Talk:Stewards/Elections 2024

How many new stewards are needed?

Hallo. What do current Stewards think how many new colleagues are needed this year to uphold the good service and handle most requests in reasonable time? --Krd 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a few areas where we have ongoing backlogs; so it isn't so much about how many people we need - but if new members would be willing to work in these areas. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples for areas with backlogs? @Xaosflux TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Steward requests/Global; appeals of global locks; appeals about global range blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, when we run in to requests in languages that no stewards are proficient in. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Especially the problems in the first areas (SRG & appeals) should be solvable with new stewards. I hope we'll have many candidates. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 20:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Vote checking instructions

Hi, stewards. Last year I had conversations with Superpes15 (permalink) and Ferien (permalink) regarding whether we should instruct people not to move lines around. I propose to change that instruction to something like "A bot will move the lines around" because the current one leads to inefficiency and watchlist clutter. Happy to hear thoughts – the instructions this year are at MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Stewards-Elections 2024-Voters-Check. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As the last year, I don't see the need to manually move the lines tbh. We just have to check the votes, then the bot, every 30 minutes, move the checked vote in the right section. Since it's a job that the bot does, what is the need to manually move the vote? The only vote that should be moved is the first one, otherwise the bot creates a wrong line, the rest doesn't have this need. I wouldn't change the instructions because it could happen that, in an attempt to manually move a vote, someone could mistakenly confuse the lines or make a typo, and perhaps an unchecked vote would be marked as checked by mistake, or a row would be removed, better to leave it to the bot imho. Thanks! Superpes15 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my opinion is pretty much the same as Superpes above. I don't think someone with the vote checking template on their watchlist should be too bothered about one extra edit and I don't think it is a huge deal when it comes to efficiency either. The bot should probably be improved in some way to prevent this from happening, but I really don't think it is that big of an issue. --Ferien (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A question for ElectCom

Last year's Election talkpage contained a section about the guidelines wording in regards to NDA signature disqualifications, and while the application period for this year's elections are over (and the single disqualified candidate was disqualified for a different reason) I would still consider it interesting to know 1) if the procedures for disqualifying candidates has changed, 2) (if 1 is "no") wether you have discussed amending the wording to reflect the fact that your signature has to appear on the noticeboard too, and 3) (if 2 is "no" too) wether you would have done so, were the nomination period not over, resp. for next year. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: The procedure didn't change, in the sense that the signature must be confirmed by WMF before the election begins. Coordination with WMF has simply been improved so that T&S try to be able to confirm the signature even late. However, a "last second" signature is not guaranteed to be accepted, as WMF must do its own checks before proceeding (note that the elections started 14 hours after the deadline to sign, and this could be no enough time for WMF)! However, in my personal opinion, a candidate who signs at the last second (when applications ended 6 days before) doesn't demonstrate excessive interest in the elections (since ElectCom also send some reminders) and I'd consider this in the voting phase. At the moment you publish the statement you could sign the NDA immediately imho. Personally I'd be in favor of applying the deadline for submitting nominations as the deadline for signatures, so that there will certainly be the WMF confirmation by the start of the elections, but this is another topic. I don't think that what happened last year can be repeated (if this is what you actually asked). Thanks for your question :) Superpes15 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing concerns

Elections concluded over one year ago, there is no need for further discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
(Moved from Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vituzzu) What are the rules on canvassing at meta consensus discussions? I'm somewhat concerned that 30 different admins from the Italian Wikipedia have turned up to this discussion, all of whom have voted to keep Vituzzu; I have to suspect that there is some sort of canvassing taking place. To be clear, this is an anomaly; reviewing the other stewards up for confirmation, the only ones who recieved a comparable level of support from their local admin corps were also from the Italian Wikipedia - and even there we see a lower level for Superpes15, who was not also involved in the Gitz affair, as we do for Sakretsu, who was. Further, the ratio of admin to non-admin is anomalous; the non-Italian steward with the largest level of admin support is علاء, who was supported by 12 arwiki admins. However, that only makes up 43% of their arwiki support, with 16 non-admins supporting - in comparison, admins make up 91% of Vituzzu's itwiki support, 91% of Sakretsu's itwiki support, and 89% of Superpes15's itwiki support. The only explanation I can see for this anomaly is that there is a secret itwiki admins channel where efforts were made to "get out the vote"; is this appropriate? Review of other steward candidates AmandaNP - 7 enwiki admins AntiCompositeNumber - 7 commons admins Base - 0 ukwiki admins Bsadowski1 - 5 enwiki admins DerHexer - 6 commons admins Elton - 0 ptwiktionary admins HakanIST - 3 wikidata admins Hasley - 1 eswiki admin Hoo man - 2 dewiki admins Jon Kolbert - 5 commons admins MarcGarver - 1 enwikibooks admin Martin Urbanec - 1 cswiki admin masti - 3 plwiki admins Mykola7 - 0 ukwiki admins RadiX - 1 ptwiki admins Sakretsu - 30 itwiki admins Schniggendiller - 4 dewiki admins Sotiale - 0 kowiki admins Stryn - 0 fiwiki admins Superpes15 - 24 itwiki admins Tegel - 1 swwiki admin Teles - 1 ptwiki admin Tks4Fish - 3 ptwiki admins Vermont - 2 simplewiki admins Wim b - 0 itwiktionary admins Xaosflux - 4 enwiki admins علاء - 12 arwiki admins (Non-admins are defined as editors sufficiently active on the specific wiki to have obtained "auto-confirmed" status.) BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: I think this may has a more appropriate place to discuss, as this is not a topic solely related to Vituzzu. --Tmv (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @Tmv: Moved, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Differences regarding the votes of local admins could also be explained due to differences in how (if at all) the steward elections are announced locally. A couple of days ago I saw this itwiki announcement [1] (didn't check if there are more), but it seems to be neutrally worded, so not a case of en:WP:Canvassing. By the way: If your numbers are correct, just 25% of the 121 itwiki admins [2] have voted while it's 50% of the 24 arwiki admins [3]. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) I looked for such an announcement but wasn't able to find it; thank you for providing it. However, I didn't consider such an announcement to be the likely cause because of the disparity between admin and non-admin participation; it suggests a narrower distribution channel. In addition, looking at that specific announcement it has only had ten page views since voting opened. BilledMammal (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This is a canvassing, and this. And mathematics is not an opinion, read what Johannes89 wrote above. Kirk39 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @Tmv, ftr, I've moved this here since that page is only supposed to be used by stewards. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Hi all, a few thoughts on this: Re: canvassing in Meta-Wiki discussions/elections in general. Meta-Wiki is no one's home project. Anyone who comes here was "canvassed" here, by some means or another, with the few exceptions of those who have large Meta-Wiki watchlists (which I will readily admit to :p). For these elections, we have CentralNotices, messages in various noticeboards, emails, off-wiki messages (mainly in larger, public Discords, IRC channels, and Telegram groups), etc. The situations where notification would turn problematic, for me, is when we get into planned collusion: attempting to 'recruit' people to vote a certain way to get a certain outcome. So far, I have not seen evidence of this occuring, except in the links Kirk39 provides above. Re: canvassing in confirmations specifically. Steward confirmations are not pure votes, they are discussions that inform steward votes. In part, this is because of the usual lower participation/attention in confirmations: it falls to stewards to assess whether concerns raised by the users participating are demonstrative of a broader loss of community trust that warrants removal. Re: participation of itwiki admins. The on-wiki notice you cite as having "only had ten page views since voting opened" had 191 page views beforehand, and Johannnes89's point about relative admin participation is relevant too. Itwiki admins having higher participation is not itself indicative of problematic off-wiki canvassing. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Being the target, what rises my eyebrow is the number of users who are "retired" or never took part into confirmations but came up to put a remove for me. Vituzzu (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC) FWIW "you may also inform other users who might be interested in participating in the voting" (Stewards/Elections 2024/Guidelines#Suggestions to participants). I think that matters even less when it comes to confirmations, where it really isn't about "get[ting] out the vote" since it's only the stewards who take the final decision, based on community consensus and not raw numbers. That said, canvassing can of course still be considered a concern depending on the intentions, no matter whether they are achieved or not. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I probably shouldn't even intervene here since I'm from itwiki, but I can't back out. I've never asked anyone to vote for me in elections, either individually or in groups, let alone in confirmations. I know users from all wikis and I challenge anyone to find one user to whom I said "please vote for me" or I linked my election or confirmation! What has been linked here is a very normal announcement that I made at the itwiki village pump to remind the start of the UCoC voting and, in the meantime, I said that the nominations for steward were open and I'd make a subsequent post for the election and confirmations (spoiler: I totally forgot to do this, since in this period I have a lot of things to do on wiki, but it's not a problem at this point, I sometimes give some cross-wiki updates, and given these accusations I'm glad I forgot it)! It makes me very, very angry to be mentioned in this post, even only for statistics, because I find such an accusation reprehensible and I think that the whole work I made talks better than any words (and this is why I have never mentioned my statistics or have precisely indicated the work I did in my confirmation statement, and I don't think there's any need). The same can be said for many other steward (If you want to know: I didn't see any messages from either Vito or Sakretsu asking for votes or supports)! Btw, I want to explain something else, since being active crosswiki I understand that it's not immediately obvious for the users who are not involved in itwiki stuff. Itwiki is not as big a community as it seems, in the sense that the good users who are active outside of NS0 are often administrators (or at least sooner or later they become one), as they want to know and deal with more topics and matters (such as mediate in controversial situations or participate in general community discussions and not only in sectoral discussions). We have lots of great users, who write great pages (which is ultimately the only reason we're all here) and do an incredible job, but they are not at all interested in community affairs, discussions, flags or tech stuff, and this easily explains why the percentage of admins compared to non-admin users who intervene on meta-wiki is clearly higher. Last thing, it makes no sense at all to make such accusations and involve users like me, I personally would never allow myself to accuse other users of a canvassing without being in the context. That's all I have to say about it, and I wanted to do it since I'm always transparent with everyone, and I won't go any further into a discussion that makes no sense to me. Thanks! Superpes15 (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)  Comment I don't know if this is something where the stewards can answer, because I'm not quite familiar with the process of approvation of a Wikimedia mailing list. And since I only see two other similar specific lists for administrators like wikiit-admins-l is - one in Wikipedia (wikipedia-bn-admins), another in wikispecies (wikispecies-admin). So, my two questioa are: don't risk such a list causing the isolatiom from the rest of the community? being a private list ("admin issues" lists as declared) and seeing that admins can make mistakes like other users do, what is the level of transparency and check of this list? Who other - apart from the itwiki admins themselves - can access to the archive? Would it make sense to ask for a steward presence on the list? --Camelia (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) There are much more lists for users with admin (or similar) permissions, e.g. Wikifi-admin, Wikipedia-KO-Admins, Wikipedia-ja-del, Centralnotice-admins, Global-sysops, CheckUser-l, Stewards-l. Many of the IRC admin-channels like IRC/wikipedia-en-admins are private as well by the way. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Hi @Camelia.boban:, surely not related to stewards or steward elections, but I can reply as a steward too! There are a lot of lists created for sysops (for coordination but also because it's an official communication channel managed by WMF), maybe you didn't notice them because they are private, btw they are usually low traffic lists. For example, I'm in a lot of private ML (CheckUsers, metawiki sysops, itwiki sysops, global sysops, global renamers, stews and so on)! I can see there are many many others (just mentioning someone else: wikibooks-es-admins, Wikifi-admin, Wikipedia-KO-Admins, Wikiquote-en-admins, etc.) Then, on the questions: Yes, it could be that a ML, like any other private forum, could cause a phenomenon like the one you say. Luckily this doesn't happen and afaik never happened, also because they are used sparingly, in the sense that generally there are a few coordination topics, and some lists are used more and more rarely in the last years; The decision to admit an external member is up to the group that holds the list, but consider that a steward doesn't have any type of control over the local community (the stewards don't follow local discussions or make/suggest edits/actions locally, and above all don't know all the languages and projects), therefore it would not make sense to add them in a ML, because we could neither intervene nor do anything else as stews, and there would be a risk of resulting in external control of the projects and there would certainly be a loss of trust in the stewards (who btw have completely different tasks)! And then the question would arise spontaneously: And who controls the list of stews in which there are often significantly private topics? When permissions are granted there must be trust in the users imho! Thanks and I hope I have clarified all your doubts :) Superpes15 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, as I'm still thinking that a private list can both help solve specific issues but also isolate (as any other tool, depends on how it is used), I got you answer and agree with your explanation. Thank you @Superpes15. Camelia (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Similar concern previously happens (e.g. a voter's first, and one of only two, edit, is this vote), but I don't think there are any we can do before the vote ends. GZWDer (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal and others: is it common practice that members of the Election Committee vote? I find it already quite surprising that some stewards are voting for confirmation of other stewards (less so when I notice that this is done in two cases out of three - out of 28 Stewards - by Italian ones). But I am even more surprised to see that Superpes is voting, in particular with a long comment to support a steward from his same homewiki. --LuxExUmbra (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) I guess your concern extends to [4][5]. Maybe you can also explain according to which weird criterium well-motivating an opinion should be considered a bad practice. --93.33.21.66 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) I guess most stewards don't comment during this phase because they get to take the final decision (on the respective talk page) after the end of the election anyway. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) I'm not concerned about stewards voting. Inasmuch as some steward actions are not very transparent (usually because of concerns about privacy), then stewards are the only ones fully-informed to form an opinion. They also get to work together and communicate privately, another source of information. Some stewards get negative votes at reconfirmation based on the tone of their public statements. If they can't stop themselves from saying inappropriate things in public, I have to imagine that their private communications are worse. The normal practice would be that someone who voted is "involved", so would be ineligible to participate in a closing decision. I assume stewards follow this fairly fundamental rule. Bovlb (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) As has been discussed above, canvassing isn't a super large concern at steward confirmations because this part of the confirmations is not binding. The binding results follow, and are a strict vote among stewards as a group. During the strict vote it would probably be expected that a steward with a conflict of interest avoid voting, but I don't remember this ever being an issue in the past. ElectCom does not really have a conflict of interest here - they are just there to coordinate the election, they do not have a decision-making capacity that directly intersects with whether a steward is confirmed or not. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) @Ajraddatz: Stewards/Confirm/2024 states that The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases). Sdrqaz (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I think that is just old wording - that used to be the case (see Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2014 for example). Since the end vote was re-opened to all stewards ElectCom has lost the decision-making power. Or, at least that's how it was the last time I was a steward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I think that the Committee still makes a final decision after the stewards' discussion (a "hyper-consensus"), though I doubt that it will decide to confirm a steward if there is a majority of stewards against confirmation in the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I'm more surprised to see this comment without any ping @LuxExUmbra:. Am I not a user like you or any other person here? I thought I was free to comment and vote on SE and SC (which are not a vote) and didn't think this can be interpreted as conflict of interest (which btw I don't have with the Italian stewards since I never have particular contact with them). You know that I always abstained when mentioned on itwiki issue as stew or ombuds and, if ElectCom should decide on Italian stewards since the consensus is not clear, I will obviously refrain from doing so (we are 6, and can ensure that in case of problems there are 5 people to decide, no problem for this)! Superpes15 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I am sorry for not pinging you, my question was to the community anyway, not to you. I don't think you are a user like me or most others one here since you are in the Election Committee and, as pointed out by Sdrqaz you will be in charge of verifying consensus. But your clarification that you will abstain from deciding on Vituzzu's result is reassuring. I would prefer some more formal way of forbidding such possible conflicts of roles, but I accept that given the present rules you can legitimately decide to express your opinion first and then abstain from the final decision. Thank you. --LuxExUmbra (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC) @LuxExUmbra: And you make a question to the community, talking about an alleged conflict of interest about me, without pinging me or other ElectCom members? Wonderful. Luckily Ajraddatz already explained the matters so I've not to repeat how (obviously) it works. Btw I'm very very annoyed to read this kind of thing, honestly, I try to do as much as possible but comments like this make the desire go away. Just tell me one time I behaved in COI. Yes, I'm a user just like you when I wrote a comment in confirmations, and I'm free to comments as user for every candidate and saying what I think, I'm free to give my opinion about all users, also I'm free (in the second part of confirmations) to evaluate the community consensus about an itwiki steward when acting as steward or ElectCom. Abstaining from deciding on the steward confirmations of my homewiki is only a question of transparency due to the tension present here and to the fact that we are 6, it wouldn't change much, given that community consensus is generally easy to evaluate and I could easily do it as other ElectCom do in the past (even when the consensus is contrary to own opinions). What if all the stewards came from the same project? Could anyone do ElectCom task due to COI? Seriously? I have no friendships or ties with Vituzzu nor with Sakretsu, and I don't see why I should be in COI with them and honestly this series of accusations against me (canvassing before and COI now) has tired me. If I come from the same project, do I necessarily have to be a great friend of that user or defend them, when perhaps I am external to the events that happened in the last months? I've worked a lot this year and I'm continuing to do so as ElectCom, always with transparency and a lot of attention and care, honestly I don't care much about these controversies about me, but please, if you have something against me, ping me (and for the second time you didn't)! Superpes15 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC) @Superpes15:, I am sorry, I apologized already for not pinging you and I assumed that you would follow from that point on. I am sorry that you find such a simple question so annoying. I just asked because looking at other stewards and members of the Election Committee, I found a somewhat strong correlation between some "one hand washes the other" phenomeonon and itwiki extraction. But just out of curiosity I just went back to 2023 and... well no, it does not seem to have been common practice in 2023 either. I find one case in 2022 but essentially without any tension. Perhaps it is not actually common practice, If I am wrong just tell me. Anyway, your reaction tells a lot. I am really sorry that you feel like I have something against you. Actually I don't, I just find your actions the natural consequence of having grown for years in the distorted itwiki atmosphere, where a restricted subset of administrators essentially owns the project as a team, always acting in support of each other, in the best case closing their eyes in front of any obvious misbehaviour of a teammate. For example, you entered in the OC right when my case was being closed. Can you confirm what Vituzzu said, that I was considered "unanimously" a sockpuppet? Can you point out any edits of mine that would support this impression? Can you point out any edits of mine that can be considered "abuses" which made it legitimate to keep performing CU actions on me? Did you find it reasonable that I was banned indefinitely by Gianfranco for having exposed the OC decision and having voted against Vituzzu's admin confirmation? --LuxExUmbra (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) @LuxExUmbra: Uhm honestly, yes, any stewards can comment in the confirmations (didn't see what other stews do, but I thought they had commented on confirmations). Someone prefers to write only in the final confirmation, others want to do it in both, I prefer to say my opinion as user in the confirmation (as I always did) and then to partecipate in stew confirm. Being in the ElectCom, well, is just a coordination matter (and I love doing coordination stuff as you can easily see) but doesn't change my status and I never thought this :) I don't know what you mean with "your reaction tells a lot" since in general I keep away from controversies (more for the short time I have, and since I think they take away time and effort useful for the work that needs to be done on the wikis). I'm just tired to be involved in discussion in which I've nothing to do, and I'd like to be evaluate for my works and actions here (not for things that involve other users, and no one says a word about my ~25.000 stew actions, but just talked about potential canvassing or COI which I'm not aware of or involved in). Honestly, it's not nice to find yourself accused of potential abuse without a ping, so my reaction is not related to you but to all the constant accusations that are made against me in the last 2 weeks, just for being an itwiki user, since I'm external to all these events and work hard to improve all wikis every day in the best interest of the communities (and I assure you that my work - focused on all areas - takes up time and is not light). And, no, I don't close my eyes when something is wrong, I've no problem in reverting other sysops or asking them to change their actions, I can't follow all the discussions but I often contact other colleagues when I think they are wrong (as I expect from any admin on any project) so I don't understand why you say things like "closing their eyes in front of any obvious misbehaviour of a teammate" (hope this is not referred to me and, if it's referred to me, I'd like to explore this point further)! My "teammates" are all the users, from the last unregistered IP, to the oldest registered user here! That said, I hope you understand my outburst above and don't take it personally (as I understood your post was not against me), about the questions (even if we both know we are doing a long offtopic discussion here), I've no problem in answering: The case was not handled by our commission (which just handled notifications), so I've no idea of what happened there or their private discussions (and I've not OC access anymore at the moment), I only know the resolution you also know and my OC gave its impressions on it, which may differ for example from the impressions of the current OC (btw I don't remember so well the case, nor the words "unanimously" a sockpuppet", nor the user who was suspected to be your sock - have you some diffs/link or can you send me the emails?). About your block, I never read the thread, just seeing it in the block reason, and I see, after a very quick and superficial look, that Gianfranco said that you are free to vote against any user, and this is also my thoughts! No one should be judged for their opinions on wiki if they're not offensive or totally in bad faith. But I can delve deeper into the matter, if you give me some time, since at the moment I'm very busy both on wiki and in RL. Among other things, as soon as there is an appeal system (I hope soon), you will be able to indicate all the doubts you have to the appropriate body. Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Hi @Superpes15:. We are actually off topic here, so perhaps we should continue by email. Honestly, I don't know how to interpret your current explanation about what you know and knew of that OC case. From what you write here, it seems that you essentially had little information on the case and only saw the result. The comment you wrote at the time in Vituzzu's confirmation sounded somewhat different to me. It is hard for me to think that you did not know about what had happened to me after that event. In any case, if so, and if you really want to understand the whole story, in addition to the confirmation page, you can look at the "UP" page where you will find all needed information. The distortion of the itwiki admin "team" that I mentioned, however, would already be clear by simply looking at the original discussion between me, Vituzzu and Ignisdelavega wihch caused all my problems, and compare with this. And as if that was not enough, you can check what Ignisdelavega is still doing today to that page. I check once in a while whether the revision of the trial (started today, btw) has been added in that page; it is not there yet. Someone (not me!) tried to add it, but, surprise surprise, Ignisdelavega keeps removing it. God knows why. --LuxExUmbra (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) PS: The "unanimously considered a blatant sockpuppet" was in this comment by Vituzzu. Also, you write "I see [...] that Gianfranco said that you are free to vote against any user, and this is also my thoughts!" Come on, do you really not see how embarrassing this sentence is?!! Also, just look at what Gianfranco DID, with no reaction whatsoever by any other admin! --LuxExUmbra (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) @Superpes15, I'm sorry to hear about the constant accusations that are made against me in the last 2 weeks, just for being an itwiki user, but I see that you got 119 keep and 0 remove in your confirmation, which looks to me like a pretty substantial acknowledgment of your good work by the community. However, justified or not, there may be issues of trust in it.wiki's standards of fairness, and in that respect IMHO LuxExUmbra's indefinite block is a record low. I'm glad you say you're going to delve deeper into the matter of that questionable block. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC) @Vermont, Ajraddatz, and Superpes15:, sorry to reopen an old discussion, but I'd like to draw your attention to something that has just come to light regarding the way it.wiki admins use their private mailing list and/or other channels reserved for admins (e.g, IRC channel and Telegram group). I think this is quite relevant because it could affect other elections and community discussions in which, as BilledMammal and others noted for the 2024 steward reconfirmation, several it.wiki admins show up and vote in the same way. In this long comment, Actormusicus, a former admin of it.wiki who voluntarily resigned a few months ago, disclosed that "[In the Telegram group reserved for admins] it happens that someone calls others to arms to get a flag on another project and someone tells them, 'Be careful, it's a canvass'. Absolutely right. It's a shame that it's the same person who, in another instance, recommends 'voting in dribs and drabs' so as not to arouse suspicion of canvassing" (my translation of the text starting with Capita ad esempio che). Actormusicus did not specify whether these "calls to arms" are common practice, or whether the recommendation to vote one by one was followed. However, I would advise Meta admins and other interested users to monitor the behaviour of it.wiki admins, as BilledMammal's suspicions about the "secret itwiki admins channel" are no longer supported solely by the anomalous "ratio of admin to non-admin". --Gitz6666 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC) I confirm I disclosed that one itwiki admin, on a private channel, not the mailing list, once approved what to my eyes appeared to be canvassing. I actually did not say if the advice was followed nor if it's a common practice. I further specify that: I never told who that admin was I never told on what occasion I also formally assumed good faith by saying «Supponiamo che chi si raccomanda di votare alla spicciolata sia convinto non trattarsi affatto di campagna elettorale? Presumiamolo», and there was a reason for that: I would have argued later that good faith can sometimes be more harmful than bad faith itself I told Gitz on his forum I destroyed all admin chats I ever took part in. I said that I kept some indirect evidence, but of something else. Moreover: though I feel deeply disappointed by Wikipedia (any Wikipedia version, although primarily itwiki of course), this just means to me that I don't want to get involved in any Wikimedia project any longer. I do not need to tilt at windmills, fight against Wikipedia, or itwiki, or some kind of “system”: I just live much, much better without it/them. When I noticed Gitz's ping, I was logging in to search for, or ask for, some request for global blocking of my account. Something is rotten in Denmark, my friends? Sorry, so much the worse for Denmark. Excuse me, Gitz. I'm no moralizer, I have no need for revenge, and I'm no Gitz: preferisco vivere --Actormusicus (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Topic subscribed because the linked post also states that this system is also used to bury&block unwelcome contributors through offwiki campaigns, with obvious alteration and addressing of the consensus in the community procedures of it.wiki. This is said to happen under the direction of an ArbCom member (not revealed) who coordinates other sysops in drafting dossiers against unwelcome users. Thanks to @Actormusicus for bringing to light what has all the appearance of a systemic failure, role-games of power and prestige, in which the "encyclopedia" seems only in a very distant background. -- TrameOscure (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Yes, kudos to Actormusicus for being so forthcoming. I'm aware of their hostility towards me, but I've never doubted their good faith and love for the project. Since they have raised concerns affecting both it.wiki's internal processes and the transwiki level, I think that .mau. (it.wiki ArbCom) and Civvì (U4C) should be made aware of this conversation - perhaps they'd be willing to shed some light or provide reassurance. There's been no recent discussion on it.wiki regarding the use of admin-only communication channels, and I noticed that an attempt to address the issue was immediately relegated to a collapsible box by Argeste. Gitz6666 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Please, Gitz6666, do not attribute to other users behaviors that are instrumental in corroborating your thesis, with no bearing on the reality of things: the discussion I put in a box was not about admin-only communication channels, but about communication channels in general, and whether or not blocks should be always considered as community decisions. In any case, all these topics did not pertain to the page where they were being discussed, namely the confirmation procedure of a single sysop. I would like to remind that in it.wp, by inveterate practice (that you certainly learnt before being blocked), it is not allowed to use pages referring to elections and confirmations to discourse about unrelated matters, as it precisely was happening. Whatever, I did not delete the OT comments (as I would have been allowed to do, as somehow as admin I share the responsibility on the proper conduct of community procedures); rather I preferred to delimit them in a box (and 12 hours later, which sounds weird as "immediately"), and I did so in the light of the opinions of others users who were also pointing out the misuse of that page. --Argeste (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC) @Argeste: regarding "with no bearing on the reality of things", my comment is entirely accurate and makes no assumptions about why you chose to hide that particular exchange in a confirmation discussion that was rife with off-topic digressions, including walls of text and the posting of various MIDI files from different users. On the other hand, your comment is factually incorrect. The discussion that you placed in a box was almost exclusively about admin-only channels. It had nothing to do with "communication channels in general", and the distinction between administrative and community blocks was mentioned only because some users were concerned that a discussion held in an admin-only channel might have influenced the outcome of a recent community discussion on user behaviour. Anyway, the it.wiki community is now finally discussing how these reserved channels are being used, so no harm done. If you'd like to respond to the concerns raised about their use to influence consensus on other WMF projects, this would likely be an appropriate venue. Gitz6666 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Thank you for proving that there are no taboo topics on it.wiki. --Argeste (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC) Just to be sure. I told of a possible admin canvassing by voting “in dribs and drabs” and Gitz concluded that it was transwiki... It happens that this was no “voting in dribs and drabs” at all, with 12 itwiki admins voting on 6 February. Among them, me (#5)! Of course, there was a well-visited on-wiki notice, it is well known. Gitz meanwhile went on brutally attacking me (I got permanently blocked on itwiki, at least) on his blog and forum, or worse, pretending to defend me while letting his forum's members attack. I give no link because of disgust and language bareer, which would force me translating. He is obviously obsessed by itwiki admins, and such an offwiki behavior should be an extra element to judge how out-of-scope his actions on itwiki were and how discredited still are, on any Wikimedia project. The whole is plain bad faith, what more evidence is needed? Someone once said: “Gitz is no saint”. I would say he is “that saint in the Cathedral” and I wish him to “do bowwow”... Disgust got overwhelming by now --Actormusicus (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication

Bonjour à tous et toutes,

Je tiens à souligner, en tant que contributeur actif de Wikipédia en français, que notre communauté a appris l'existence des élections des Stewards le 10 février ; donc après la clôture des candidatures.

Il serait utile à l'avenir de communiquer plus activement, sous peine de n'avoir que des Stewards incapables d'échanger, lire ou informer d'autres communautés linguistiques.

A titre d'exemple, je doute fort que la majorité de ceux ou celles qui me lisent aient lu le message en français.

---

Hello everyone, I would like to emphasize, as an active contributor to Wikipedia in French, that our community learned about the Stewards elections on February 10th, after the closure of the nominations. It would be useful in the future to communicate more actively, lest we end up with Stewards who are unable to exchange, read, or inform other linguistic communities. As an example, I strongly doubt that the majority of those who are reading this have read the message in French. LD (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Selon le calendrier, il y a eu deux annonces à propos des élections des stewards : la première le 15 jan pour les candidats et la deuxième le 6 fev pour ceux qui ont le droit de voter. Peut-être il y a des problèmes avec le CentralNotice sur frwiki, ou les annonces ont été supprimé / désactivé par les utilisateurs ? Je ne suis pas certain s'il exist d'autres moyens de communication pour annoncer les élections, comme un message sur une page de discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Merci de la réponse @Ajraddatz.

En général, on publie nos annonces sur fr:Wikipédia:Annonces ou bien sur fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro du jour, puis d'autres se chargent de la suite ; sinon sur fr:MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. LD (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Parfait merci de nous expliquer - ElectCom, I'm out of the loop on the election notifications currently being done, but maybe a massmessage could be sent for the elections next year (targetting fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro du jour and similar boards on other projects)? Might be helpful to augment the CentralNotice campaign for those of us (myself included) who are prone to dismissing messages without reading them. Though come to think of it, I'm not sure that I saw any related to the steward elections either - or maybe I did and forgot. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote not being recorded

I am trying to vote for EPIC using the automated method but it appears my vote is not being recorded or processed. The page refreshes after I click vote but there's no other indication that anything happened. Skarz (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Happened to see this, but just saw that you fixed it manually. However, now it seems like a non-eligible vote was counted in somehow, so I will let another user fix that. EPIC (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I was contacted by dewiki community members who appear to have the same problem [6]. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If the JS isn't working, have they tried to just use the wikitext editor and sign their name? Someone will surely clean it up. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hanay's question

I'm a bit concerned that she is trying to politise the election with political references - can ElectCom confirm whether that's an appropriate question? Leaderboard (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

where do we vote ?

I looked everywhere on this page but maybe I am so tired I dont see where I am suppose to click ? Nattes à chat (talk) Nattes à chat (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat on Stewards/Elections_2024 under "Index" there is a table, click on the candidate's vote counts to go to the vote options for them. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)