Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Statement creation


Stewards should create the statements. To aid them in this matter, feel free to use the preload below:

A question for all current stewards

  • Rather than asking repeatedly in each steward's section, I feel this is a good opportunity to ask a question that affects stewardry and I have already posted the same question for all the candidates. We have two types of global bans of which the WMF type is mean't to supplement the community type. Recently, there has been an upsurge of WMF bans, with six carried out since December 2014, at least some of which have caused concern and heated debate in certain corners of the Wikiverse. In comparison, the WMF banned one person before December 2014 (in March 2012) and the community process has also banned one person ever, as well as three unsuccesful proposals. The community-banned person has also been banned again by the WMF, which seems quite odd. Bearing in mind that there have also been other "tensions" between the WMF and the wikis over the previous year, including the "super-protect" issue, my question to you all is as follows:
  • If re-confirmed, would you support greater transparency in the global banning process, and in particular would you support greater involvement of stewards, as trusted community representatives, in future global bans by the WMF? Green Giant (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • What exactly do you mean by greater involvement? Should stewards be "officially consulted" by the Foundation before someone is banned? --MF-W 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • This is potentially, I think, a community issue... the WMF doesn't usually consult anyone except its legal department (for the couple I've seen, at least)... and so, just like with the recent conflict with dewiki, I think the community generally should really discuss this... -- Mentifisto 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • While always welcoming consultation where it is possible, I don't believe that the WMF will agree to any further consultation. I'm also not sure how much would be achieved if your proposal was accepted by the WMF. Sure they could consult with the Stewards, but then the Stewards couldn't inform the communities about what had happened or why. So all that would change would be we'd be telling you it was "for a good reason" instead of the WMF saying it. I'm not sure that's an improvement and could place the Stewards in conflict with the communities which isn't our role. For small communities that may struggle to be heard then I'm more than happy to share those concerns with the WMF although a Meta RFC is probably just as effective and certainly more transparent. I single out the smaller projects because the bigger projects - en.wiki, de.wiki, Commons, etc. - already have an on-going active discussion with the WMF team. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I've expressed my opinion on the list, and I can repeat it here that I support transparency, as well as some form of community control over WMF bans. This control could be exerted by stewards, but also by the community representatives in the Board. I definitely understand that the need for transparency cannot mean that in all cases the reasons are publicly revealed, but I think there should be control from trusted users, such as the Board members and the stewards (and I believe that it should be ok if they confirm the "good reasons" from the WMF, I somewhat disagree with QuiteUnusual in this respect). Pundit (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with Pundit that a community-elected group could double-check such actions but as they would have to sign NDA's for that purpose, I doubt that this would increase transparency much. We might trust such volunteers more than some of us do with the WMF (due to the superprotect fiasco and similar events) but that would not solve the problem in the end. I've talked to WMF staff members in this regard and they promised me to increase transparency for WMF global bans as much as possible without doing harm to the projects, the WMF, or the banned people themselves. And I still do hope that they are going to stick by the word. Stewards at least are not involved in the decision-making or review process of WMF global bans and I don't think that they should be as this would be more adequate to a global ArbCom-like body and not to a technical-related user group whose aim it is to implement community consensus. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for your responses. Given the controversy the recent bans have generated, I could only see one way through and that would be for greater community involvement in bans. My first inclination was that stewards are a possibility based on the level of trust and access as well as identification. However, I am convinced by the suggestion that this should be handled by a separate body. Just to be clear, I'm not looking for public disclosures of sensitive information - just that it would be more reassuring if there were community representatives involved in the process. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply



I must say I'm a bit surprised by those votes against Ombudsman commission members: I don't know how to react. It's sad that some community members feel this is their only chance to express their opinions on the operation of the OC. IMHO, at a minimum the stewards in question should be allowed (if they want) to temporarily resign/suspend their steward flag and get it back whenever they want/they stop being ombuds. --Nemo 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's been practice until the WMF changed the rules and allowed stewards to become OC members without resigning their steward role. Vogone (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Then it's a problem with rules/WMF rather then stewards involved. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is the steward's own decision to seek confirmation while being on the OC. Vogone (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, stewards who become OC members should still be able to handle this situation like it was done before the Foundation changed the rule, i.e. get confirmed and then nevertheless cease to be a steward while an OC member for a year, then regain steward rights without a further confirmation, as you were confirmed in the year before (based on your actions as a steward when you could still make them). Sadly, noone has ever tried this, though I see no rason why it shouldn't be possible anymore. --MF-W 23:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nemo, I totally agree with you that expressing views on general procedures/rules should be separated from particular personal votes. As a former ombudsperson, I don't have a strong opinion on combining it with stewardship (I don't think it is a practical problem of any sort, as in the rare cases when stewards would be under investigation, a given person can exclude themselves). Suspension of a flag is also a reasonable solution. All in all, I would not vote against anyone just to express the dissatisfaction with the current solution, introduced by WMF. Pundit (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

An OC member will always have to step back from a case when there is any kind of reason that may harm their neutral judgement. That may happen to non-stewards and non-checkusers too. Being a steward when a steward is being investigated is just one of these reasons.
We should take into consideration the benefit of having a steward on the group.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason a single user shouldn't hold multiple advanced permissions as long as they demonstrate they can recuse themselves in any situation where they are involved. It wouldn't be difficult to get caught out if someone did the opposite. I think some people think of separation of powers but that does not necessarily translate to an online community. In fact, I think there is a strong case for more people to apply for advanced permissions, so that we avoid the impression of cabalism. Green Giant (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is not about some random advanced permission, but about a seat in an investigative WMF committee. If I had a complaint about a current commissioner who still has an active steward/CU/OS role, I would feel extremely uncomfortable submitting such a complaint to a committee where the user I complain about still has a seat … Vogone (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Advanced permissions aren't really random, allocated as they are by at least a portion of the community. I don't see much difference between a steward-ombudsperson and some of the current ombudspeople who are also CU on other projects e.g. Alhen (ES-WP), Avraham (EN-WP but also a steward), Barras (Simple and Meta but also a steward) and PhilKnight (EN-WP). Not that I'm implying they have done so, but what happens if one of them is accused of violating the privacy policy as a CU particular wiki? Obviously they are going to step back to avoid influencing the subsequent investigation and I would expect the same would happen for steward-ombudspeople. Green Giant (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Exactly, there is no difference, and that is why I would not support a CU/OS on my homewikis if they applied during their OC terms. Also local CU/OS rights were prohibited by the WMF until 2 (3?) years ago. Vogone (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Confirmations - closing discussion for stewards


This section is for Steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a Steward. Other community members, please discuss in a separate section.

After considering the comments and discussions, the Election Committee has come up with the following results on the annual re-confirmation of existing Stewards. All Stewards are welcome to comment on the proposed results below.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Mathonius (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

User Confirmed? Tally Notes
Ajraddatz yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
Avraham yes 3/0/2/0 Concerns about dual Ombudsman-Steward role and low level of (visible) activity, but no consensus to remove
Barras yes 4/0/1/0 Concerns about dual Ombudsman-Steward role and an issue relating to global renamers, but no consensus to remove
Bencmq resigned Resigned
Bennylin yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
billinghurst yes 4/0/1/0 A few concerns, but no apparent policy breach and arguments have been countered by supporters, consensus to confirm
Bsadowski1 yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
DerHexer yes 3/0/0/2 Nihil obstat
Elfix yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Hoo man yes 4/0/0/1 Clear consensus to confirm, no concerns related to Steward's work
Jyothis yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
M7 yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm, no concerns related to Steward's work
Mardetanha yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
matanya yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Mathonius yes 4/0/0/1 Nihil obstat
MBisanz yes 5/0/0/0 A few concerns about level of activity in areas other than global renaming, but a clear consensus to confirm
Melos yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
Mentifisto yes 5/0/0/0 Concerns about low level of activity, but no consensus to remove
MF-Warburg yes 4/0/0/1 Nihil obstat
Pundit yes 4/0/0/1 A few concerns about low level of (visible) activity, but a clear consensus to confirm
Quentinv57 resigned Resigned
QuiteUnusual yes 4/0/0/1 Nihil obstat
Rschen7754 resigned Resigned
Ruslik0 yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Savh yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Shanmugamp7 yes 5/0/0/0 Concerns about Steward's role in the removal of someone's sysop rights, but a clear consensus to confirm
Shizhao no 0/5/0/0 Consensus to remove, because of low levels of activity, home wiki issues relating to Steward's work and the temporary lack of a confirmation statement; clearly canvassed comments were discounted
Snowolf yes 2/1/1/1 Concerns about involvement in last year's ElectCom, an issue relating to global renamers and communication issues, but no consensus to remove
SPQRobin yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Tegel yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
Teles yes 5/0/0/0 Nihil obstat
Trijnstel yes 5/0/0/0 Clear consensus to confirm
Vituzzu yes 5/0/0/0 Consensus to confirm
Wikitanvir affected by inactivity policy before the proposed outcome was made Steward permissions removed on 3 March 2015 following inactivity clause of Stewards policy


Stewards (including those who are newly-elected) may express their questions, concerns or agreement to the results below.

Done The proposals were accepted and will be implemented. Thanks to everyone for giving opinions and comments. --MF-W 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply