Talk:Stewards/elections 2005

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • so we could possibly require that the candidate has sysop status on meta.

I think that would proof to prohibitive Waerth 08:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed the proposal according to Andre suggestion. ~~

In no election that I have organized has a candidate ever reached 80 percent. Danny 11:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, I think that there should be some kind of qualification for becoming a steward and that these should be clearly stated. Danny 11:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you propose Danny? Waerth 11:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All current stewards have been elected with at least 80% of support. I know because in the first count of voices, Erik counted me out because I had 79% or so. I finally got 83% and was added to the list. That means at least 8 people could get as much support. Anthere

What's next, elections for sysops? I think this is a very inappropriate idea. Community trust is necessary for stewardship but community trust does not need to be established by election. silsor 21:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

If I were to design a selection process for stewards, it would require that candidates present themselves on a Meta page and be commented on by the community. When the time comes, Jimbo would review this page and sift the pool of candidates for ones he feels meet the appropriate level of community approval, then discard this information and appoint any Jewish candidates as stewards. silsor 11:57, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Although this was indeed a joke, I do propose the idea. silsor 18:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why vote isn't such a good idea[edit]

Let's say steward have only a technical role without any management role in the direction of the projects. Let's say they need to be trusted by the Board considering they can widely act on every project, a bit polyglot, available, including on IRC, with maturity. The vote will only lead to a rush toward English/German/Japenese candidates and confirms, exactly like a local vote, that a peculiar community trusts a peculiar individual (very much like the board election actually). Now, a good and reliable user/admin from sv, for instance, won't ever have a chance to get elected, even if he is very present on Meta. Who would know him on en, de or ja ? Who is going to vote for him apart from sv users and some meta addicts ? Okay, on the top of this, I'm fed up with votes anyway.

Or. Do it fairly. Let's tell every community to apppoint 4 grand electors for the steward vote. And only the group of grand electors could vote for stewardship. This way, the inconvenient of big wiki/small wiki would be diminished since there would be 4 :en grand electors as well as 4 :sv grand electors and so on.

Of course, this system would let people think that's a real political election and that stewards are mega-gurus. But at least, the vote vould be fairer. I think. villy 07:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with it all.~But then, villy is *my* mega-guru ;-) notafish }<';> 20:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No elections?[edit]

From IRC, it seems stewards will be appointed, not elected:

From #wikimedia on March 15:
<yannf> jwales, what id the decision about new stewards ?
<jwales> yannf, I'm going to make a batch of them soon.


Of course in this case I'm still a candidate. villy 21:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took the following statement out of the page:

"Developers with shell and database access are not presently allowed to serve as stewards, as one of the goals of the steward system is to separate privileges."

Stewards were introduced because developers didn't want to do these tasks anymore. Since nobody of the developers expressed a wish to become a steward I think we simply don't need this rule. Keep it simple. --Elian 21:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I was perfectly happy to help with these tasks as a developer, but I was also happy to move to a steward system, as long as it actually accomplished the desirable separation of privileges. That is, as a developer, I agreed to the original steward proposal under the explicit condition that developers cannot be stewards. To retroactively back away from such agreement without consensus is not acceptable.--Eloquence 22:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like my change, let's discuss it here. I see no reason why it was necessary to fully revert all my changes, including the formatting ones I did. --Elian 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember under which conditions you or others agreed to the stewards proposal but you had no veto right anyway, so this argument of yours is rather pointless. --Elian 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like my change, let's discuss it here. I see no reason why it was necessary to fully revert all my changes, including the formatting ones I did. --Elian 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to revert the formatting change. Please reinstate the developer sentence yourself. This requirement was discussed in detail on Talk:Developer access when the steward system was first proposed. To quote myself (when the name was still uncertain):
In the interest of decentralizing power, I fully support that developers should not simultaneously hold this super-bureaucrat role (although they should be allowed to hold the regular bureaucrat role), as long as we also separate this power from the arbitration committee -- i.e. no arbitrators as super-bureaucrats.
If we do separate these powers, I think there should be no exceptions, period. No voting on developers, because no developers are super-bureaucrats. As such I would support removing all developers from this page, with the exception of Ed Poor, who should be given the choice of either remaining a developer (under the condition that he actually does some development), or becoming a candidate for super-bureaucrat.
To quote Anthere:
I support all Erik comments, but one. [something about quickpolls]
As you will see from this page, the history of the steward system is strongly linked to this very requirement. This is not about "veto rights" -- it is about finding consensus. The original consensus rests on this separation of powers, you are violating that consensus by removing an agreed upon requirement.--Eloquence 22:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Unless there's any good reason to change the rules from the last election, I think the exclusion of developers should remain. Anthere also agreed to the addition of the statement about developers on the mailing list. Angela 23:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
To provide some more reasoning for the exclusion of developers:
1) There are possible lack of transparency situations that can arise when a hypothetical steward/developer performs a series of operations related to an individual case which are only partially transparent (many developer actions are not logged). The integrity of the steward role rests to a large degree on the fact that stewards can keep each other in check; a person highly involved with a single case who also has the ability to perform tasks that are inaccessible to other stewards and only visible to developers who have no insight on the case at hand could lead to problems. Instead, stewards should generally consult with developers in cases that require cooperation, which means that there is an additional layer of accountability.
2) Privilege is not only about the possibility of abuse, but also about the perceptions which may result from it. Let's take the hypothetical situation that I would be a successful steward/developer candidate. I am currently responsible for creating new language editions of Wikinews using my privileges as a developer. I am also often seen as the "founder" or "instigator" of the project. However, initial sysops and bureaucrats have to be created by a steward. If I held both roles, people within these editions could get the incorrect impression that I am somehow the "ultimate Wikinews authority", and other stewards might, out of convenience, let me handle these tasks. This is just one example, and I can easily construct more, where a developer/steward could use his privileges to build a sense of authority that contradicts the wiki spirit.
3) Sometimes, as a developer, I have to make myself sysop on a project to perform certain tasks (editing the MediaWiki namespace, uploading files over protected ones, and so on). In such cases, I have now adopted the practice of asking a steward to make me a sysop, so that the action is properly logged, and there is no impression of superior authority. Again, if you have combined roles, this might lead to people relatively freely switching from one role to another, which in turn can lead to misperceptions in the community.
Shell access is now routinely removed if it is not used on a regular basis, for security reasons. The separation of developer access and stewards helps to win people for either role who are genuinely committed, and is a good deterrent against people who are interested in amassing power and privilege. Similarly, steward access is, as the past has shown, a very time-consuming role, as is developer access, and I am sure both groups will find enough work to do to fill their afternoons and evenings without holding two roles at the same time. There is simply no good justification for allowing a situation that could lead to possible conflicts of interest, lack of transparancy, misperceptions of authority, or even abuse of privileges -- there's enough work to do in either capacity.
Given all this, I have reinstated the sentence in question.--Eloquence 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
uhuuu, what a fuzz about a simple sentence. we just talk about if developers are allowed to run? Since no dev volunteered for the position of a steward (they've already enough work to do), I still regard the rule as pointless. Of course, if you need an explicit rule that you are not allowed to run, no problem. --Elian 23:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you know that no developer would have volunteered? How do you know that, if we drop this rule, no developer will volunteer next year, or 5 years from now? I believe that it is reasonable to think of safeguards against corruption, lack of transparency and misperceptions, even if it is only a long term risk. In any case, you were the one who asked me for justifications, and I provided them. Again, I would also like to apologize for initially reverting more than just this sentence; that was an honest mistake.--Eloquence

people not allowed to vote ?[edit]

Blocking Frauders blocked Thomas7[edit]

If a user (e.g. is blocked in one Wikipedia (e.g. DE), is he allowed to vote? Fantasy 13:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

see Thomas7 works on fr Alvaro 23:43, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
for the moment, i strike his name. you can unstrike, i don't want an edit war Alvaro
It took 5 votings to block my Userid Thomas7 in the german wikipedia. This votings were subject to massive election fraud, f.e. by user elian. I do not accept this fraud. Thomas7 08:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
1) User Thomas7 is using the French Wikipedia as Discussion forum, 99% of his edits are "Discussion Utilisateur:Thomas7"
But I have 100 times more edits than users fantasy. :) Thomas7 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
2) User Thomas7 does not have to accept the block, he is simply blocked. By misusing the french Wikipedia he shows that he does not care about Wikipedia at all, he just want to waste our time.
My solution: Lets just all ignore him, I don't think his vote will make any difference. In a case where his vote makes a difference, just delete it for that case, so we don't give him any more reasons to misuses our time also on Meta.
  • ma solution aussi (too) Alvaro
Fantasy suggests frauding only in cases when votes do matter. Thomas7 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Funny to think of a user "not accepting" to be blocked, I never heard of something like this, unbeleavable ;-) Fantasy 14:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
There was a campaing against me in the german wikipedia started by the members of the Studentenverbindungen, and a lot people do still support my point of view, against the right wing Studentenverbindungen, causing this fight. The votings were object of massive election frauds. Thomas7 19:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • je vois que ça peut vite chauffer ... laissons refroidir ;D I see it can become very hot very quickly ... just let the stuff to freeze ;D (no bot-translated ;-) Alvaro 17:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Just keep his vote, so he can at least feel he has taken his revenge on me. I was one of the persons who kicked him of nl.wikipedia when he started to use nl.wikipedia as a discussionforum in the same way he used French wikipedia. Waerth 12:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Just keep my vote, which claims, that unfair people should not become stewards. Thomas7 20:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Waerth!
Big sorry, it was my fault that I started this discussion. I learnd from this that with problematic users open communication is just loosing time, they misuse our energies and even seem to enjoy it... :-(
Just ignore him and we will see at the end how we handle this problem ;-) Fantasy 07:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
No problem Fantasy we will will learn, I made some tremondous mistakes in a similar case on nl:, communication is in those cases indeed a waste of time. We only learn through our mistakes and we are only very human, so we are sure to make them! Waerth 15:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

m:User:Besednjak is a valid user[edit]

difficult voting / large consequences[edit]

All NL wikipedians were invited to vote on this election. I find voting very difficult indeed. These stewards will get important power on for instance the Dutch (nl) wikipedia; most importantly, they can remove or add a bot or sysop status. Being a sysop myself this may happen to me. I cannot decide, however, what to vote. I do not know any of these candidates except Waerth and Oscar, which both are Dutch. These persons as a steward, are not relevant for the Dutch wikipedia, however.

This is not a formal objection to this voting. My request is to reconsider the results of the voting, in case it might happen that an unreliable person is selected, although this is difficult to qualify objectively. Ellywa 20:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Nod Ellywa. This is a very valid point. The interest of voting in this case is that we get feedback on someone little known here, but known by its community. If its community thinks he is okay, I think it will be a good steward. If its own local community expresses doubt (you can see an example on the voting page, don't you ?), this must be seen as a warning sign that the person might not be all right. If you vote "trust" on waerth and oscar, it is a very relevant sign. As for me, I am happy with currrent results and not worried. Anthere 05:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, as you are not worried, I will not be worried as well. Ellywa 20:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately things are a bit more complicated. People can be disregarded by their local community (take Aphaia for instance and the japanese community [as far as i understood]) and yet be fit for some job. Besides local communities tend to have personnal approaches instead of considering whether the candidate is fit for the [technical] position or not. This of course concerns the unnamed example from fr: on the voting page. (:Julien:) 07:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

vote validation[edit]

On a vote for Traroth, Anthere said:

  • "unstrike. The goal of the meta page is not to be bureaucratic, but to give us a link to prove us the person is a real editor without us having to hunt for information" (in summary box)

I have an objection from several reasons:

  • Anthere's edit was not just unstriking but also modification of the original vote: [[m:(user name)]]. So here is inacuracy a bit.
  • And I oppose to give validity to this vote currently in this way; you set a rule; very simple and clear. So you thought you could apply it in a soft way. But if so, why you didn't do to other editors who seem apparently active users on a certain project.
  • ... and if you give validity only to the vote for Traroth, and keep other votes for other candidates in a same way still invalid, it is strange for me.

My suggestion is, if you don't allow other editors to vote in that way or give validity to his other votes, it would be better to wait him to visit meta again. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 05:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Removing inactive stewards[edit]

Anthere suggested at Stewards/elections 2005 that inactive stewards should be removed. I don't disagree with that, so it seems from the following table that ArnoLagrange and Karl Wick should be removed unless there are objections to that. Angela 10:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

User Last activity at Special:Log/rights
Andre Engels - May
Angela May
Anthere May
ArnoLagrange February*
Daniel Mayer March
Fantasy May
Karl Wick never
Looxix February*

*ArnoLagrange's only activity within the log was on 26 Feb when he made himself an admin. This doesn't seem to be logged in the Requests for permissions archive.
*Looxix's last activity within the log was actually to remove his own sysop status (and therefore steward status) here.

Je regrette cette proposition. La moindre des choses serait de procéder à une consultation de l'intéressé au lieu d'espionner son activité ou inactivité supposée, et d'en discuter avec elle/lui. --Arno Lagrange  19:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you still interested in being a steward? Angela 20:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Quoique je n'ai pas beaucoup utilisé ma position de steward, il me semble que je l'ai reçue suite à une consultation où ma façon de m'impliquer dans le projet multilingue qu'est Wikipédia avait été reconnue par un certain nombre d'autres utilisateurs. Je rappelle que j'ai toujours pris position pour une plus grande démocratie linguistique où les contribbuteurs de toute langue pourraient intervenir dans les débats même s'ils ne maîtrisent pas nécessairement l'anglais. Dans ce contexte je n'ai eu à exercer mes droits de stewart pratiquement que dans les projets en espéranto et en ido. Je suis désolé d'avoir ignoré qu'il fallait suivre une procédure de demande pour m'attribuer à moi-même des droits sur des sous-projets en espéranto. Je suis admin sur eo:w et j'ai pas mal travaillé pour traduire en espéranto les wiki-messages (l'interface). Constatant que les sous projets eo:wiktionary, eo:q, etc n'étaient pas à jour, je me suis donné les dtroits d'admin pour y remédier. Je n'ai alors reçu aucune objection à ce sujet.
Pour répondre plus directement à la question d'Angela : j'ai de grands projets avec wikipédia et la position de steward - dont je n'ai jamais à mon sentiment abusé - me permet d'intervenir parfois à bon escient. J'aimerais donc pouvoir la garder. Et s'il faut que je m'en explique, je suis prêt à le faire.
Nota : je m'exprime en français parce que je serais incapable de dire la même chose aussi précisément en anglais que j'arrive à comprendre avec effort mais dans lequel je ne me sens pas capable de m'exprimer clairement. --Arno Lagrange  21:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see what others feel, but personally, I expect stewards to carry out the requests at requests for permissions. That's their role, and basically their only role, so if they're not doing that, why be a steward? Having stewards who don't carry out these requests may mislead people into thinking we have plenty of stewards when actually we have very few active ones. There have been over 600 steward actions in the log in the past 5 months. When I asked "Are you still interested in being a steward?", what I should have said is are you interested in carrying out these steward tasks and dealing with requests for permissions? Angela 22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I support your opinion Angela. Arno, either you take care of steward duties and participate to discussions (you did not say anything when removal was proposed), or you just should not keep the role. If you only need to be made sysop from time to time on a spanish or esperanto project, any active steward will gladly do it for you and give you a temp status. The role of a steward is not to be a syper sysop, it is to help others to get the status they need. Anthere 05:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I support for desysopping, not personally, but technical previledge could be burdened by people who could really give a help. A person who doesn't mind plenty of requests on "requests for permissions" is not suitable to stewardship. He or she could be trustful, a good editor but it is a different matter. And avoiding misunderstanding, like "we have enough stewards" or "stewardship is a sign of higy trustness and that's all", destewarding because of inactivity seems to me a good idea as well as desysoping because of inactivity. As for temp sysopship, you can request it anytime here or there - or perhaps for permanent sysopship. But it is independent of the matter of stewardship. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 05:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)