Talk:Stewards/elections 2006-2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Considering that the steward-elections take only very rarely place (about once in a year) would it maybe be wiser to wait with the voting a little while longer, and give people the chance to think about it? Eight days is al little shoirt after all... And maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen an announcement on the mailinglist either. I only heard this through IRC, what usually is not a good sight to me :) So I would like to suggest to start the voring on december 1st, and announce it formally on the diverse mailinglists? Effeietsanders 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's still time to announce it on the mailing lists - if it's announced tomorrow, people still have a week to think - and that's enough, in my opinion :) — Timichal 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I discussed this with Anthere before hand: the idea was to start a discussion on Talk:Stewards, wait about a week, then make an announcement on foundation-l, wait another week, then see what happened. That's why there hadn't been an announcement so far. It was coming on Monday, November 13. Redux 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, a week is too less. On one side because people can be on vacation etc, stuff like that just happens, and jumping in the middle of an election is not really nice. On the other side I would like to encourage people to ask advice before they decide to run or not. This way that is a lot harder. And a few weeks later a bunch extra stewards will not really make a big difference for the workload at least :). Effeietsanders 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops, looks like you misunderstood. All of this was just to ask for the elections. You see, Steward elections are not regular (at least not at the moment), and we must explicitly ask for them to happen. So that's what I was doing at this point: first, rallying support on talk page, then making an announcement on foundation-l, etc., all of this just so as to get the elections to happen. Nothing about actually voting or electing anyone at this point. In fact, I had proposed the elections for nearly a month after my original post on Talk:Stewards. Redux 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. For now, we improve the elections rules. Anthere
I agree that one week is very short. But I will do all I can to spread the word about it. --Walter 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the election would start on November 25, and not on November 20, and end on December 15. Unless there's opposition, I will add the dates tomorrow — which doesn't mean that it will be written in stone, it could still be changed, of course, but we need to get those details done, in order to move forward. Redux 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


About "reconfirmation"; like it looks now this is no reconfirmation. It is that all stewards, new and old, need to be re-elected again. There is no difference about the new candidates and current stewards. I do not like this way of doing this. If there is a need to clean out the number of stewards I proposed to;

  • stewards not active in stewards duties since X months get a notice that the will be de-steward and if the feel like it the can reapply
  • all other stewards remain steward
    • possibly give the option to the community to ask for vote for specific stewards. If X-users request a vote for a specific steward then that steward also need to be voted for again

If it is done like it looks now we will lose good stewards because not all will be willing to make them candidate again. And also one part of being steward is saying no to users. And the can vote against that steward. --Walter 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In the past three years, only one steward was *fired*. And it was not a collective decision. Neither by the community. Nor by stewards. Nor by the board. It was a one man show decision. There was no discussion about it. It was just done. I do not like this way of doing this either. And I expect next time, the decision will be a little bit more collegial. At least, reconfirmation will give this opportunity. I do not mind reconfirmation being organise one way or another. But please give a chance to editors to say "no, we do not want this person to be steward any more". Anthere

I am also a bit surprised about this "reconfirmation" which is, as Walter says, rather a reelection. I don't really understand the need for it at this moment. Yann 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The reconfirmation rules are still open - if you have any ideas how to make it less a reelection and more a reconfirmation, please propose them. — Timichal 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At least the ratio of votes should be easier for old stewards. But just standing for election takes time (writing an application in French *and* English, etc.), and I don't have that much. Yann 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the rules to require only 66% support of existing stewards, that's probably more fair. I chose 66% because it's considered as a bottom line of consensus (at least on cswiki :). — Timichal 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this choice, but I cannot find it on the page... found it, sorry - I start being groggy tonight... --Paginazero - Ø 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I support this, too. --M/ 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose a lighter processus where active stewards don't have to stand for reelection. Stewards could be confirmed by other stewards. An election means that one has to be "nice" to be sure to be reelected next time. It doesn't help to take decision without fear of others' opinion. Yann 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Although i am new here, i must stick my nose and agree with Yann there. It would be harder for current stewards to reach 80%, because the job involves decisionmaking and somebody somewhere sometime will not like these decisions. These guys have to handle a lot of frustrated users and let's face it, most of these users are "potential oppose votes" right now. It's impossible to make everyone happy and in order to increase their efficiency, the required percentage should be reduced for them. If they are inactive, they will fail no matter what anyway. So, to sum up; active stewards should be priviliged.--Vito Genovese 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

I do not intend to submit my candidacy again unless it is deemed absolutely vital. This is not a personal issue, but rather based on my belief that it is essential for the office to have stewardship abilities, and frankly, that would mean me. Furthermore, I do not think that stewards elected just last year should have to run again. If we really need more stewards, then you don't start by getting rid of the ones we have. I would, however, support a confirmation process, whereby existing stewards confirm the stewardship of other active stewards. Danny 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

new version for reconfirmation[edit]

How do you like it ? Anthere 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds less peremptory than a reconfirmation vote. I think it's a good compromise. --Paginazero - Ø 08:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not like the idea of reconfirming stewards elected only 6 months ago, but I do not like either the idea that stewards should have a life-long term, without any reconfirmation vote at all. I would rather support a medium length term (how about 2 or 3 years?) with a compulsory reconfirmation vote at the end of the term. Teofilo 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Until this point, a few users have discussed the following changes to the rules:

  • Duration: the election would run for 20 days (and not 25), from November 25 until December 15
  • Present Stewards: Discussing whether or not we should have reconfirmation for now. Possible alternative would be to amend policy to remove inactive Stewards automatically once the set time period has elapsed.

Please, feel free to elaborate, agree or disagree with all of this. Redux 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Duration should be no shorter than two weeks. I have no particular problems in undergoing a vote for reconfirmation. On sysops are currently reconfirmed, but the support required for them (2/3 in favour) is lower than the one required for a new sysop (80% in favour). This difference is to protect the most active sysops, as some of them might have had to take "unpopular" actions against some users or pages and therefore be exposed to the revenge of a small group of "damaged" (in their POV) users. --Paginazero - Ø 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We discussed it on IRC a bit, and my opinion is that for this year's election, we should have reconfirmation, although with different requirements than the new stewards - as Walter and Paginazero mentioned, stewards sometimes have to refuse requests, and users "damaged" by these refusals might "revenge" by voting oppose on the stewards' reconfirmations. However, for the following years, I suggest destewarding only for inactivity, as Walter proposed. — Timichal 14:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(I realized that might be kind of unfair for the "old" stewards, as "new" stewards wouldn't have to go through the proccess of reconfirmation - maybe we should do a reconfirmation every three years or so?) — Timichal 14:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So I guess we are fine: 20 days means nearly 3 weeks, which appears to be reasonable (and it was the duration of the previous election); As Anthere noted in the thread above, some kind of collegial decision on Steward performance and, if necessary, loss of status is required. The first step towards that will be that reconfirmation, a process that should be refined for future occasions. Redux 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Date clarification... does "The voting will start on the 25th November 2006 and it will end on the 15th December 2006." mean midnight UTC on the 15th at the end of the day or something else? If I recall correctly voting started just after midnight UTC on the 25th so ending just before (exactly on) Midnight UTC on the 15th would be symmetric. Thanks... ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

00:00 15 December 2006 is what I assumed. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Age requirement[edit]

About a candidate[edit]

Uh, the minimum age requirement, Timichal… (Please delete this message if inappropriate.) A humble concerned citizen, Californiacondor 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when is denouncement encouraged in Wikimedia projects? Timichal is honest and will withdraw himself if this rule is confirmed. He doesn't need any canary. guillom 16:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are really serious about becomeing a steward, you need to control your temper. You don’t bluntly accuse someone of “denouncement” without first asking his/her intention. An angry, confrontational, accusatory steward can be very detrimental to a not-for-profit organization like us. So, please think twice before posting this kind of message. I will not discuss this matter with you any further because it will only work against you.--Californiacondor 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If you had acted in good faith, you would have told him this on his talk page (and you would have seen I had already told him), not here. I have nothing to add. guillom 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal consequences?[edit]

I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected, and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about the steward rôle since then. Jon Harald Søby 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the legal age in Japan is 20 not 18. Therefore, I request that a candidate(s) should be at least 20 year-old if he/she resides in Japan and will make contributions as a steward from Japan. I cannot let “minors” face unnecessary legal consequences even if it would happen very rarely. A humble concerned citizen, Californiacondor 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
My point is that I don't like this requirement at all. If the problem is checkuser, then put requirements on checkusership, not on stewardship. Also, I would like to know what I might get sued for. Jon Harald Søby 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Technically under some jurisdiction (including Japanese as far as I know), you are liable for your action performed with your steward right. So theoritically you may be sued because you desysop someone per community consensus who is however dissent to be desysopping for the purpose this guy has the court give back his right. Or generally if you are a minor, your parent retain the right to nullify your action. Personally I think both can hardly happen, but theoretically there is such possibility. --Aphaia 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor (16 y.o., sysop, well known user, also met in person in a couple of occasions) just applied for becoming Check User on Is his application valid or shall we apply the age requirement for local checkuserships as well? --Paginazero - Ø 12:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Current stewards[edit]

I never had to give to WMF evidence of my age/identity up to now. Given the current rules, I suppose I have to. Can someone confirm, please? --Paginazero - Ø 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Application guidelines[edit]

I've moved the information relevant to steward candidates to Stewards/Application guidelines, added much more to it, and drafted a French version. Having no knowledge of Italian, I copied the less explanatory version from the election page verbatim to Stewards/Application guidelines/it. Please help translate the guideline pages; they'll be useful for future elections, too.

I asked both Danny and Anthere what they thought of the guidelines; Danny approved, and although Anthere didn't respond she did make a few corrections— I took that to be, at the least, not disapproval. :) —[admin] Pathoschild 04:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the French version but I only had few things to fix :) guillom 07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Italian done. Proofreading welcome. If a had a cent for every typo I sow, I'd be filthy rich. :o) --Paginazero - Ø 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost time[edit]

Well, after a lot of preparation, we are about 15 minutes away from November 25 in UTC time (at the time of this post). The election is about to open. I believe that we have put together the best-organized Steward election to date, and I am especially proud of the effort made by so many to create multilingual versions of the statements of the candidates. I'd like to thank everyone who have been doing translations for the elections (and maybe will have to do some more during the election). I would also like to commend everybody that has helped this election happen and wish everyone involved a smooth 20-day period to come. I will also thank in advance all of those who will take some time off to participate in this over the next 20 days. Kudos to all! Redux 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The best-organized? You have very low standrds.
This election is deeply flawed.--QT 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Best-organized to date". That means in comparison to the elections that have taken place before this one. I would expect, and indeed hope, that things would get better with every election. Perhaps if Steward elections were to become regular, as opposed to happening only upon request, we would be able to come up with a system that would be far better than anything we have tried until now. Still, it is hard to say if we'd ever be able to come up with anything that would please each and everyone. Redux 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to vote aye or no[edit]

I don't see the reasons why people are voting yes or no. Am I missing some page where that kind of stuff is collected, is it forbidden to explain at all, or has nobody felt a reason for that yet? Effeietsanders 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am used to admin and crat !votes where some reason is given with the vote. Perhaps no one wanted to start (I voted shortly after Timichal did... if I didn't vote for a candidate it is only because I don't have the info on them yet, in general I think all the candidates I've checked are good choices)? Lar 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm used to not give reason when I don't vote oppose :) in case anyone wonders, my support votes mean "yes, a good candidate" and my neutral ones "I don't know him enough to decide". — Timichal 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm wondering if it is appropriate to request that the election be mentioned? I'm thinking things like putting it on the community portal page (or similar) of various wikis? Thoughts? Lar 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On, the start of these elections has already been advertised, using the usual ways for local elections.
I'm rather confident that the next Wikizine issue will mention them. --Paginazero - Ø 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was announced in issue 50 of Wikizine, and a Wikisource News story was written on the English Wikisource. I think local communities should advertise it in whatever way they prefer. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
On individual basis saying, I think the current publicity on meta and foundation-l is enough. Both are open and easily noticed. I don't oppose to inform local communities about it, but still assume there would be no difference if we have such or not, since only meta editors are eligible to vote. --Aphaia 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The eligibility requirements as I understand them are that you must have an account on Meta and if it itself does not have 100 edits and 3 months, it must be linked to an account on another wiki where you have at least 100 edits and 3 months. Am I mistaken? If not, then arguably, publicity on other wikis is not irrelevant. Aside, I wonder if that is why I got one of the neutrals I did, my meta account has less than 100 edits. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you wasn't. It was me that mistook. I don't think other wiki publification is required yet, since generally I don't support to create onetime accounts for voting for global issue. Such things are better to be determined by already involved people to some extent. It is not fair in my opinion if someone is elected only because he or she comes from a large wiki or contrary he or she fails only because she deleted a certain page on home project. As for the latter part of your comment, I have no relevance to this section. If you have such a question, you would be better to ask the person directly on his or her talk. --Aphaia 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

MaxSem opposition[edit]

It will be very sad if he doesn't become a steward because of people with bad faith. There are several people who opposed him because he is a very good and bold sysop in ru_wiki. He stopped offences from our well-known troll Dart evader (infinitely blocked in ru_wiki) and many times blocked Nevermind (also blocked for 1 year) and now they vote against him. I don't think they have rights to vote here since they always worked against Wikipedia. Some other people are supporters of these trolls, shame on them. Maxim is one of our best sysops and he deserves to become a steward and help in other wikies as well as he does in our part. Another group of people who votes against him - supporters of so-called "siberian language" Wikipedia, which MaxSem voted to close, so it's their revenge. MaxiMaxiMax 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Still there are other opinions. I think he is acceptable as sysop but as a steward he will cause many troubles because of his usual intention to act quickly without deep analysis of a situation. Moreover, I have an impression that most of Russian users supporting him voted like that just because it would be "cool" for ru-wiki to have Russian steward. I think it is almost as unconstructive as Siberian votes against. Many of those voters raised or supported protests again Maxim's action at ruwiki, but now "forgot" that and voted in favour of "prestige" of Russian wikipedia. Now *this* is pretty sad and unfair. AstroNomer-ru 03:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear MaxiMaxiMax, I'm working in some Wiki projects, but nowhere there aren't so sysops' abhorrence like I see in RuWiki. You and your sysops are gang of hypocrites and there is no another problems in RuWiki =) Nevermind 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... For example, article written by "well-known troll" Dart evader (infinitely blocked by the most stupid and incompetent sysop in ru_wiki). :-) --the wrong man 10:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"the most stupid and incompetent sysop in ru_wiki" also is bureaucrat as you know ) and 3 of his proteges already have been released from sysop :-) Nevermind 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither Vald nor Kuzmin nor Jaroslavleff (and especially the last one) aren't "his protegees" :) Rombik 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at this Nevermind 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't like the way User:Maximaximax described me and (potentially) some other voters as people "with bad faith", "supporters of these trolls, shame on them" etc. Usage such language and words without thinking is not wise for any sysop or burocrat. The reason of all opposite votes is deeper and simpler then described by MaxiMaxiMax - you have to admire somebody else opinion and you have to know how to argue and convince people using your experience and knowledge vs administrative power. Skills, which are not good enouph when you are talking about MaxSem. And for somebody looking for proof of my statemenet and opposite voters opinion - take a look on the recent ruwiki AC voting results, where Max Sem did not get 80% of votes (when 6 other candidates did). Another similar situation, different communities, same result. You have to trust people and they will trust you.--Poa 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

И какое дело до сибиряков вообще? Голосуем как считаем нужным, он против нас, а мы что, руки ему должны лизать за это? Суть данной критики вообще не понимаю --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

MaxSem rally started[edit]

I can see that our most honest Maximaximax has placed an ad on the RuWikipedia community page: [1].

"В стюарды впервые баллотируется кандидат, для которого русский - родной: MaxSem"
(For the first time a native Russian candidate is nominated for a steward).

Old tricks are the best tricks, eh, Maximaximax? --Dart evader 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dart evader makes a false translation for whatever reason. For the record, here is the correct tranlsation: For the first time a candiate who is the Russian native speaker is running for Stewardship. --Irpen 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I obviously tried to blacken Maxsem, asserting that he could be a native Russian, and not just a native Russian speaker. Shame on me for such an outrageous imputation. --Dart evader 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Да не обращай ты внимание на этот .... Какой человек — такие и методы. --the wrong man 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Почему? Интересно же понаблюдать за нашими властолюбцами: до чего еще они способны дойти в своем рвении. "Нет ничего для нашего начальника обременительнее, как ежели он видит, что пламенности его положены пределы". :-) --Dart evader 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Товарищу Вотякову надо учиться агитации, а то неубедительно как-то. Например, так "Умрем все до одного за нашего русского православного MaxSem'а! Смерть фашистским гадам!! Победа будет за нами!!! За Родину, за Сталина и нашего православного И. Христа!!!!" =)) Nevermind 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
В принципе я с тобой согласен. Только, боюсь, от Вотякова Википедии так просто не избавиться. Разве что сам он в один прекрасный день сдохнет. :-) --the wrong man 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
...но на его место придут другие :-/ Nevermind 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Да, и надеюсь, что подобные вам всегда будут в меньшинстве. Wulfson 11:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Это смотря где, dear Wulfson. Например, за несколько месяцев моей работы в Викционарии никто еще меня не блокировал, никто не называл троллем, никто не обвинял в сокпаппетиринге, как это регулярно (и безнаказанно) делает Максимаксимакс в РуВики. Да даже и в паучатнике, называемом "русской Википедией", при всей тамошней ко мне ненависти, почему-то упорно не желают расстаться с написанными мной статьями, хотя я когда-то предлагал Максику такой вариант джентльменского расставания. Dart evader 11:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, could we not litter this page with off-topic discussions, especially in the language incomprehensible for most of the readers? --Irpen 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you tell that to the person who started this discussion? I mean the person who even here could not refrain from launching personal attacks at me? --Dart evader 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Woithout commenting on the issue at hand, I would just like to say that Meta is multilingual, so people are free to discuss in Russian if they want. Jon Harald Søby 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Meta is multilingual. No one should be accused since he or she writes in a certain language some other editors cannot read accidentally. Off topic is not welcome, but it is completely another issue. Summary in other languages are also welcome, but not mundatory. --Aphaia 11:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes / Si / Oui / Ja / Za / Evet / За /支持 / ;D Alvaro 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Судя по бурной радости вазелинового гомофюрера, набег голосовальщиков из русского раздела, случившийся в последние дни, организован лично им. Совсем как в реале: в России в последний час голосования явка на выборах выростает астрономически, и главное, все эти непуганые толпы голосуют за действующую власть. :-) --the wrong man 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Умиляет вклад набежавших голосовальщиков. Например, раз или два. :-)

Вазелиновый отряд на этот раз перестарался =) Со своей стороны, выражаю надежду, что уж тут-то есть разумные люди и они по достоинству оценят результаты =) Nevermind 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
French translation needed ;D Alvaro 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
My remark is addressed to Russian-speaking users. :-) --the wrong man 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Translation:[Judging by the turbulent joy vazelinovogo gomofurera golosovalczykov miles from the Russian section, which happened in the last few days, organized by him. Just as reale : in Russia in the last hour of voting turnout in the elections vrostaet astronomically, and importantly, all these nepuganye crowd vote for the power of the authorities. ]--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Google Translation:Ru-->En-->Fr[ Juger par le gomofurera violent de vazelinovogo de joie, milles de golosovalczykov de la section russe, qui s'est produite en derniers jours, a organisé par lui. Juste comme reale : en Russie dans la dernière heure de l'assemblée de vote dans le vrostaet d'élections astronomiquement, et d'une manière primordiale, tous ces voix de foule de nepuganye pour la puissance des autorités. : -) -- l'homme faux 08:59, golosovalczykov de nabejavshih de contribution du 16 décembre 2006 (UTC) P. Umilet. Par exemple, ] --Hillgentleman|Talk 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      Funny translation. :-) Russian word "голосовальщик" means a voter (ironically), and figurative expression "вазелиновый гомофюрер" means Rombik. :-) --the wrong man 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Arf. Merci ;D Alvaro 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

TWM sayed that this puppets from ruwiki were called here by User:Rombik (according to this his message(Russian)). TWM also noted the contributions of this puppets (see for example one, two). Edward Chernenko 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stats[edit]

Support votes Oppose votes Neutral votes
November 25 29 11 2
November 26 8 2 4
November 27 3 0 2
November 28 11 0 0
November 29 6 2 1
November 30 6 1 1
December 1 2 1 0
December 2 0 1 0
December 3 1 1 0
December 4 0 0 0
December 5 1 0 0
December 6 0 0 0
December 7 1 0 0
December 8 1 0 0
December 9 3 0 0
December 10 1 1 0
December 11 0 0 0
December 12 12 0 1
December 13 20 1 0
December 14 13 0 1
December 15 4 0 1
Total 122 21 13
Perhaps the publication of the Wikipedia Signpost. Korg + + 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. :-) But I have a one question. Why did this publication surprisingly increase a number of voters for MaxSem's candidacy only? 49 electors came to vote for him in the last four days. --the wrong man 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Do you really think that persons without an account here noted this publication and then registered and came vote for MaxSem? Do you really think that persons with negligibly small contribution to Wikipedia (e.g., mr. ShiSha_34) read the Wikipedia Signpost? :-))) You're kidding.
I've added your table to User:Pathoschild/2006 steward election statistics with credit; I hope you don't mind. Thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice that this table considers votes given for/against MaxSem's candidacy only. --the wrong man 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the 11 who voted in favour on November 28th. I saw the advert on Russian wiki only much later. I came to vote after seeing "what links here" from the Siberian discussion. I thought MaxSem behaved quite reasonably there, so I voted for him. I also think that the chances of Thogo, Taichi and Alastor Moody being influenced by the Russian advert are as slim as mine. Note that Kaganer put his vote in the right place on that day, so for November 28 you are left with only 6 possible Russian nationalist votes, three of whom actually voted that day before the posting. I suppose that changes the picture somewhat? I also think that many of the people who voted on December 12/13 are established Wikipedians, who seem to know how to make up their own mind (Abakharev, Ghirla, Irpen, Mitrius, Kuban Kazak, ...) Mitrius' vote was number 88, so the 80% mark was reached by then. --Paul Pieniezny 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at number 86. Who is mr. Dj shoo? Do you know this guy? There's his contribution to Wikipedia. --the wrong man 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, he has about double the number of contributions of the average pro-Siberian voter, and his talk page suggests he really exists. For all it is worth, in case you know that my nick on English wiki is "Pan Gerwazy" and I have often called myself "Pasha the Belgian", I can only say that I am not Sasha Shushpanov. --Paul Pieniezny 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
How did Dj shoo get here? That's what I want to know. --the wrong man 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That's easy enough. Dj shoo is a meatpuppet of Jaroslavleff's. They both participated in quite a few troll attacks on En: and Ru: wikis. For example, in that one, against Mithgol: w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mithgol. Dart evader 12:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's it. --the wrong man 14:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility to vote in the Steward election[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this topic up, if not please point me elsewhere. A question was raised on en:wp about eligibility. Here's the relevant thread on the en:wp ArbCom list (now removed but the point is valid) Please look beyond the particulars and the things said in the thread to focus on the question of eligibility... we have a user that changed userids, (from Giano (talk contribs) to Giano II (talk contribs)) and their new userid technically does not have the needed 3 months of edit history on their home wiki. But there really is no question about the identity of the user and that they have way more than the requisite edits. I'd like to ask for an exception to the specific requirements when it can be shown (as in this case) that a user has a prior ID that establishes them. This is a long established user who should have a chance to have their opinion heard. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be okay unless checking eligibility of each voters is too much heavy burden for those who perform it. However he is required to have an account on meta created before one month or earlier, he seems to be still ineligible to vote, I am afraid. --Aphaia 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Aphaia, when do you read that requirement? The election page states in order to be eligible to vote, users must have a valid account on Meta with a link to at least one account on a project where the user has participated at least three months, nothing about a requirement to have an account here for at least one month. — Timichal 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for comment, as you noted, I was just confused. (and caused edit conflict ;) Back to the topic, only user account technically changed by bureaucrat right can be save in this way, with such restriction, your proposal seems fine to me. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; as long as the two accounts are indubitably the same person, then I see no reason to prevent Giano from voting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral votes[edit]

How, if at all, are neutral votes factored in? --Benn Newman 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not. At all. Jon Harald Søby 06:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have been told that on some Wikipedias (en: for example), neutral votes when you don't know the user are considered disruption. My point is: if I don't know the person, I am not the good person to say if (s)he will be a good steward. I prefer letting people who know him/her giving their opinion. Thus I vote neutral. Of course, a way would be to check their actions, but that would require a lot of time and that would never replace the opinion from people who have been working with the candidate for a long time. Letting people who know the candidate electing him/her is my way. And that's the reason why I have left comments on most of my votes, included supports, because I thought they could be useful for people who don't know the user. So if someone could explain to me why it's considered disruption on some wikis, that would help me... guillom 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard it called disruption on en. the wub "?!" 11:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the difference is that on en: at least, a request for adminship is not a vote like the steward elections. It's a discussion in which the bureaucrat has discretion to disregard comments that don't give rationale. Making a comment that you don't know the person in the neutral section may be unhelpful in a discussion, since it doesn't contribute to consensus, but it's fine here, I would say. Dmcdevit 20:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Business cards[edit]

Stewards can have Business cards? Now Stewards can use checkuser, checkuser have in real life world (privacy)--Shizhao 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Letterheads and business cards[edit]

In order to keep the signature intact, localized Wikimedia logos should not be used on business cards and letterheads, but the branch of the organisation should appear prominently in the design.
Letterheads and business cards should never be issued without express authorization from the Wikimedia Foundation or the relevant chapters. Please ask the Wikimedia Foundation or the Local chapter in your country for guidelines concerning letterheads and business cards.

[3] drini 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussions[edit]

I am kindly asking everyone to remove their threaded posts from the votes. They create confusion. Discuss issues at talk. The only reason for an exception to this common sense rule is to rebutt a blatant lie supplied with the voter's rationale but not the opinion expressed with the vote. --Irpen 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why not. But these threaded posts are interesting, I begin to know people. So, 50/50 ;D Alvaro 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the talk for the entire page, unlike some other elections or consensus seeking processes, there is not a candidate by candidate talk page. Discussion here might be quite confusing or cumbersome. I'm not opposed to doing so if that's the desire, but it is rather late in the cycle for this isn't it? Personally I think this scheme is working fine. Specifically, Irpen, I'd be happy to discuss your concerns with you in any forum you like, public or private. I've tried mailing you a couple times to initiate a dialog but never received any replies. Same goes for any other voter that has concerns. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it looks good for me as it is now, except when the discussions become too huge. We can duscuss about the too ;D Alvaro 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed, but...[edit]

...any clue of when the result will be posted ? I know that the ones to choose will be the Board of Trustees, but there is no time indication anhywhere I checked. DarkoNeko 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny notes that there's a board meeting on Wednesday 20 December 2006; they might make a decision then. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :) DarkoNeko 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note this announcement by Anthere; it might be a few more days before they'll get to this, from what I infer. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That email is from nearly a week ago though. Redux 11:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I picked two or three out to see whether they were active at all with maxsem, and they were less then 3 months active. I checked all his voters, and 10 of them were not for three months active at the start of the voting. I checked both for and against, not neutral, seems a bit pointless to me :) It does not make a difference in the calculations (from 85.3 to 84.8%) but it might make more difference with others. I would like to call for help and check the votes of at least the people who are critical (i.e. less then 20 votes from the border is a very broad understanding of critical) to be accepted or not. Thanks for your cooperation. Effeietsanders 09:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

we are working on it now, hold on a little longer, thx ;-) oscar 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on Oscar's talk page; it seems like one candidate who had over 80% support (Mzlla) was inadvertantly left off the list and not promoted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) My mistake; apologies for my rush and not double-checking, as the bot's page was outdated when I checked it earlier. Flcelloguy (A note?) 05:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Subpage contributors[edit]

I've merged all templates and subpages into the main page. To satisfy the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License, I've examined the page histories and listed all contributors below. This list is permalinked from the main page history.

Dbl2010 handled the technical aspect of the elections. Users under 'Translations' contributed at least a full sentence of translation; users who translated or corrected a few words are listed under 'Minor changes'.



Minor changes[edit]

{admin} Pathoschild 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)