Have you thought about being a steward?
- Hello Rschen, I've got two questions for you:
- First of all, are there existing other pages about the steward role (or what stewards do or should not do or the like) other than the policy and your page? If those exist and you know that, it would be great to link on your subpage also to similar pages (maybe also to the steward policy or the like), so they can be found easily.
- Second, what do you think about translations of your thoughts into other languages? Maybe m:User:Rschen7754/SE2015/de for German or the like (without the translation feature). Or do you plan to update that page regularly, so that translations maybe would become inactual?
- Thanks also for your thoughts on the candidate/confirmation pages. Normally, users don't notice much of that, what stewards do or don't do, and don't know many of the stewards at all, so it's not easy with those elections or new candidates.
- I've got another question about stewards and CU at Meta, hope you don't mind asking here: Is it right that stewards can check users without even telling them or the community and without posting onwiki at Meta that there has been a CU? I think it's very strange, what has been written at Stewards/Elections 2017/Questions#Defender that there could be a check after a mail request without even posting any results of that request onwiki, but only giving it to the local CU who maybe also doesn't post anything onwiki. But nobody seems to mind about it. Is that a normal procedure for CU here at Meta? I don't know that at all from dewiki, where all CU results have to be posted onwiki and I'm wondering that nobody wonders about this. So there can be a CU about anyone (certainly with a reason for doing that) without even telling the checked users (at that time or maybe later for some reason) and without posting the fact and result anywhere publicly? This is very strange for me. Are there some good practices for that? I don't want to ask any candidate, because it's a basic question. Or have there been discussions about this before anywhere at Meta which you might know and could point me to? Kind regards, --Bjarlin (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I can certainly look into adding links to the main policies. I would be reluctant to have translations, largely due to the possibility of my essay changing, but also because that might give it official status that I don't want to give it. There are parts of it that are certainly not endorsed by some stewards. For what it's worth, all current stewards understand English (at least enough to be able to converse), and 90%+ of CheckUsers across Wikimedia do as well (at least, from the impression I got reading checkuser-l) - any steward who didn't understand English at least on some level would have significant difficulties working with the current team. It may not be ideal for an international group, but it is reality. For de, I'm sure DerHexer has written similar thoughts elsewhere.
- As far as your other question, we have to take a step back and look at dewiki. I'm no longer a steward, so I can be more blunt than I would be if I still was in the role. dewiki is quite unique in how it uses (or often, does not use) CU. The vast majority of the major projects (including enwiki, commons, meta, frwiki, nlwiki...) do not require any public logging of the use of the CU tool: see CheckUser policy/Local policies. However, there is a private log of all CU actions which can be viewed by all stewards, local CheckUsers, some WMF staff, and ombudsmen. On English Wikipedia, this is around 70-80 people who can view the log; in my opinion, this is sufficient to prevent abuse, even though people complain about the ~1000 checks a month run there. (Why all those checks? We have an unrelenting supply of vandals and trolls, just take a look at w:en:WP:SPI). I worry more about the project with only 1-2 active CheckUsers on a medium-sized project that probably shouldn't have CheckUsers and that nobody really pays attention to; I can name a few such projects but it would probably not be appropriate to do so on a public wiki.
- But for what it's worth, stewards aren't really CheckUsers in the same sense as a local CU is. Any granting of CU is logged at Special:Log/rights; they have to give it to themselves before using it and return it when done. They generally cannot/do not use it on wikis with CUs. This includes Meta, which has its own elected CUs (most CU actions here are spam-related). There are sometimes CU actions done on what is known as loginwiki, but this is technically limited to new account creations (great for spam-related checks and some cross-wiki vandals but not that useful for much else). So a steward abusing CU would be more difficult to get away with and would be more likely to be noticed, especially since stewards can view all CU logs now. (Such reasons are why I never really learned how to use the CU tool well as a steward). --Rschen7754 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Bjarlin: I'm afraid I have not written many essays about stewards besides my notes in the Kurier. My presentations in German and English can still be found, though. Further, I collected some desirable skills for become a steward for this election that I could share. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
WMF Board elections
I do not plan to write a guide this year. I feel that past guides I wrote for these particular elections were near-useless. I may ask a few relevant questions that reflect current issues on Wikimedia. --Rschen7754 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Admin activity review at Cantonese Wikipedia (yue)
Hi Rschen7754, just noticed you had posted the message regarding to the Admin Activity review and the Messages had been translated into Cantonese. Please use the actual Cantonese message instead of the Simplified Chinese message as the translated message is already there. (Notice to communities, Notice to inactive right holders) If there's any messages are outdated and needs to be updated please let me know about this one. Thanks! :) Shinjiman (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, there wasn't one in past years so I didn't pick up on this new one. --Rschen7754 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably "no-go area"-like needless "oppose"
Hi sir, I've looked your comment under Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Albanian Wikinews, so I'm rather wondering that, is "Oppose Inactivity not a reason for closing the project under policy. --Rschen7754 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)" really needed? And that's happened after a much more needless enwiki notice from George Ho? This pcp is already judged as unlikely to be happen, your "oppose" could only drop more salts on wounds. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I do not intend to reply on behalf of Rschen7754, but I do not see any problems in voicing an opinion when we're called to give it, and when his vote is a faithful reproduction of what the closing projects policy said. Apologies for the instrusion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalkers...
My Meta watchlist has been broken since I returned from vacation. No changes are displayed even though I know there have been changes to those pages. This is only happening on Meta. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 03:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)