では候補者 17 名から 8 名が当選しました。2011年の最初の選挙では権限付与の確認のみ2段階にわたり実施、第1段階目でコミュニティからインプットを受け付け、選挙管理委員会が第2段階で合意を諮っています。この方式は2016年まで引き継がれました。
2010年にはグローバル システム管理者 global sysops を投票で選ぶという提議がされ特に論議を呼びました。投票総数 1802 票に対して賛成票 1385 票 (支持率 76.9%)、この提議によりグローバルなグループを設置してスチュワードの掌握範囲の特定領域 - 具体的には活動中のローカルの管理者がいない小規模プロジェクト群でルーチンの管理と不正行為対策 - を担当するというものです。それまではスチュワードの裁量で行った役割でありながら、人手が足りないと思われていた領域です。当初の提議にしたがうと、グローバル システム管理者にはIPアドレスのグローバルなブロック権限も付与するとありました。しかしながらこの機能には投票期間中にまとまった人数の利用者から反対意見が出て、最終的にグループ設置時には付与しませんでした。2010年にはSteward requests/Global permissionsの規程にしたがい、第1回グローバル システム管理者選挙も実施しています。