Talk:Stewards/Elections 2018

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Stewards (2018 elections) talk page
This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2018 steward elections.

How many new stewards do we need/want?[edit]

Maybe this is a silly question, but with only one candidate so far, how many more stewards do we want to add this year? Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers/steward says there are 30 stewards currently. A few will drop out (at least Avraham I saw), so it'll be about 30 after the elections, assuming most of them get reconfirmed. It could drop to around 25. That sounds like plenty of stewards to me. I think there's already decent time zone, community, and language coverage, though a better visual snapshot of this data would be nice. There should at least be a chart somewhere.
Are you considering running? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
25 would be a good number of employees/contractors, not volunteers. Currently there are no emergencies but we have to overlook some major complex issues and a number of minor issues. Also the team has a low level of redundancy. So, we're definitely not plenty of stewards for sure. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Vituzzu. I'm not sure what you mean. We have thousands of volunteers. :-) Stewards are a particularly privileged role, which usually means that we want to keep the numbers fairly low. This is similar to how we treat system administrators with root access. How many stewards do you think would be ideal?
With the ability to have other global groups, it seems like the need for stewards should be decreasing, not increasing, over time. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The need for stewards should be decreasing. But instead of delegating responsibilities, the steward group just keeps accumulating more. Our documentation pages (Stewards, Stewards policy in particular) read as if modifying user rights is our primary activity - if that were the case, we could survive with 5-10 stewards. But our primary activity is responding to cross-wiki and long-term abuse, using global (b)locks, an aging blacklist infrastructure, and the heavily restricted global abusefilter interface. Because of our small numbers, we lack the technical knowledge of how to properly manage the global abusefilters, and for the most part we can only respond reactively to cases of cross-wiki abuse.
I think the root cause for this is the lack of new admins being promoted on the large wikis. Most steward candidates were elected as admins on their home project 2-5 years before they run. That's now putting us in the 2013-2016 range. On the English Wikipedia, only 93 people passed RfA within that time frame, compared with multiple hundreds in earlier times. With the increasing standards for local admins, it's also increasingly difficult to find people who a) are devoted enough on their home wiki to pass the RfA hurdle, and b) are also interested in cross-wiki work. It's a full time job trying to become an admin on a major Wikipedia, and the people who are willing to put in that kind of time commitment aren't going to suddenly change focus once they are elected.
So what can we do about it? It would be a tough time trying to devolve steward responsibilities like global blocking or management of the global abusefilter to other groups, because the community will think that it infringes on the rights of the local projects. We desperately need to update the infrastructure for monitoring small-wiki or cross-wiki abuse, because people are moving away from IRC. And, we're being asked to coordinate these potentially huge projects with a group of 30 semi-active stewards who all have other things going on in their lives. I don't have an answer here. And sorry for the long post! – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, the only solution is to get more stewards - and thus more admins - and thus more contributors. We should promote Wikipedia as much as we can by also telling we need the help from the ordinary people to get it up and running. Anyway, any one who feel they are suitable, should simply pur themselves forward. @Legoktm: Not sure if you wished to candidate, but you would be fine steward imho. Trijnsteltalk 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed limited MZMcBride but not "under-dimensioned". As Ajraddatz already pointed there are several different tasks, some of them really time-consuming.
Many stewards resigned (or where not confirmed) for "low activity", feeling a pressure to reach a "productivity" level. This reduces the number of possible stewards, depleting the team and increasing the average number of tasks per steward.
Also, wp0 abuse and spambot attacks are a good example for problem which should be addressed in a "technical" way: it's pure madness to let humans lock xrumer accounts by hand. Honestly I'm afraid of checkusering spambots because I know I'll find hundreds of accounts I should check, lock and check and then block their IPs.
--Vituzzu (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a local saying where I’m from: you wait ages for one bus and then three arrive together! On a more serious note I agree there do appear to be fewer and fewer potential candidates but the trend is somewhat disguised by the gradual unbundling of admin tools. I don’t have concrete numbers but my impression is that there are a lot more rollbackers, reviewers, file movers and similar groups. Perhaps it might be worth gathering statistics on how many "semi-admin" users there are and encourage them to go for RfA's? Green Giant (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
On enwiki, anyone with two of the various sub-admin groups would have probably been a serious contender for RfA back in 2008. Now, they'd still need to go through a year-long process of preparation and then the RfA itself. I can understand why less people are putting themselves forward. And with less admins comes less steward candidates, because people who hold no sysop rights aren't even eligible to stand for election (and they certainly wouldn't pass). But that's not a problem we can solve here; I agree with Trijnstel that all we can do for the steward elections is encourage people to apply from our end. And hopefully there will be the usual influx of candidates at the end. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
One other thing to note is that global sysops are at or close to an all-time low. I think that if there were more global sysops, and the default policies on what wikis were included in that set were enforced, it would cut down on steward workload without having to change policy. --Rschen7754 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that a very small part of our work is cleaning up on small wikis these days. Usually, I do that as part of a broader lock/block + revert crosswiki action. Because they lack the ability to lock accounts and globally block IPs, global sysops aren't as much help as they could be. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an email list for the Election committee for handling private and/or sensitive information?[edit]

Is there an email list for the Election committee for handling private and/or sensitive information? --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I would be surprised if they do, but you can send an email to any member of the committee and they can bring it to the rest. Snowolf How can I help? 23:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing?[edit]

Are messages like this acceptable? I ask because in the past candidates have been disqualified for canvassing. --Rschen7754 06:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fall under "You may also inform other users who might be interested in participating in the voting". --Alaa :)..! 08:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That is a suggestion to voters, not candidates. --Krd 08:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: I noticed that now. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 08:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not concerned with posts advertizing the steward elections, but I think the case here borders on a self-promoting statement. Maybe he would be willing to withdraw the message? – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: See Above. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to say that my message to the members of my home wiki was not intended as canvassing, I made no comment anywhere else including on other wikis I have been involved in. My home wiki are very close knit community and are unlikely to vote, despite what I said, it was only intended to let them know about such events such as this, I from time to time let them know about other similar events that I am not involved in. If it looked like canvassing I apologise, when I wrote it I had not even thought about it being perceived this way. However I will remove the comment as suggested by above. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I tried it got reverted diff I do not see myself in a position to insist. I am happy for it to be deleted but I am no longer neutral to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to vote?[edit]

Sorry, I am not seeing the link to vote even though I see a notice that voting is open. Can someone identify the link? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: you can use this interface --Alaa :)..! 21:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

My votes were marked ineligible when I am. Someone Should kindly double check it please. Mahveotm (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your votes have been marked as eligible; the person who voted below you on two pages was ineligible, so it might look like your votes were the ones struck. But yours have been counted! :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trung votes[edit]

Given that he was blocked from meta because of his votes here and his comments on the election pages and the confirmations, I think we need to consider what should be done with them. Given that you need a 5:1 support ratio needed for a successful candidacy, I think assessing whether his votes should be struck is worth considering, given that they were basically opposing based on not supporting the idea of even having stewards, not on the candidates themselves, and that they led to a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally I think we shouldn't strike votes of any eligible user, but this is clearly disruptive behaviour. I think these votes should be removed. The comments on the steward confirmations can be left, as that process is advisory in nature. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
if I may comment, it is not going to make any difference to me at this point. Obviously I am not going to get the required 5:1. However, for those that are close this would be unfair since this particular vote had nothing to do with the quality or not of the candidate and was a clear political point. Leave the one on me if you wish to leave a record of it. The others I agree with the above comments. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Ajraddatz proposal is reliability, those disruptive votes should be removed. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree his comments at the steward confirms, while crazy and disruptive, are advisory and I'm sure the other stewards will view them for what they are. The issue is with these elections where a disruptive vote has the potential in close cases to skew the results. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Remove the votes. I support it entirely.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The votes should be removed. Whether or not they have an impact on the result of the election is irrelevant. Nihlus 01:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. Clearly, his comments are disruptive. Also, I don't think opposing all candidates with the same comment makes sense. --Stïnger (会話) 01:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Given what appears to be unanimous consensus, I've gone ahead and simply removed the comments. The en:WP:DENY essay being the principle here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is up to election committee, not us. Matiia (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes; apologies for not providing that bit of info earlier. If the votes are to be struck, it should be done by electcom. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on any toes here. I went ahead and did it as there appeared to be a consensus here for the removal. I obviously don’t mind if someone wishes to restore them, but I also think there seems to be agreement that this is trolling and shouldn’t be counted. If someone objects on the merits and would prefer electcom deal with it, please go ahead and revert me, but if there aren’t objections on the grounds they should be counted, consensus/approval by silence might be an equally effective way of dealing with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I know about that (about Matiia's comment). The electcom will consider this if we notify them about this discussion? Perhaps in IRC (or in another side). If I'm wrong tell me. --Stïnger (会話) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
Electcom is responsible for managing the election, so they should be the ones to remove the votes. We can establish a consensus and make that recommendation to them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine by me. I've self-reverted. Again, sorry for stepping on any toes, though I think we should move to get these votes out as soon as possible. He's clearly trolling and only commented to disrupt the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be possible not to manipulate the steward elections without even consulting ElectCom? This have been votes from a user clearly eligible to vote in this election and without the attached explanation they most likely would not even have attracted any attention. Thank you. --Vogone (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Self-reverted. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Stïnger, have the consulting discussions on the consensus with election committee about this issue would be preferable, since Donald Trung is a eligible user, but have certain disruptive behavior, so this should let the ElectCom for the decision. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Or the votes could be left, but the personal attacks and other disruption redacted. --Rschen7754 06:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The point of removing them is because they could potentially swing the results one way or the other. The votes are also clearly trolling by someone who has a history of such a thing and is now indef blocked for it. The much higher bar for stewards to be elected means that every oppose holds an enormous amount of weight. Yes, everyone who is eligible to vote should be allowed to voice their opinion. To a point. Once it crosses the threshold from voicing an opinion to trolling it is time to put a stop to it. --Majora (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Should we re-add "must not be blocked on more than 2 projects" and "must not be blocked on Meta-Wiki" to Stewards/Elections_2018/Guidelines#Voters? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You are free to propose new restrictions to be implemented for the next election. Meanwhile, it's obvious that a user currently blocked on Meta is not capable of voting. --MF-W 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I am shocked at this discussion. Everyone is free to support or oppose candidates based on whatever criteria they like. For some years, there used to be a user who also opposed every candidate, and his votes also were not removed. I see that Donald Trung did not even do a "blanket oppose" and also added some user-specific comments in some cases, which makes the proposal to remove them even more incomprehensible to me. --MF-W 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
True. But on the other side: if Donald Trung was blocked on Meta before the elections, then he wasn't even able to vote... Trijnsteltalk 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

All I see is a user who was voicing his opinion. Users in the past have opposed based on what some people think as "illogical", such as the "no edits on wikiversity: oppose" and "stewards are ok with harassment", but there votes were not removed. Why weren't those certain votes ("no edits on wikiversity oppose", "stewards are ok with harassment") labeled as "trolling" and removed? Why Donald Trung, specifically? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Because his actions in the steward elections and confirmations led to a block on meta for disruption, which is unlikely to be undone. If the actions themselves were blockworthy (which I think they were given his history), then surely we should revert the disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I think we cannot assume that other voters are unthinking and cannot evaluate his voices with criticism. I would leave them as they are. IMO, opinions of current stewards have much higher impact that an opinion of a single, formerly blocked, user. Ankry (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It's an election with a 5:1 numerical requirement. As ajr noted above, the confirmations are one thing as it is just advisory, but the votes are another since they were intended to be disruptive and they have the potential to actually impact the election. It isn't the future voters we are thinking about, it is the possibility that he brings someone below the 80% threshold with actions that led to him being blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
        • That doesn't matter. People are free to "disrupt" the election. Not wanting anyone to be elected is a legitimate opinion. --MF-W 11:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Note also that there is no "5:1 numerical requirement": 80% means 4:1. --MF-W 16:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I personally oppose strucking the vote. Everyone is free to express an opinion; not supporting the idea of even having stewards and opposing every condidates, though is very dissenting, is still an opinion. We should not suppress them and should tolerate dissents not violating the rule. If you oppose his view just vote yes to offset it. Also I don't think a block in Meta should invalidate any votes before the block.
For "5:1 support ratio requirement": if you think we need to strick the vote so that candidate can meet the ratio, the requirement should be changed instead. --GZWDer (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
blocking people for "disruptive" voting is profoundly undemocratic. what next, blocking people who vote against RfA ? Slowking4 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has been blocked for the sense of their votes, nor will be. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm also opposing the notion that a blanket (or near blanket) oppose on all candidates can be seen as disruptive to the process. It is undemocratic and can be seen as an intimidation tactic to keep those who wish to oppose all to stay away from voting. If you have an oppose section within this framework, then you must open to the idea that someone will cast oppose on every single nomination. So I am opposing the vote striking. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with striking those votes. Opposing some, many, or all of the candidates for a variety of reasons or none at all is fine. Opposing every candidate as a matter of a protest vote is the definition of POINTy behavior. Strike the votes and warn the editor that we're not here to be the stage for their protest. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
So in your opinion it would be okay if he reposted the very same votes just without the remark that it is a protest? Seems a little fussy to me, especially since one could simply strike the in your opinion "POINTy" sentences instead of removing the entire vote. --Vogone (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is meta, not enwiki. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I was merely trying to understand this viewpoint, not suggesting/encouraging any kind of striking. ;-) --Vogone (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting in the wiki world is not an absolute right. Wiki is not aimed at building a democracy or any other form government. Wiki just has to work. Making the wiki work implies taking decisions. Voting is a way, the simplest and often the fastest way to take decisions. Most (not every) of these votes are a clear violation of some principles which are wisely illustrated in policies like Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (policies which are shared by lots of different wikis): these policies are not universally adopted, but their principles are.
But are we sure all this mess is worth being made? As of now these votes may influence Wiki13's election only, but DT's vote against Wiki13 is not a blanket vote. So, I think trolling should be ignored as long as possible. Currently I think this specific case of trolling can be safely ignored. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I come from a science background. A removal of information is frowned upon and can be seena s censorship or manipulation. Thus, I am generally opposed to removing information, but I advocate weight of ignorning dumb stuff. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Internet may be filled with information, we are committed to collect knowledge rather than information, most of science is based upon this principle. Nothing which is removed by the means (consensus among contributors) of Wikipedia from Wikipedia can be considered a censorship in any form. Still this doesn't apply to internal processes which must be functional. Ignoring noise as long as possible may be e cheap way to be functional. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Vogone: "it would be okay if he reposted the very same votes just without the remark that it is a protest?" Yes. It's not my business to tell anyone how they vote or why. But Trung's use of the platform to complain about his unrelated issue just wastes our time, maximizing eyeballs on his worthless cause. Besides, the candidates deserve fair input, not being upstaged by some poor sot, unhappy with life. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Donald Trung has certain en:WP:DEMOCRACY ideological on his mind to experiment his personal opinion in anyway, without using the common sense and treat the stewards election vote like the political system, or else, he won't be voted his comments in disruptively look like trolling. In fact, he doesn't knew what is going on to the circumstance. The volunteers of steward work is to maintenance the Wikimedia projects on the tasks which based on the communities majority users consensus trusted, not form a Wiki national democracy government services. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Support Looking at them, he thinks that every steward has harassed him, and his comments appear very disruptive. Just because he thinks stewards shouldn't exist, doesn't mean stewards will stop existing. I was able to get stewards to globally block an IP address that kept on vandalizing multiple wikis. Also, I am not sure if Donald Trung is using his talk page appropriately. He acknowledges what he doing is wrong, and that he won't do it again, but I am not sure how convincing his arguments are. His disruption to the election is not opposing stewards, but staying one-sided. One who is open to other's arguments and points will less likely be disruptive. I, myself, confess that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia (such as redirecting a bunch of subpages as part of a game to the Main Page or repeatedly thinking of how it could be possible to move the Main Page). We can give Donald Trung one last chance here; if he causes any more disruption here, then his account can be globally locked and his IP address hard blocked. Ups and Downs () 19:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Global lock is never used against any local disruption.--GZWDer (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Then how about global ban? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You are right. Let me check Special:CentralAuth to see if he qualifies for a global lock. But at this point, what has happened has happened. Ups and Downs () 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Well, it does not matter anyway. But I do support removing his votes. Ups and Downs () 17:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

yes/no[edit]

Am I dense? What do the yes and no columns mean? Even mousing over them does not give me complete sentences. I'm of a background and generation that uses complete sentences. some one please explain these to me. Kdammers (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, No, or Neutral are columns for voting a candidate for Steward. If you are supporting the candidate, then you should vote in the "Yes" column; if you are opposing the candidate, vote in the "No" column; if you are undecided to supporting or opposing the candidate, then you should vote in the "Neutral" column. I hope this will answer to your question. --Stïnger (会話) 03:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
Err, but this give me a challange to fix translations of that, since {{Sr-heading}} says: PLEASE DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS TEMPLATE (unless the multilingual icon does not make sense in your language). And "questions" and "neutral" are still using 2015 translations. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Outcome[edit]

The outcome is about to be implemented in a few hours. We are still handling private access information and other stuff. For the Election Committee, RadiX 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)