Stewards/elections 2011-2/Questions

2^nd 2011 steward elections (Questions)

العربية: المصوتون المؤهلون (انظر إرشادات التقدم) يمكنهم توجيه أسئلة لكل المرشحون على هذه الصفحة. من فضلك لا توجه أكثر من سؤالين متعلقين لكل مرشح، واجعلهما أقصر ما يمكن. المرشحون، من فضلك أجب باختصار وبساطة.

বাংলা: যোগ্য ভোটারগণ (অনুগ্রহপূর্বক আবেদনের দিকনির্দেশনাসমূহ দেখুন) এই পাতায় সকল প্রার্থীদেরকে প্রশ্ন করতে পারবেন। অনুগ্রহপূর্বক প্রার্থী প্রতি দুইয়ের অধিক প্রশ্ন করবেন না, এবং প্রশ্নগুলো যথাসম্ভব ছোট রাখার চেষ্টা করবেন। প্রার্থীগণ: অনুগ্রহপূর্বক যথাসম্ভব সহজ ভাষায় ও বিস্তারিতভাবে প্রশ্নের উত্তর প্রদান করুন।

Čeština: Uživatelé s volebním právem (viz požadavky na voliče) mohou pokládat otázky všem kandidátům na této stránce. Prosím, nepokládajte více než dvě věcné otázky každému z kandidátů a snažte se o co největší stručnost. Kandidáti se prosí, aby odpověděli co nejrychleji a nejsrozumitelněji to bude možné.

Deutsch: Wahlberechtigte Benutzer (siehe Richtlinien) dürfen allen Kandidaten auf dieser Seite Fragen stellen. Bitte stell nicht mehr als zwei Fragen pro Kandidat und halte sie so kurz wie möglich. Die Kandidaten sollen so kurz und einfach wie möglich antworten.

Ελληνικά: Οι έγκυροι ψηφοφόροι (δείτε:οδηγίες) μπορούν να κάνουν ερωτήσεις σε όλους του υποψήφιους σε αυτή την σελίδα. Παρακαλώ να μην κάνετε πάνω από δύο σχετικές ερωτήσεις ανά υποψήφιο, και κάντε τες όσο σύντομες γίνεται. Οι υποψήφιοι απαντήστε όσο πιο σύντομα και απλά μπορείτε.

English: Only eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate, and keep them as short as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

Español : Sólo los usuarios con derecho al voto (vea guía de solicitud) pueden hacer preguntas a los candidatos en esta página. Por favor no haga más de dos preguntas por cada candidato y manténgalas tan cortas y directas como le sea posible. Candidatos: por favor contesten tan resumida y símplemente como les sea posible.

فارسی: رأی‌دهندگان واجد شرایط (بنگرید به دستورالعمل برنامه) می‌توانند در این صفحه سؤال‌هایشان را از همهٔ نامزدها بپرسند. لطفاً برای هر نامزد بیش از ۲ سؤال نپرسید و سؤال‌هایتان کوتاه و مختصر باشند. نامزدها، لطفاً پاسخ‌هایتان را تا حد ممکن کوتاه و مختصر و ساده بیان کنید.

Suomi: Äänioikeutetut käyttäjät (katso ohjeet) voivat esittää tällä sivulla kysymyksiä kaikille ehdokkaille. Teethän korkeintaan kaksi oleellista kysymystä ehdokasta kohti ja pidäthän ne mahdollisimman lyhyinä. Ehdokkaita pyydetään vastaamaan kysymyksiin mahdollisimman lyhyesti ja yksinkertaisesti.

Français : Les personnes éligibles à voter (voir instructions) peuvent poser des questions à chacun des candidats sur cette page. Merci de ne pas poster plus de 2 questions pertinentes par candidat, et de faire en sorte qu'elles soient les plus courtes possible. Merci aux candidats de répondre le plus brièvement et simplement possible.

Alemannisch : Wahlbrächtigti Benutzer (lueg d Richtlinie) derfen allene Kandidate uf däre Syte Froge stelle. Bittschen, stell nit meh wie zwo Froge pro Kandidat un halte si eso churz wie megli. Kandidate, gän eso churz un eifach wie megli Antwort.

עברית: מצביעים העומדים בתנאים (ראו הנחיות) יכולים להציג שאלות לכל המועמדים בדף זה. בבקשה, הציגו עד שתי שאלות קצרות לכל מועמד. מועמדים, בבקשה ענו בקצרה ובפשטות.

Hrvatski: Suradnici koji imaju pravo glasovati (vidite upute za prijavu) mogu postaviti umjesno pitanje svakom kandidatu na ovoj stranici. Suradnici, molimo da ne pitate više od dva pitanja po kandidatu i neka budu što kraća. Kandidati, molimo vas da odgovorite što je kraće i jednostavnije moguće.

Bahasa Indonesia: Hanya pengguna yang berhak memilih (lihat panduan) yang dapat memberikan pertanyaan untuk para kandidat di halaman ini. Mohon jangan bertanya lebih dari 2 pertanyaan per kandidat, dan buatlah pertanyaannya sesingkat mungkin. Kandidat, jawablah pertanyaannya sesingkat dan sesederhana mungkin.

Italiano: Gli aventi diritto al voto (vedi le linee guida in proposito) possono porre su questa pagina delle domande ai candidati. Per cortesia non fate più di due domande per ciascun candidato, cercando per quanto possibile di mantenerle brevi. L'invito ai candidati è di rispondere altrettanto brevemente.

日本語： 投票権のある方 (参加ガイドをご覧ください) はこのページでどの候補者にも質問することができます。候補者1人につき1つ、端的に質問をするよう心がけてください。候補者のみなさんは、できるだけ簡潔に回答してください。

Македонски: Корисниците со право на глас (видете напатствија за пријава) на оваа страница можат да им поставуваат прашања на сите кандидати. Не поставувајте повеќе од 2 релевантни прашања по кандидат, и гледајте да бидете што пократки. Кандидатите се молат да одговараат на прашањата што е можно пократко и поедноставно.

Nederlands: Stemgerechtigden (zie de instructies) kunnen op deze pagina aan alle kandidaten vragen stellen. Stel alstublieft niet meer dan twee relevante vragen per kandidaat en hou de vragen zo kort mogelijk. Kandidaten, antwoord alstublieft zo kort en duidelijk mogelijk.

Norsk bokmål: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.

Norsk: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.

Polski: Uprawnieni do głosowania (patrz kryteria) mogą zadawać pytania wszystkim kandydatom na tej stronie. Każdemu kandydatowi proszę zadawać nie więcej niż dwa konkretne pytania, w jak najkrótszej formie. Kandydatów uprasza się o udzielanie odpowiedzi w możliwe krótkiej i zrozumiałej formie.

Português : Os utilizadores com direito ao voto (veja o guia de candidaturas) podem fazer perguntas a todos os candidatos nesta página. Por favor, não coloque mais de 2 questões pertinentes por candidato, e mantenha-as o mais curtas possível. Candidatos, por favor respondam o mais simples e resumido quanto possível.

Tarandíne: Le tenènde jusse ad 'u vote ('ndruche le linee guide ca parlane de chidde) pòtene ccu sckaffe sus a quèste pàgene de lle domanne a lle cannedate. Pe' cortesije no s'honne a fàce cchiù de doje domanne pe' ogne cannedate, circanne pe' quanne possibbele ccu le mandène breve. L'invite a lle cannedate jè ccu responne altrettànne brevemènde.

Русский: Имеющие право голоса (см. application guidelines/ru) могут задавать вопросы всем кандидатам на этой странице. Пожалуйста, пишите не более двух уместных вопросов каждому кандидату и формулируйте их по возможности кратко. Кандидаты, пожалуйста, отвечайте по возможности быстро и просто.

Српски / srpski: Корисници са правом гласа (видите смернице) могу да постављају питања свим кандидатима на овој страни. Молимо, немојте поставити више од 2 релевантна питања по кандидату и покушајте да их учините што краћима. Кандидати, молимо одговорите на питања што је могуће краће и простије.

Українська: Учасники з правом голосу (див. application guidelines/uk) можуть ставити питання всім кандидатам на цій сторінці. Просимо ставити не більше ніж по два конкретних питання і формулювати їх якомога коротше. Кандидатам прохання відповідати якнайшвидше і якнайчіткіше.

Tiếng Việt: Cử tri hợp lệ (xem hướng dẫn nộp đơn) có thể đặt câu hỏi cho bất kỳ ứng cử viên nào trong trang này. Xin vui lòng gửi không quá 2 câu hỏi, càng ngắn gọn càng tốt, liên quan đến các ứng cử viên. Ứng cử viên, xin bạn vui lòng trả lời đơn giản và ngắn gọn nhất có thể.

粵語: 合資格選民(見申請指引)可提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多過兩條問題，並須保持問題簡潔。參選人，則請扼要答題。

中文： 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多於兩條問題，並維持問題簡潔。候選人，則請扼要答題。

中文（简体）： 合资格投票者(见申请指引)可于此页向任何一位候选人发问问题，但请勿向任何一位候选人发问多于两条问题，亦请维持问题的简洁度。候选人，则请您简洁且扼要地回应这些问题。

中文（繁體）: 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多於兩條問題，並維持問題簡潔。候選人，則請扼要答題。

Azərbaycanca: Səsvermə hüququna malik (bax: application guidelines/az) istənilən istifadəçi bu səhifədə bütün namizədlərə suallar ünvanlaya bilər. Zəhmət olmasa, hər bir namizədə münasib bildiyiniz iki sualdan artıq sual verməyin və bu suallarınızı mümkün qədər qısa və dürüst şəkildə ifadə edin. Namizədlər, lütfən, suallara imkan daxilində tez bir zamanda və sadə cavablar verin.

Per candidate

Arbitrarily0

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: The Global Requests Committee appears to me as good idea. It has the potential to be a significant time-saver in all of those areas which can currently be quite draining on the wiki-community. Furthermore, such a committee would help stewards to act more so in their intended fashion – as impartial attendants. My thoughts aside, I would like to see the global community voice their approval before any permanent action is taken.

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: The current ban criteria draft seems adequate, as long as the offenses have been committed cross-wiki (disregarding #3). I feel that it is very important to enact global bans as sparingly as possible. I support the global blocks and bans policy, but again, it is best that we treat such measures as a last resort.

Questions from WizardOfOz:

1. As I can see your whole work is concentrated to en related projects and some non-content projects. Your language skills are more than poor as only en-N, so what kind of benefit would it be for the community if you would be elected without any cross-wiki experience?

   The good majority of my cross-wiki experience comes from English-based projects, as indeed I am merely a speaker of English. However, I feel my experience with the English language and English wikiprojects would still be a fruitful asset to the steward taskforce. Nevertheless, I do not wish for voters to ignore this point you have brought up.

2. In case you were elected, where would you concentrate your steward work and why?

   Firstly, I would concentrate my work in those departments in need of the most assistance. That said, during downtime, it is possible I would gravitate towards the areas of username resolution and userrights-related tasks.

Question from Quentinv57:

1. Hello. You said just above, answering to the question of WizardOfOz, that you will "concentrate (your) work in those departments in need of the most assistance". What will be those departments you quote ? Thanks for the clarification, and good luck ! -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Although I am not exactly sure which type of steward request has the highest tendency to be backlogged, I presume an area such as oversight requests, for example, might be one such candidate. To clarify though, I would be willing to work in any of the areas most needing additional steward attention. Thanks for asking, Quentin.

Question from Effeietsanders: Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A user is 'contributing' to several minor language wiki's (no active admins) with an even to you clear low understanding of the languages. Some users have pointed out to this user that he is delivering bad quality, but he refuses to stop editing. They ask the user to be globally locked because he is disrupting multiple projects and keeps going to a new one.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Midi7:

Hi Arbitrarily0,

should be used in titles of articles in all Wikipedias correct diacriticts of original language? For example, shlould be used in titles of English Wikipedia articles Czech or Slovak diacritics? I ask because you are an English native speaker. Thank you, Midi7 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Axpde

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Whenever people come together and work together there will some quarrels. Some small ones that both parties can work out peacefully on their own. But others need the help of some impartial third party, such as the „Schiedsgericht“ at German wikipedia. And I think it's a good idea to have a central place for crosswiki issues as well! a×p_de^Hello! 15:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: A global ban is the consequence of a "broad community consensus", i.e. the community decides under which circumstances a user will be globally banned. As far as my own opion is concerned there have to be serious breaches of regulations by that user, e.g. personal offences, enduring harassment, propagation of political or religious extremism, briefly speaking anything that contracepts the constructive collaboration of the benevolent majority. The Global blocks and bans is surely a good start nevertheless there has to be a broad community consensus as well! a×p_de^Hello! 15:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders: Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

You are approached by a bold editor who ran a series of bot tests to test the password strength of admins. Somehow, he managed to identify 25 admins Wikimedia-wide (different communities etc) with a weak password, and he now has access. He approaches you on your meta talkpage and gives the names of the 25 admins in that message, including what kind of query he ran - you find this message 12 hour later and nobody acted yet.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 13:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Obviously this user is not bent on causing havoc so there's no "danger in delay". I'd inform all projects with active local crats about this security leak about their hacked admin acounts. On projects without active local crats I have to temporarily de-sysop all hacked admin accounts for at least one month (longest period until you have to login again) and inform those users about their situation, their sysop flag will be reinstated after this month as soon as they've confirmed to have new password.

Additionally I'd inform my fellow steward collegues and the coders on MediaWiki, maybe they'll find a way to prevent future runs of this type of query. Maybe it would be a wise idea anyway to oblige all users with extended rights to use no "weak" passwords by builtin password checker ...

In case of a hostile user abusing his illegitimately acquired powers I'd have to block him and all 25 Admins immediately because of "danger in delay", before proceeding with those actions described above. Regards a×p_de^Hello! 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Nemo:

• You mentioned "(b)lock abuse" as the main thing that as a steward you would be able to handle yourself while now you have to ask stewards. Could you elaborate on that, with some examples of past or hypothetical cases and how you would handle them specifically or in general? Thank you, Nemo 08:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  In case of abuse in terms of SPAM or vandalism I'm able to (b)lock that user myself in spite of asking some steward, just as this steward would do. That's an everyday job for the stewards, don't know why to elaborate on that?!? a×p_de^Hello! 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I read it as "abuse of (b)lock". What sort of admin abuse do you see on de.quote, then? --Nemo 20:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  Oops, I'm sorry too, should have been "to (b)lock abuse" :-/

  Ok, de.wikiquote is a shrinking project, mainly because there is a small group of admins that tend to act quite rude towards unexperienced users. I wanted to redirect my talk page to my user page with links to all my maintained talk pages, but admin Histo said I need to have a talk page to be allowed to edit there – and ended up protecting my talk page to edit=sysop! What's the sense of a talk page only admins are allowed to edit?!? After this I decided to stop editing but kept watching – several occurances followed ... a×p_de^Hello! 21:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bencmq

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Yes, I believe it is a good idea to create the committee. As stated in the Steward policy, stewards should be neutral when performing an action. If a steward has to make a decision on controversial cases, it is not possible for them to take a stand and perform a neutral action at the same time. While GRC may be similar to ArbCom in some ways and that ArbCom has its problems, I do believe that it is still necessary to have a group of trusted community members to make decisions, other than bold stewards, on controversial issues when the problem is beyond a single wiki.

   However, I am a bit concerned about one practical problem. Language barrier is an inevitable issue and it may be relatively difficult to gain a neutral picture of the situation if the members are not able to look into the facts themselves. --Bencmq 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Since it refers only to bans instead of blocks, I believe the situation is usually very controversial. So far bans are made using ad-hoc deciding making (RfC) and before we see the implementation of GRC or other similar processes, we should continue with the current procedure. Before a ban is made, there should be sufficient discussion and input from users from each involved wiki and there should be some level of consensus. As mentioned before, I believe GRC could be a better party to make decisions, other than stewards themselves. Bans are different from blocks because banned users are still welcomed to edit on Wikimedia projects IMO, and they are only banned on certain topics/areas/usage of tools because they have abused or bad-faithfully caused dispute in the past. They are, and they should be allowed to contribute in other areas that they've not caused problems. As for the other aspects of the proposed policy, not much to say. However I believe local projects should be able to bypass global blocks on registered accounts at Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist as well, based on local consensus, if blocking of global account is enabled one day (an issue about local independents and sovereignty that others have mentioned) --Bencmq 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

Five users from the Yiddish Wikipedia come to you and complain that they have been banned by a group of three admins. When you look into the logs, you find out that the admins in the project have been split into two groups, and are not constructive to each other.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders, the short answer is that I will not take any action as a steward. Stewards are required to be neutral and follow valid community consensus, and in the situation that you have described, I believe a steward is not able to intervene in this case if there is no community consensus. However, as a Wikimedian, I would like to know more about the situation (maybe ask for help from Category:User_yi). Given that Yiddish Wikipedia has only 3 admins (meaning all of them are involved in the dispute) and there are only 64 active users (and more than half of them are bots), the community may be too small to solve the problem. If there is valid concern over some sysops' actions, I would recommend them to start a RfC. --Bencmq 13:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from WizardOfOz:

1. Have you ever been involved in political discussions on zhwiki which have lead to a block of a user who opposed your POV?

   Sometimes I do have to block users who vandalise in a non-NPOV way. Most common situation is that some 'patriotic' mainland-China editors would edit Republic of China- or Taiwan-related content, stating that they are part of the People's Republic of China, changing titles of President of Republic of China to Governor of Taiwan Province (台湾省省长) and make the articles one-sided according to the mainland government's claims. This is regarded as vandalism by the community, and I would revert these changes, at the same time leaving a note on their talk page about the NPOV policy. If they ignore the reminder/warning and continue to vandalise, I will have to block them. Yes they do oppose my political POV but my block will be based on the act of vandalism, not their POV. --Bencmq 13:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Your account have 5 edits on ur.wiki where four of them are deleted and one is deletion request. Whatfore do you need a botflag there?

   I did not notice this and I didn't request for it. I have asked the b'crat who gave me the flag to remove it. What the log shows may means that it is an mistake, as some SWMT users are also granted the bot flag at the same time. --Bencmq 13:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bennylin

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The problem that arised from ace.wp (a local language version of id.wp) has led me to believe that this committee is indeed needed. The case was so charged with religious issue that made the stewards in difficult position (the users involved were "forced" to do so based on their belief, but I trust they still agree on most Wikipedia principles).
   The only problem, though, is how to make an ideal committee? The committee should have representations from different backgrounds. The current proposal on ways to choose committee members in my opinion is still not close enough to that ideal.
2. A user can be globally banned if they are disruptive across multiple projects and/or persistently refuse to abide by Wikimedia policies and norms. There are more conditions that would warrant a global ban, but a followup question would be: Can a globally banned user banned forever from editing Wikimedia projects? They could come back as different user, probably with a totally different attitude; probably they're honestly change their behaviour, or regretted their past actions.
   Someone who has been (unwillingly, I should say) globally banned and made an entire project shut down is coming back and trying to revive the project back. Should he be trusted a second chance? Isn't the act of coming back itself acceptable? Those are the questions that I would try to help to answer if I get elected as a steward. Bennylin 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

  Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

  Someone of the Africaans (afwiki) Wikipedia comes to you and tells you that he heard someone (a local admin) tell on a Wikimeet that he has sockpuppets he is abusing to vote. He does not want to publish his suspicions online, being afraid for repercussions.

  Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your scenario-question. Here's some plausible action that I would do:

    First I would gather more information: whether the allegation is founded or not (i.e. links please), secondly where or what voting page(s) did he abused, third whether af.wp has CU or not (apparently it doesn't have one). If the allegation was founded and sufficient proof was given (not just hearsay), I would investigate further, else I would quickly dismissed it. If the allegation is suspected to be true, a RfC should be made (if I'm the only person the "witness" told, and he didn't tell anyone else, then it would be my job to start the RfC -- without mentioning his name of course). The importance of the voting page(s) that he rigged would serve as the severity of his action(s), and the existence of a local CU is to see if a steward's help is needed (I would relegate the information and action to local CU if it existed). Bennylin 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Wikitanvir:

• Hi, thank you for offering your help as a steward. I see you ran for stewardship early in this year. Although you didn't make it, but can you please tell us about what did you learn from that effort? If you mention some of the progresses you made in past few months that will be very nice. Thanks! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It was a close one :). (It reminded me on my first RfA in id.wp as it was a close one too (I was elected on the second RfA)). I learnt that I need to communicate my actions better toward local and global editors. This I have tried to rectify by meeting and talking to them in person (not about stewardship, but letting them know who I really am) in local and global Wikimeet (a first to me, so I'd say that it's a progress.). In one Wikimeetup I had to travel by train for a total of 16 hours just to meet for two hour with 6 other Jakartan editors.
    Also, I would say most of the issue raised by concerned editors was honest concerns. I didn't provide sufficient explanation to their concerns -- that must've left them unsatisfied. Now I'm trying to be more patient and listen more when someone is concerned about my contributions, no matter how small the concern is, while I expand my contributions across other wikis. I was trying to impress other editors by doing extraordinary amount of admin work in the year that I served as admin in id.wp (in one year, I became the second most active admin by the number of admin actions performed), but in the end I was burnout and, looking back, some of my actions was a little bit rash and left myself with some disgruntled editors. I'm not going to make the same mistake if I'm trusted to serve as a steward and would perform my duties with extra care and patience. Thank you for the question. Bennylin 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Cekli829

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Ruslik0:

1. I've been nominated for 6 September. But the questions caused me to have that on August 27? :) --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 13:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Wikitanvir:

• Hi, thank you for offering your help as a steward. I see you ran for stewardship early in this year. Although you didn't make it, but can you please tell us about what did you learn from that effort? If you mention some of the progresses you made in past few months that will be very nice. Thanks! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 11:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Sualınıza Azərbaycan dilində cavab vermək qərarına gəldim. İlk əvvəl sual verdiyiniz üçün təşəkkür edirəm! Əvvəlki səsvermədə çox böyük təcrübə qazandım. Həmin səsvermənin nəticələri lehimə olmasa da, səsvermədən sonrakı fəaliyyətimə çox ciddi təsir göstərdi. AzVikidən əlavə digər Vikipediyalarda və digər Vikilayihələrdə, həmçinin translatewiki.net-də də işləməyin nə qədər əhəmiyyətli olduğunu anladım. Ən əsası isə Vikipediya qaydaları çərçivəsində işləməyin çox rahat olduğunu gördüm. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Quentinv57:

• Hello Cekli829. I saw in your statement that your english langage skills are limited, and that you answer only in Azeri questions that are asked to you. When you will be a steward, in which langage do you plan to answer on-wiki requests ? How do you plan to communicate with english people when they will try to contact you by mail, about something that should stay private ? Thanks by advance and good luck -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Teknik sorunları kolaylıkla çöze bilerim; ama dille ilgili sorun yaşarsam, o zaman diğer kahyalardan yardım almak lazım ola bilir. Zaten List of stewards'da kahyaların konuştukları dili belli. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 12:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Barras

• I actually see that you English is quite limited. You answered the questions above not in English and this makes it hard to understand anything for most people here. On meta, the general discussion language (also it is a multilingual project) is English, this means you will need to understand English to answer to requests and the like. How do you think can you do this? Also, the whole communication on stewards-l and checkuser-l is in English, would you be able to follow those lists? Furthermore, on an other related topic, you are blocked on two project, can you please explain why? Please answer in English, otherwise it isn't really of any use. Thanks a lot and good luck, -Barras 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: This is Admin abuse:( --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 08:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but honestly, that is not really an explanation why you are blocked. From my experience, any user who is getting a block says it is abuse, no matter if it is true or not. Also, no word about the rest of my rather long comment/question above? -Barras 08:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Faced a very serious problem in az-wikibooks. This problem is the administrator Irada's arbitrariness. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 08:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders: Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A group of 15 active contributors boldly forms a crosswiki arbcom after some discussion on several mailing lists but without 100% consensus (the actual support is fuzzy). They take up a case in a small wiki without much community, and make a ruling to remove the admin status of the only admin and block him for a month. Their ruling makes sense, but there is no standing policy to justify it. They ask their ruling to be executed.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Antur

Dear candidate,

You sent me an email inviting to vote with a link to your voting page. Since I haven´t a prior relationship with you, I would like to know how many publishers have received the same message, and if you don´t finds that it can be considered spam. --Antur - Talk/Discusión 13:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ezarate

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Si el caso es muy díficil de resolver, buscar un consenso entre las diferentes comunidades puede ser útil, ver que opina el resto de los usuarios. Si es un caso de vandalismo crosswiki o spam el bloqueo debe ser inmediato. Asi que si llega a un acuerdo para su creación considero que debe ser creado.

   (English) If we are under a difficult case to be solved, then looking for a consensus between differents communities may be useful, ask to the users to see what they say. So if a consensus is reached I consider that GRC may created.

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Un bloqueo global debe ser aplicado cuando su conducta afecta el funcionamiento de varias wikis, vandalismo, spam. Creo que la política propuesta es adecuada y cubre todos los casos posibles --Esteban 13:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   (English) A global block may be applied when the user's behaviour affects the normal operation of many wikis. Vandalism, spam. The propossed policy is true involving all possibles cases

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A board member approaches you and asks to release the IP address of a certain active user to be able to answer a press enquiry.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will deny that request, it isn't a valid reason for release an ip address, it is private information --Esteban 12:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Glavkos

Question from Ttzavaras

1. Why and when, according to your view, will a steward should use his/her checkuser and global ban ability (if possible)? Do you think your election will offer something to Greek Wikis, missing so far a user with such capabilities? --Ttzavaras 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Ttzavaras As long as the Greek Wikis are missing a local checkuser obviously I could help using this rights against vandalism, socket puppetry or other violations, always having in mind private policy considerations and the rights of users. Also in cases of cross-vandalism the presence of a Steward is necessary. Regarding the Greek scope I could faster and more efficiently communicate with sysops of the Greek wikis, exchange the needed information and help towards the protection policy of the free content. But do not forget that the main tasks of a Steward involves working on small wikis that do not have yet a Bureaucrat. I would love to help on Greek Projects and I 'll do that when asked to, but my main responsibility will be small wikis.

Regarding your question about using my global block rights (I already wrote about checkuser rights above) if I will be elected, I will simply follow the guidlines. I wish not to use these rights, unless this is absolutely necessary. Such measures should be taken after lots of consideration.

I hope I covered your questions, but you can come back for any clarifications. Glavkos 13:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm covered. --Ttzavaras 06:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As a follow up question, what is your stand on the "do not act as a steward on your home project" policy? Effeietsanders 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification:@Effeietsanders :Are we talking about el.wikipedia ? Or some other of my home wikis?

In any case I wouldn't like to interfere in my home project since the presence of the local bureaucrats and sysops ensures a good level of functionality. Glavkos 12:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to either of your home wiki's. You mention above that you would like to use the steward tools (checkuser more specifically?) to help out on your home project. I do not doubt your intentions, but standing policy seems to suggest you shouldn't. Hence my question how you look upon that policy. Effeietsanders 11:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that I made it clear above. It is something like subsidiarity principle accross wikis. We should not intervene where exists a vivid community who can take care of the protection policy and generally I agree with that policy. I also ask an apology for the delayed answer, but I am quite busy recently Glavkos 13:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with subsidiarity. But your answer does make clear to me how well you seem to understand the policy, thanks for that. Effeietsanders 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: I feel that the rationale for the implementation of such a committee doesn't have a strong basis behind it. Surely the increasing requests for global blocks and bans must be confronted. But why do we have to create another bureaucratic body to do so. Aren't our present tools sufficient enough? Global locks are not sufficient? On the other hand the powers of the members of such a committee aren't extreme? No matter what happens in the end I think that I should be taken loads of consideration about the creation of another powerful even elected body. Though I would agree with the proposal of giving this authority to a scope-broadened Ombudsman commission. Thanks! --Γλαύκος ^{shoot it} 11:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Note @Ruslik0: I need some time to study the policies..I will come back soon with the replies. Thanks. Glavkos 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer : I read the discussion on the talk page of the relevant proposal and I noticed that there are very strong arguments against the implementation of such a tool or user right. I mostly agree with the skepticism of Ajraddatz. Overall I believe that the benefits of such a new tool would be less of the drawbacks that it would create.Glavkos 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

You get a phone call (yes, they found your phone number) from the secret service (you are 95% sure this is true) of your country, asking you to reveil the IP address of a certain user. They claim it is a matter of national security and it is urgent. Calling the Wikimedia Foundation, a foreign corporation, is not an option for them.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: I will definitely deny that request, cause there is no legal base for that and for any reason I would act like that, no matter what the consequences or the threats will be there for me (legally not serious). I would suggest them to contact the Foundation via mail or otherwise Glavkos 13:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikheil88

Questions from Quentinv57:

• Hello Mikheil88. I see that you blocked several IPs for long durations on kawiki. For example, one has been blocked for one year. Supposing that someone reports on Steward requests/Global that an IP address is spamming several wikis and already got blocked on two projects, what will you do ? If you will do a block, please specify if it will be local or global, and what the duration and the comments of the block will be. Thanks and good luck. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Hello Quentinv57! I and other sysops of kawiki, we use block for long durations when IP is exstra vandal. In other cases, we use block for short duration, for example Several days, weeks or months. In this case you sad, I will do a block, but In the case when suppliant projects sysops are not actives, I use local block, but if they actives, use global block, think for two weeks or one monts. Thanks — Mikheil88 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mys 721tx

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: I think there is two problem in the current draft, which are the efficiency and the language problem.

   The efficiency of this committee will determine whether it should be created. For instance, it is good to have a group of impartial moderators for conflict, but how exactly a RfC should be consider difficult that GRC should take actions? It takes time to define the where and when the GRC should act. If GRC takes too large or too small scope, it will be counterproductive to its propose: stewards or the GRC will have nothing to do.

   Also here is another problem, the language. For example, if there was a argument involved the local admins and bureaucrats in a project that most members of GRC don't understand, could GRC know what's going on and make an uncontroversial translation of their decision? (Translations did cause several conflicts in Chinese Wikipedia about the understanding of Strategy:May_2011_Update. )

   If those problems get fixed, GRC should be created since it would improve the openness by moderate argument.-Mys_721tx(talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: In general, user whose behaves seriously disturb other users' real-life including the disclosure of privacy, obstructing others E-mail, threatening in real-life, will be banned globally.

   I think the criteria of global blocking, threatening or driving away contributors or others, may be duplicate with the criteria in global ban. Also, "adding repeated forgeries and copyvios" may be too strict, locally blocking should be enough.-Mys_721tx(talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A new user on the Chinese Wikipedia comes to you, and explains that he was blocked on sight because the admins did not like his personal political opinion that he published on his userpage.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. I'd like to check this user's contributions and his block log first to see if he is blocked by this reason. If he isn't, I will go through next step, If he is, I will unblock him, since the currently block policy doesn't contain this reason for blocking. But I would consider to nominate the page for deletion if it's serious against the UserPage Guidline. Furthermore, I will also warn the admin who did so.
2. if possible, I will send my question to unblock-zh list and the Chinese Wikipedia Sysop & Burct Skype channel (currently the only IM method to contact most of them, not so much people are using #wikipedia-zh). If the related admin replies, I will ask about the details about this block. If there is enough information to proof the claim is invalid, I will reject his proposal of unblock.

According to my experience, the admin who blocked that user in such reason most likely will be desysoped in Chinese Wikipedia.

Regards,-Mys_721tx(talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: All actions I will do above are based on my current role in zhwp, also I should not act as a steward on my home-wiki in order to reduce arguments-Mys_721tx(talk) 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

You are approached by someone who speaks only a little English from the Farsi Wikipedia, who created a page on the Farsi Wikipedia. In hindsight, he is afraid that by creating this page (politically sensitive content) he might get into trouble. He wants the page deleted/oversighted without any other Farsi speaker knowing about it.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure this is an approved use of oversight. Oversight, as I read the rules, is for four purposes: 1)removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public, or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public; 2) removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision; 3) removal of copyright violations on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; and 4) hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. Depending on the user's edit history, this might conceivably fall under #1 above, but possibly not. I would have to examine their other edits, ask them what was revealed by those edits, and stretch my resources of online-translation to their utmost in order to try to decipher what the user has already revealed about himself. If the user claims that this deletion would suffice to protect their safety and identity, and if the article has not been edited by others in the meantime, I could delete it and oversight it. If it has been substantially edited, however, then I don't see how I can delete it within the boundaries of our rules. I can, however, counsel the user on ways to minimize the extent to which they are revealing their real-life identity in WP. --Orange Mike 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Jafeluv:

• What in your opinion is/are the most important steward task(s), and how do you think you will be able to help out with them? Thanks, Jafeluv 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To act in emergencies in ways where others are not able to act for themselves: acting as admin or bureaucrat for wikis that don't have these people, or where they are in extremely short supply, and the need is grave; or in rare cases where something has gone totally wrong (usurpation of the account of the sole admin or something of the sort). I can remain calm, can strive to see both sides of any disputes involved, and after several years of adminship I flatter myself that I can recognize many of the characteristic patterns of genuine problems as opposed to mere disputes gone toxic. In any case, my role would not be to act as a manager or boss, but rather as a caretaker or custodian of the interests of my fellow Wikipedians on other projects.--Orange Mike 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Quadell

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: As I state in my answer to question #2, below, I feel that global blocks and bans may be necessary to protect the Wikimedia Foundation against users who intentionally want to harm the Wikimedia Foundation, and who do so repeatedly across multiple projects. However is is extremely important that global community consensus be gauged and applied appropriately, and it is also important that the wishes of individual wikis be respected. As I read the proposal for a Global Requests Committee, it looks like it could be a useful way to do this. Additionally, I appreciate the goal of helping younger wikis address disputes, where they may not have useful processes in place that more established wikis have. However, we have yet to see how this proposal will work out in practice. Quadell 11:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   I suppose you meant "harm the Wikimedia projects", not the Wikimedia Foundation (otherwise thise would open strange scenarios). --Nemo 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: There is a clear need for global blocks and bans. If a user is repeatedly and maliciously trying to harm the Wikimedia Foundation, it may be necessary to prevent this behavior. If a user does this across multiple wikis, there is currently no technical way to implement such a ban, but I hope this feature is implemented. However, it would be extremely important to gauge community consensus, something which is difficult to do across multiple wikis. It is also important to respect the decisions of individual wikis. So it will be a difficult balance.

   In my opinion, a global ban is a serious matter and should only be used when necessary. I think that good reasons for a global ban would include:

   • Repeatedly and maliciously doing things to bring legal trouble to the Wikimedia Foundation, and doing them across multiple wiki projects. These may include making significant legal threats, or serious and intentional clear copyright violations after multiple warnings.
   • Repeatedly harassing other users in unambiguously harmful ways across multiple wiki projects.

   If I become a steward, I will carry out the wishes of the community in this. My own opinions about the policy won't be any more relevant than any one else's, because I would use these abilities only in accordance with community consensus. I take this very seriously. Quadell 11:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

On the Dutch Wikipedia, four checkusers request to be removed as such at the same time. When asked to reconsider, they insist and are not willing to wait. There are no replacements requested.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: That would be a very unfortunate situation, especially since there are currently only 5 checkusers on the Dutch Wikipedia. Still, we can't force someone to remain a checkuser if he or she doesn't want to be one. I would notify other stewards of the situation, and I would remove CU rights from the four users.

The CheckUser policy states "On any wiki, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. In the case where only one CheckUser is left on a wiki (when the only other one retires, or is removed), the community must appoint a new CheckUser immediately (so that the number of CheckUsers is at least two)." I would ask someone fluent in Dutch to notify the community at w:nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg (or a more appropriate place) to encourage them to find and nominate a replacement CU at once.

If a second CU is approved in a timely fashion, then the problem is solved. If not, I am unsure whether CU rights would have to be removed from the last remaining Dutch Wikipedia CU or not, and what the timing should be. I would discuss that situation with more experienced stewards to see the best way to proceed, rather than making such a decision on my own. Either way, I would keep an eye on the situation (and encourage other Stewards to do the same) to watch for CU requests on the Dutch Wikipedia, and to see if we can find a reason why so many would request to have their rights removed at once. Quadell 16:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Ningauble:

• In your candidate's statement you mention activity at en.Wikiquote twice, but you have not made an appearance at that wiki for over three years. My question is:  Have you read any good quotes lately? ~ Ningauble 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: ~Laughs~ I have read some good quotes from Wikiquote just last month when I was preparing to go to a wedding and was looking for something nice to put in a card. I have not been active on Wikiquote, as you note, preferring to work on Commons and Wikipedia. Quadell 18:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Midi7:

Hi Quadell,

should be used in titles of articles in all Wikipedias correct diacriticts of original language? For example, shlould be used in titles of English Wikipedia articles Czech or Slovak diacritics? I ask because you are an English native speaker. Thank you, Midi7 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: On the English Wikipedia, the Manual of Style tells us to use the most common English-language usage. For instance, the Paul Erdős article uses a diacritic, but Nuremberg does not, simply because this is the most common way these are referred to in English. When there is doubt, sometimes there will be a more specific convention established for a given language. For instance, en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) is well established (though en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Czech) is inactive, and no one has created a en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovak).)

This sort of decision is made by each individual wiki, and stewards will not generally decide such things. However, it will be very useful to know each wiki's positions when performing local deletions or checking accusations of title-related vandalism. Quadell 11:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Nemo:

• Because you mention that you "specialize in copyright issues", do you think there's room for significant activity on this front as a steward and how? Thank you, Nemo 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: A steward needs to know which policies can be changed by local decisions (such as naming conventions) and which cannot. One of the few official policies approved by the Board of Trustees is the official Licensing policy resolution, which "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects", and this involves copyright. Local wiki projects may only host material that is in the public domain or that is released under a free license, unless that wiki has an Exemption Doctrine Policy (such as this one at the Polish-language wikinews).

Secondly, because copyright infringements can lead to legal trouble for the Wikimedia Foundation, gross infringements are often removed and oversighted to limit liability. Knowing whether a close paraphrase of a copyrighted text is an infringement or not is important to performing this task well. Finally, there may be case where a user repeated and maliciously uploads infringing text and/or images to wiki projects while claiming they are his own works. If a user continues such behavior across different wikis after multiple warnings and local bans, then this may be a reason for a global ban. (This would have to be determined through consensus, of course.) Quadell 11:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I take this as a "no". :-) Thank you, Nemo 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quentinv57

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Yes, I think that the Global Requests Committee should be created. Wikimedia Projects are on the increase, which explains that more and more global locks are requested and these conflicts that were occasional before are now more and more numerous. Furthermore, stewards are not allowed to take controversial decisions to resolve a conflict. Stewards can just implement a community consensus, or eventually take a decision if it is an emergency. Personnaly, I'm not about to perform such blocks if I get elected, unless steward policies changes, because it is clearly in contradiction with the steward policy, even if that helps. That's why we need people able to resolve conflicts by taking decisions.

   To my mind, the process should be voted by the whole community (as it was the case for the Global Sysops) because it's a decision that concerns every project. But contrary to the proposal for Global Sysops a short summary translated at least on main languages should be written. A new vote every year can be a good idea to change or at least reconfirm people who take decisions. By vote I mean a Wikimedia-wide vote, of course, because every projects should have their voice. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: In my opinion, a global ban should be only set after a discussion (such as a RfC that each concerned community are warned about), as it is a controversial change. Or after the decision of the Global Requests Commitee, if implemented. I see the possibility of disabling only some features that show private data, emails or rollback as a good thing, because it may sometimes avoid some useless blocks (I just have the idea that we could forbid to edit just some namespace or the user talk pages of some users, if it can stop the conflict). But I disagree that a user be globally banned from editing on every WMF projects, independantly of the circumstances. A global ban should only forbid users to use some tools they have abused in the past. If we want to prevent a user from editing, we need to block him through the normal global block procedure.

   For the global user blocks, it should be used as a last solution to resolve the conflicts. Anyway, even if a global block can be set permanently, local projects may decide to unset the block locally if they judge it necessary (it's already the case for IP global blocks). The user should be globally blocked only on projects where he does not contribute significantly to prevent further abuses. Other projects may set the block locally as it is a local affair. It should prevent the case of a user having an appropriate behaviour on some projects and a very aggressive attitude on some others. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

Accidentally you forward a confidential email meant to a collegue steward containing private information about an active user without known contact details and no activated email address to a journalist.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Hello. As my work is generally organized, I think that the probability that this kind of situation happens is really low. However, the err is human, so I will consider to be in this situation and describe you the way I will act.

First of all, I will immediately send an email to the journalist to tell him that the data I just released to him was sent unwillingly and to request him to delete this email, or at least not to make it public or to release it to other people. Then, I will send a mail to the mailing list stewards-l to inform other stewards about this mistake, and to know if somebody was already faced to such a situation, and if he know what is the best way to deal with it.

When I will be done with this (emergency situation), I will take the time to think about a solution that can limit the damages. I just did some research to know what can be done, and I learnt that the law considers the leak as spying (from the journalist). I will then propose to stewards to write an official letter to the journalist or to his company, to inform them officially that a leak happened. I will also propose to notify the user of whom data has been released (we can tell him that we want to contact him on his talk page even if we don't have his email or the possibility to contact him, that is not really urgent).

I hope I have covered your question. If not, feel free to ask for more details. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: Do you feel an obligation to notify the party about whom you wrote the email in the first place? Why or why not? --Philippe 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Trijnstel:

• In your statement I read the following: "I firstly edited on the French Wikipedia, but soon after I joined the French Wiktionary as I felt that my help was more needed there." The three RfAs from you on the French Wikipedia (2009, 2010, 2011) suggest otherwise. Could you tell me more about that? For example, why didn't you make it to sysop there and why were you blocked several times in 2009 "per own request"?[1] I really appreciate your help, but I would like to know more about these issues on your homewiki. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your answer won't affect my vote. I think you will do great as a steward, but I think it would be wise to come straight here. Trijnstel 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you to allow me to clarify this point, Trijnstel. I understand that the fact that I've requested three time adminship on this project may look suspicious. But it should not be seen like a fail.

In fact, I came on the french Wikipedia in 2007, when I was 16. I was really immature and that explains I did some mistakes that I regret now. In 2010, I understood that my behaviour was really inacceptable, as much in the real life as on the Wikimedia world. That's why I've done anything possible to improve myself and not to commit such mistakes I did in the past. Today, I feel totaly changed and have accepted almost all of the oppositions that I got on my two first RfAs : people were true, my behaviour was not compatible with sysop responsabilities.

It explains that in april 2011 I gave my help anymore to this project, thing I had forgiven for several months. In three months of active contributions, I have felt the need of sysop access, because I was tired of asking sysops to do stuff I can do by myself. I thought that people in the french Wikipedia will have understand that I massively changed, but my third election told me the contrary. A minority has focused on their first impression, and don't want to see the changes made in the last years. I tried to contact them to ask what was wrong and how I can improve. Most have just ignored me or deleted my message asking me not to disturb them anymore. Some others have given me feedback, saying that their votes were based on a wrong impression they had of me. So I've taken their comments into account. As a result, I've now forgiven the idea of becoming a sysop on the french Wikipedia, and I now focus on what is really important : helping the project to grow up, taking some time at least every week to put my shoulder to the wheel. I believe in this project, and that's why I will defend it anyway, being a sysop is really something secondary. Moreover, I've really better to offer my help to stewards, because my help is far much appreciated and considered here.

Concerning the several blocks "per own request" you mentioned, it was due to immaturity, as I said before. I felt that my work was not appreciated on the french Wikipedia, and my parents did not want to stop saying me that I waste my time helping Wikimedia projects, and that I had better to do something else with my free time. However, as you can see, I have come back to the Wikimedia World and I'm still there. My vocation is too strong to forgive : I'm here to defend the idea of sharing the free knowledge around the world, and the only way I can defend it is helping online wikis and being a member of the local chapter.

I hope that I have answered your question, and that people will understand that I really have changed since this episode. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 08:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Jan eissfeldt:

moin Quentinv57, you wrote that you were not aware that Freenode does not allow to publish their logs. that's fine with me for the concrete accident but doesn't address the sticking point. under what circumstances - in your considered opinion - one could justify publishing IRC logs (freenode or not) under the WMF privacy policy? (if there are any.) i would prefer a practical answer, not legal layman speculation, regards --Jan eissfeldt 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Moin Jan eissfeldt. I understand that the fact that I published a IRC log may have given you a bad image of me, but it was as you said only an accident. Let me explain how it happened. The title of the channel #wikimedia-stewards contains "No public logging". That's why I thought that, by default, if a channel does not specify in his title or join message that the public logging is forbidden, you are allowed to do it. Moreover, this page that lists the official WM channels does not say clearly that public logging is by default prohibited. Some channels are "publicly logged", some others "may be logged for meetings" and for several others "public logging (is) prohibited", but I don't see a general rule.

The difference now is that I know and understand it is prohibited by default. So if I need to publish some IRC logs anymore, I will first check if an exception has been specified here for the channel. If public logging is not allowed, I will try to have the permission of users that participated to the discussion. I will only publish the IRC feed if they all agree, else I won't do it. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruy Pugliesi

Questions from JSSX:

1. आपने हिंदी बोलना कहाँ से सीखा? या फिर युहीं झूंट मूठ में सबको बना रहे हो? JSSX 12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: I'd say I have a very basic knowledge of Hindi. I've learned a few common words from my global countervandalism work on SWMT, and I can recognize them without an automated translation. Moreover, the experience we've gotten from taking part in global countervandalism activities allows us to easily differenciate unconstructive edits (vandalism/nonsense/gibberish/hoax etc) from the other ones.

Thank you for your question. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you think en:Wikipedia:Canvassing should be a global policy or guideline? JSSX 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Although it is a guideline on enwiki and some other projects, we must be careful on creating global policies, since they will directly have effect on more than 700 wikis. Wikimedia projects are edited by a great variety of people who belongs to different communities around the world, having different cultural patterns and editing experiences. On the top of that, a global policy must necessarily be a representation of the common sense for the global community (like policies related with founding principles or with privacy and CU/OS issues), and not a measure to force some projects to accept that as a policy. As Teles already said before, Canvassing is a guideline and even on en.wiki it is not implemented as a policy. So, in my opinion, I think it is not possible to make it global, (although I am fully agreed with such guideline and I think that, in a lot of projects, some things which are simply common sense may work fine even without being officially ruled).

Thank you for your question, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Avi:

• Currently, PtWiki does not have any native checkusers, and the stewards get a lot of requests from PtWiki. As a native speaker of Portuguese, you would serve your local community greatly by volunteering for those rights. Furthermore, having PtWiki as a home wiki, current steward tradition would prevent you from responding to such requests here on Meta without evidence of harm being caused by the delay waiting for a non-pt-home-wiki steward to respond. Why have you decided to volunteer for steward and not as a pt checkuser? Do you intend to volunteer as a local CU on Ptwiki which would then allow you to handle native requests directly without having them land here on meta? Thank you. -- Avi 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thanks for your question.

Reply to the first question: Well, I've also volunteered myself as a local checkuser (diff) at the end of my second term in 2010. However, as Teles already said, the elections didn't begin because we didn't have at least three candidates, as per a local policy requirement.

Reply to the second question: Yes, I plan to volunteer myself as a local checkuser again at the first local election we have. However, if I become a steward, I wouldn't act as a checkuser on pt.wiki or elsewhere I am an active community member, since the stewards policy prohibits changing rights on home wikis (except for clearcut cases) by recommending stewards to avoid conflicts of interest. I have been dealing with sockpuppetry has been a long time and I personally believe I am quite good by dealing with checkuser issues and doing behavioral analysis. Along all my two terms as a checkuser, I was mostly inclined to deny checkuser requests instead of attending them, even if the reasons for using the checkuser tool were quite reasonable. For example, in situations where everything could be easily solved by taking an administrative action (such as blocking the vandals) or in other situations where replying to the requests could usually lead to the disclosure of personal information, I was used to deny the requests and recommend administrators/requesters to take another course of action. (Some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) However, when I decided myself to perform a checkuser action, I was used to do a detailed investigation before pressing any button. Only if a lot of evidences of abuses were found, I started checking the accounts and then, I published the results and a detailed text containing the complete behavioral evidences ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). I hope my previous experience as a checkuser (for almost two years) qualifies me to help stewards by attending some SRCU and doing other global stuff. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: Sorry for not answering the questions; I was really sick and a bit busy these days. I am about to respond them all as fast as I can. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A small language community (two or three admins) decides to block everyone who edits their wiki (including talk pages etc) in another language than their own, including bots etc, indefinitely on sight. The edits in question will be removed. They implement that immediately, and a collegue steward reverting vandalism and explaining that on a talk page is one of the first to be blocked.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 13:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Teles

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: I believe it should be created. I have only positive thinkings from a commitee that is intended to facilitate some more sensitive discussions, whose members are chosen for having more experience on issues related. As long as it is ruled careful enough to keep their scope and don't make it too much 'powerful' and arbitrary, I am sure it will be necessary even more on future with the increasing of participation on all Wikimedia projects and there will be potentially more difficult cases to be solved. As we all know, stewards should avoid making decisions and having a committee to decide whether there is consensus or not on a controversial discussion would be undoubtely needed.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: In my opinion users may be banned when there is clear bad faith on some of his actions and other measures don't fit or were already tried to stop it, like local blocks, for example. It would be interesting to disallow an user from using a specific tool or from editing on a namespace if s/he has a history of abuse of them and maintain this user as a contributor as his/her edits might be valid. It still depends on establishment of a better way of decision. I don't think that any of existent processes (as RfC) are the best for that. As it might be controversial, it depends on the creation of a Dispute resolution committee or the GRC. Of course, I'm not referring to those cases when there is clear vandalism and also bad faith, but a steward action can be done without discussion.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions from ManosHacker:

1. I see you use the word combat twice in your statement. Do you realize that, in spite of being polite in your messages, if you feel you are in a combat, the one that you oppose feels it too? Do you understand why am I asking this question? ManosHacker 10:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ManosHacker. Good to know that you've read my statement. Maybe this word has an unwanted meaning on English of which I am not aware. When I'm saying that I am combating vandalism, I just want to say that I use to do all those regular procedures to stop and fix vandal edits. It is not that I am 'fighting' against another user. It is not that we are on a battle field and I am trying to hurt anyone. It is more like the opposite from that. I'm just preserving the articles. I use to keep calm and respectful even when facing the most disruptive user and I don't feel that I am in combat. For me, "to combat" is just revert/delete the wrong edit, respectfully warn the user that s/he is doing something wrong, block when the vandalism is persistent and a few warnings were not enough, search on his contributions locally and globally to find other vandalisms, ask for a block or a checkuser where I can't do this, use translators to help on different languages, look for open proxies, add names to blacklist on IRC channels...

In fact, it is commonly used when referring to antivandalism work. Please, notice that I am talking about 'vandalism', which have to be always reverted and stopped somehow. Tell me if I understood your question correctly. If I didn't, please, clarify and I will complement it. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 11:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is fed by emotion. Emotional intelligence is what it takes if you have power in your hands. Words like combat take form inside our head and guide our actions subconsciously. The feeling mirrors subconsciously inside the vandal's head and sustains a batlle, making the vandal try to find a more clever way to fight back and he will. That goes even when you play by the rules, following the right procedures. You do not seem to understand this mechanism, instead you try to defend your statement with arguments. Of course now you know what I meant with my second tricky question. Sometimes a bit of understanding to the vandal makes the vandal feel that his punishment is just. It is not easy and it is not always the case. But hey, you are about to gain power in your hands and your words and actions are paradigms and guide us all.ManosHacker 12:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how I should change my behavior?

Well, this word is used in Portuguese - I'm a Portuguese native speaker - and it don't have 'only' this negative meaning. It refers to being incisive, but not necessarily disrespectful, nor agressive. I see a lot people use it here with the same meaning and not referring to a battle field. If the word "combat" has only this meaning you refer, I should pick another word that would fit better my behavior; I can assure you that was not my intention to compare the antivandalism work with anything agressive.

I was always worried about how we receive new users and I am aware that a new user can become a vandal if mistreated on reception. On pt.wikipedia, we have a template message given to all new users who makes some vandalism. On May 2009, one of my worries was not use the word "vandal" on the first message given to a new user, as they could feel insulted or turn in that behavior you cited above. That is why I changed to a more soft version after discussion, which was done in other templates too. On Strategy wiki, I did something similar. With the help of other users, I proposed a change on the reception to new users by creating a more soft template than the regular one, which was accepted and done. I translated to Portuguese Wikipedia the version of this essay that has something to do with your question, because I think it is really important be respectful with anyone no matter what. Those are just small examples; the most important is that I don't behave as if I were in a "combat". You can consider these three words on my statement or you can consider my behavior. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 13:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad to see that you do know what I mean and that your actions show you have this concern. Consider the showing a bit of understanding to the vandal proposition an optional next level of handling situations. Keep up the good work. ManosHacker 14:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

Someone has been complaining to the Ombudsman Committee about a breach of privacy by a local checkuser in the Russian Wikipedia for at least a month. He comes to the stewards and tells that the ombudsman committee is not responding, and the breach continues.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Effeietsanders. I think a steward could act in a very specific situation in which there is clear proof of abuse of privacy policy and there is no doubt that the tool is being misused; for example, if the local checkuser start checking lots of active users with no reason and release their IP on wiki. This would be an emergency situation that require a fast measure to stop it as the privacy of many users is being disrespected and the violation would increase as time is passing. By "fast measure", I mean removal of checkuser tool. It is like a sysop start blocking everyone, deleting every article and Main page... it is unnecessary and would be a mistake to wait until we reach consensus on a discussion. I have never seen a situation like this; not even close. I don't believe it would ever be necessary.
Other possible measure would be trying to contact other local checkusers. As we all know, is never possible to have only one user with checkuser access on a wiki. So, there must have at least another checkuser available. I would ask for this user to verify if the actions of the other checkuser is correct and why. I can also contact the local ArbCom (if any exist), so they can confirm the abuse and decide if the removal is suitable.
However, if the veracity of the information provided can't be confirmed or if the alleged violation is not clear and there is no detectable emergency, I wouldn't remove the flag by my own. Instead, I would insist on contacting any Ombudsman Commission member and perhaps let the members of Board aware of this situation. I think that would be probably the action I would take as this situation is occurring for a month and, if there was no answer from Ombudsman Commission yet, it is less likely I am handling with an emergency situation and it is probably not clear enough to be solved by a single user.
Thanks for your question.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from JSSX:

1. Do you think en:Wikipedia:Canvassing should be a global policy or guideline? JSSX 13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the linked page on 'mainspace' or the page on 'project' space?” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 15:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the link. JSSX 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I obey and am totally agreed with that guideline and also have used it sometimes to inform users what is the correct procedure to be done in some situations related. It seems to work on projects where it exists and may be a good suggestion to be implemented on several others. However, we have to be very careful when creating global policies. It would change more than 700 projects edited by people from different cultures all over the world. Unless there is a solid global view about that guideline and the implementation of it as "global" has a wide participation from every wikis, I think is not correct to force a project to accept that as a policy. That is a guideline; even on en.wiki it is not a policy, so I don't think it is possible to make it global.
Some other policies are related with founding principles, like "Neutral point of view", or with sensitive info, like oversight, privacy, checkuser policies which have necessarily to be followed on every Wikimedia project and a global policy for their rules makes more sense. We have to think if it is really needed as a global policy (some projects don't have policies for a procedure, but this same procedure works better there than on projects where policy exists. Example: pt.wiki has a blocking policy and es.wiki don't, but I feel that es.wiki community has less problems with blocking than pt.wiki community). Talking about blocking tool: Every project has the blocking tool, but each project use it according to local community decisions. Though many of reasons to block are similar everywhere, there are always a few specific rules for each one that are decided locally by users that are more aware of their own problems and needs. But, well, you are free to make that suggestion. That is only my opinion.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Avi:

• Currently, PtWiki does not have any native checkusers, and the stewards get a lot of requests from PtWiki. As a native speaker of Portuguese, you would serve your local community greatly by volunteering for those rights. Furthermore, having PtWiki as a home wiki, current steward tradition would prevent you from responding to such requests here on Meta without evidence of harm being caused by the delay waiting for a non-pt-home-wiki steward to respond. Why have you decided to volunteer for steward and not as a pt checkuser? Do you intend to volunteer as a local CU on Ptwiki which would then allow you to handle native requests directly without having them land here on meta? Thank you. -- Avi 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Avraham. In fact, I have volunteered myself as a local checkuser (diff) at the end of my term in 2010. However, the elections were not initialized due to the lack of candidates and a new vote process is not about to happen. We had internal problems at that time and we also couldn't elect new bureaucrats. On April, we elected five 'crats (I'm one of them), but still no checkuser. Some users of pt.wiki consider that we need a few changes on procedures related with checkuser tool, though there isn't any proposal (at least I'm not aware) and there is no current discussion about it. I hope pt.wiki community can elect new checkusers soon. I probably would be a candidate too as I have been dealing with sockpuppetry has been a long time and I believe I can be helpful (I hope others are agreed with that).
While a solution seems to be far and this job is being done here on Meta, I try to do what I can placing requests here and helping stewards on that. It is important to make clear that even if I become a steward, I will keep just doing the same requests to stewards that I do at this moment and, obviously, wouldn't act as a checkuser on pt.wiki. I am aware a steward should avoid conflicts of interest. Thank you for your question.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 20:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Trijnstel

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Yes. I think it should be created. Global [b]locks are sometimes necessary and therefore we have stewards to perform these. Though in my opinion stewards should only perform actions, in stead of deciding about a (local) problem or argument between users. In my opinion it's a good idea when there would be a neutral group created to judge about those issues. So that the stewards could do what they were asking to do: to stop clear vandals and performing tasks on request. It would make the "work" of steward a lot easier if they're not the only ones who are responsable of this. (See the second question for a more expanded answer about this topic.) Trijnstel 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Good question. In my opinion users may be globally banned if they vandalize cross-wiki or otherwise globally disrupt Wikimedia. Or simplified: if the contributions of the user proves he's not of good faith. This last comment of mine is controversial, but that's why it's necessary that there will be a global requests committee in the future. To have a second party that can check and judge requests for global [b]locks/bans. At the moment most of the requests for a global [b]lock are for clear vandals, but sometimes it can be difficult for someone (who doesn't speak the language or knows the community) to determine whether or not it's a vandal. The idea of the global ban is interesting. "For instance, users can be banned from editing particular topics or using particular tools." That would solve a lot of problems when someone vandalize only pages related to Disney or for example religious articles. There is only one thing that's really needed to technically implement the global ban policy: all wikis should agree (a broad community consensus of all wikis). And I think that's very hard to accomplish. Trijnstel 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

User Y comes to you and complains in very bad English that he is being stalked via e-mail (email this user function) by active user X. You nor anyone you know speaks the language of the users.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: There are several details which I don't know, but will affect my answer. First of all, from which wiki are these users? Do they have local admins or not? If they do, than it's not the task of the stewards to interfere. In that case, I would probably inform the local admins about this complaint (in English, yes, and if they don't understand what I say, I will translate it with Google translate in that language, which probably helps). Second of all, is he being stalked on one single project or did it happen crosswiki? Third of all, I don't know anything of both users. If the project has no local admins, I would check this by looking at the SUL-account and contribs of both users. Their activity can give me more information about who they are and what they do. It's a possibility that user Y is a troll/vandal. I don't need to understand the language, because Google translate helps very well. If this won't help me either, I would ask advice of other stewards. I won't do anything if I hesitate and would probably leave this alone. Trijnstel 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vituzzu

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Actually I don't like so much this kind of committee, I'd always prefer the "old" consensus through discussion. Dealing with controversial SRGP and GRG I don't see so many circumstances where another decisional system would have been needed nor I think "special" problems among communities can be handled by an "higher court", creating a GRC, to me, will just move the problems from some people (stewies) to other people (GRC members) but problems will exist the same. Finally, I think the respect of steward policy really decreases the possibility of such conflicts. --Vituzzu 23:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   A global policy is definitely needed, applying bans is something that is, to me, quite different from applying blocks (block are, or at least, should be always uncontroversial), so a discussion is needed. Imho a global ban should be set when an user constitutes a serious threat for the whole Wikimedia (eg proven harassments, serious violation of the privacy policy...). --Vituzzu 23:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

You find out that some editors from a regional language community are on a mission to vandalize the French language projects - they use all the tricks they can find to vandalize. They are constructive on their own language Wikipedia.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 13:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to solve the problem step by step: warnings, short blocks and finally global block+local whitelisting, anyway I'll propose also a local ban for those users: after serious distruptions an user can be no longer trusted. --Vituzzu 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikitanvir

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: To me, Global Requests Committee is more like an Arbitration Committee, but it has its uses. Day by day stewards tasks are getting heavy to manage by stewards only. That's why we created the Global Sysop group last year. One of the purposes of GRC is, it will handle controversial request in GRG and SRGP. We can clearly see the need now as we are frequently having requests where the community opinions look divided, and each side has its own good logics to back them up. The most handy need of a GRC is to handle controversial RfCs. I would also support a different body to close the RfCs which concerns global issues, and this committee is certainly a good choice for this in my opinion.

   As per I said above, I support the idea of creating a Global Request Committee. But the creation should be approved by global community therefore it needs a open vote like GS vote. Also, I want to emphasize on one thing that, GRC should not act by themselves, as per the current draft, the should only act when they have been asked to act. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: When an user continues his or her disruptive edits after several warnings and local blocks, then the user can be banned globally. In my opinion global ban should be discussed in a separate RfC. I prefer to be easy in block and bans. So, I would recommend a ban or block for particular topics or tools if the user is not disruptive everywhere. I would like to use their productivity when it brings something good, and I want to keep the door open if they want to be productive anytime.

   Global blocks and bans are useful and more friendly than locks that I agree. But even a globally blocked user can be welcomed in individual project(s), so there should be a way so a globally blocked user can work on the project(s) s/he is welcomed by the community with a consensus. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

• Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

Someone you know for sure to be untrustworthy with private information requests checkuser & oversighter bit at a local community and becomes one of the two checkusers & oversighters in that community.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: First of all, I would deny the request as there are active local checkusers and oversighters. Stewards cannot perform those actions there and that is not an emergency situtaion at all. That user is untrustworthy with private information or not, does not bother me as a steward (although I believe he is). As he is a local CU and OS, he has the trust of his community, and that's all. But as I am concerned about the justice here, so I would inform ombudsman commission about the possible misuse of his tools there. It's their job to find out. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As a clarification, because I think there is confusion about the meaning of the words here: "Someone you know to be untrustworthy with private information, requests checkuser status and oversignt status." He does this by putting up his name at a community vote. If voted in (likely to happen), he will become one of the two local Checkusers & Oversighters. What do you do. To be clear: he did not perform anything yet, but you know he cannot be trusted with those buttons. Effeietsanders 15:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see.. so I have answered to another question by mistake. My apologies. Okay, now to answer, well, the situation is not related my steward job in my opinion. I know that user cannot be trusted with personal info, so I should have good cause to back up my thoughts. As a well wisher to the community, I might (that's not an obvious duty for stewards) express my views there about why I don't think he should not be trusted with those buttons. Of course, I will not do that as a steward, rather I will do as a member of the global community. Rests rely on local community consensus. Eventually, if the user get elected (as you said likely he will) I would send a mail to ombudsman commission by explaining why he shouldn't be trusted. Note, that email will not be an accusation, that's more like a reminder. I think, this time I understood the question right and answered properly. You are welcome to ask any follow-up questions if you want. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 10:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WilliamH

Questions from Ruslik0:

1. What is your position regarding Global Requests Committee? Should it be created? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: I think it should be created. Stewards act not on their own arbitration but on mutual agreement, which keeps them uninvolved and respects the sovereignty of Wikimedia projects. I personally consider Stewards to be effectively clerks, and I think that should always be the case. A Global Requests Committee would ensure that. Obviously it is a work in progress, and there are also issues such as language barriers, but I agree with the principal at the least. WilliamH 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Under what circumstances may users be globally banned? What is your opinion about the proposed Global blocks and bans policy? Ruslik 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer: Since a ban is a social limitation that can have variables more specific than the technical limitation of a mere block, I believe that there must be a measure of consensus in establishing one. That's where the Global Requests Commitee could come in. Per Global blocks and bans#Global bans, users could be banned from editing certain pages or certain topics while being allowed to edit unproblematically elsewhere. However, as Quadell states, measuring consensus for this among multiple projects would be difficult. There are of course, obvious situations such as as privacy violations and real-life threats where a global ban may equate to a global ejection in order to prevent Wikimedia from serious harm. WilliamH 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Effeietsanders:

Dear candidate,

Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Please try to answer it without asking me for more information – describe the steps you would take and the most likely scenarios. They are ‘’’not’’’ derived from real life situations, any similarities are purely coincidental. And indeed, some scenarios are really unlikely.

A news story is published about a minor language project (3 admins) that a journalist has been offered admin actions for money. The admin is not specified, and it is clear the journalist will protect his sources and will not identify the admin in question.

Thank you, Effeietsanders 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, just writing to state that I will be answering it probably within the next 12 hours and definitely within the next 24. WilliamH 04:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this is a huge conflict of interest, and for the sake of your argument I'm assuming that the actions the admin is offering to carry out cannot be reconciled with policy and guidelines.

While the offer is completely inappropriate, the actions have not yet been carried out. This is important because we can expect the admin logs from that project to come under intense public scrutiny, even more so if the news article discusses potentially to any extent what those actions might have been. The admin is now unlikely to carry out the actions; however it could be that he is not aware of the news story, and carries them out. It would then be easy to see which of the three admins it is, and the local community could decide his fate accordingly. Another speculative possibility is that the two uninvolved admins might disclose who they are and what their Usernames are on the project, and events in the media could allow one to infer which of the admins (by his username alone) was the one who put himself up for money, although how one would prove the negative is another discussion altogether.

Obviously with more information I would be able to give a more elaborate response, but I don't see it acceptable for a Steward to play journalist too and potentially preemptively violate other people’s privacy per this situation. WilliamH 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from Midi7:

Hi WilliamH,

you wrote you are enthusiastic for languages. Should be used in titles of articles in all Wikipedias correct diacriticts of original language? For example, shlould be used in titles of English Wikipedia articles Czech or Slovak diacritics? I ask because you are an English native speaker. Thank you, Midi7 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question and one I've been involved with. Foreign names and common names are not prohibited from using diacritics, however, on the English Wikipedia at least, the real issue is generally the most prevalent English language term found in reliable sources. If a standard usage in English can't be established, the language in which the subject is most discussed should be used. So I would say that diacritics should be neither encouraged nor discouraged - if they're there, it's no problem. WilliamH 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For all candidates

Optional question from D

1. Can a global policy (or the terms of it) be modified or dismissed by a local policy? Please elaborate beyond a simple yes or no focusing the reply in its possible impact into the stewards work. Thank you, -- Dferg 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Trijnstel: Yes, that should be possible. While a global policy should apply for all wikis (and with a broad consensus overall), each individual wiki should have the possibility to modify or dissmiss it. That's the strength of each wiki. It's important every wiki can decide what they want (whether or not having that global policy and/or having global admins/stewards around for example). It doesn't make it easier for the stewards having different policies for different wikis, but that's the consequence. The sovereignty of individual projects is very important imo and I always keep that in mind before doing or saying something. Trijnstel 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: Surely. I believe in sovereignty of every projects. If a wiki does not want to be a part of a global policy they can easily opt-out themselves. For instance, I saw this kind of variations about global bot policy, where many wikis allow global bot policy, but some don't. And some allow the global bot policy but don't allow auto approval. There are variations. It's true that it's gonna make steward job a bit complicated, as they have to see if there is a local policy exists of not, if so, what does it allow or does not allow before processing a request, but community choice of individual wikis should get the topmost priority in all cases. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: Yes. We already have examples such as global bot policy and global sysop policy where individual project communities can opt-in or opt-out based on local consensus. Each project is different from the others, and it is not likely that we can ensure the global policies will suit the situations in all the projects. And I believe it will make stewards' work difficult but to a very limited extent. A checklist can be made for quick reference. But of course, the policy mentioned here should refer to global policy set based on consensus, not WMF policies. So things like privacy policy shall not be modified or ignored by local communities. --Bencmq 06:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer for Ezarate: Yes. As he said Bencmq we are examples as policies where individual communities can opt-in or not according on local consensus. The local policies may be differents in the wikis except the privacy policy that is global

   Answer from Quentinv57: I would say that it depends on the policy. For example, policies like the bot policy will depend on each project, some wants to enable the automatic approval, some wants to opt-in or opt-out the global bot wikis. That is the same with the global sysops, and could be the same with the global rollbackers if necessary. On the contrary, some global policies as checkuser, oversight and privacy policies are internal rules of the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts and subsidizes the projects. So wikis can't decide not to respect these rules (for example to decide to release private data or to do an excessive usage of the checkuser tool). If a local policy dismisses a global policy - provided that it can, that's obvious that it will increase the stewards work. But it is sometimes a necessity if we want to respect communities decisions. And adding a wiki to an opt-out wikiset isn't that hard, is it ? ;-) -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 07:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Mys_721tx: Global policies shall not override the local policies which made by consensus in the community. Otherwise, for example, users from a project how doesn't have local CheckUser/OverSight policies well only can seek help from meta. In my opinion, the global policy should act as an alternative pathway for them on meta, once the local community makes its own, global one would automatically be replaced. Also just as Bencmq said, global policies are not WMF policies.-Mys_721tx(talk) 08:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: I would say 'yes' to some of policies, but not all of them. Some policies like Privacy policy have to be followed by all Wikimedia projects and a local decision is not enough to change that. For example: a project can not change 'everything' on Checkuser policy if this change will get in conflict with Privacy policy. It can, however, make small changes, as for when and how make requests (on private or not), how the results should be published, what are the requirements to be elected (as long as it is according with the minimum required on 'global' policy). However, if a community decide to create a local policy to disallow or to decide how a global sysop, global rollbacker or a global bot should act I see no reason to disagree with that and I believe it should also be encouraged as local users are more aware about local procedures and their needs.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quadell: There are certain policies that come from the Wikimedia Foundation and its Board of Trustees, such as the Access to nonpublic data policy and the Licensing policy. These cannot be violated by individual wikis. But very few policies fall into this category; most global policies can be overruled by local Wikimedia projects. Because of this, stewards will need to understand the difference between WMF resolutions, global policies, and local policies, and should know how to apply them in practice. Before involving myself in a dispute on the Icelandic Wikipedia, for instance, I would need to know if any WMF resolutions applied, if there is a relevant local policy on the Icelandic Wikipedia, and if there is a global policy that pertains to the situation. Quadell 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: Yes it can, but it should have a very strong reason to do so. But there are also possibility that a global policy is made that differed from some local ones, and the local communities either wasn't aware or didn't care about it. But I also agree that there are (few) policies that should not be modified/dismissed/overridden by local policies. Bennylin 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Vituzzu:We are all guests of WMF's but WMF needs us to "survive", so, while local policies cannot override fundamental statements by WMF (eg. posting users' IPs or hosting copyvios) is worth to try to explain their importance before acting as a bull in a China shop. Eg. bot policy can be overriden by local policy (I felt strange, and I disagreed, that some wikis want to opt-out from global rollback but I changed my .js in order to hide my "rollback" button on those wikis) but privacy policy, copyright principles and oversight ones cannot be modified, at least locally, at all.--Vituzzu 21:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from axpde: It's an old question whether any part my set up rules that interfere the rules of the whole community (or state, confederation, union, etc.). If there is a local policy that differs from the global policy it's ok as long as no issues of the global community are touched. a×p_de^Hello! 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: It depends on the policy. Resolution:Licensing policy, for example, is absolutely non-negotiable. However there can be a few changes to the instrumentation of the orchestra per the previously mentioned local CheckUser policies, so long as they do not deviate from the skeleton score of the Checkuser policy. As for policies formed by local project consensus, this must be respected. WilliamH 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Glavkos:It should be modified in the extent that all wikis are not the same, all needs also are not similar. If policies are imposed the chance to succeed are not strong. In accord with WilliamH I would agree that some lead policies should be adopted by all wikis no matter how many new responsibilities that creates for Stewards.--Γλαύκος 08:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: I would say that it depends on the policy. Some policies are ruled by Wikimedia Foundation and its Board of Trustees, as CU/OS and privacy policies, and are non-negotiable. In such situations, local projects can't decide itselves to opt-out based on local consensus. For example: a local community cannot make changes on the checkuser policy that override what is stated by the privacy policy (they can, however, apply some minor changes on it). On the other hand, some global policies can be dismissed by a local one, as it occurs to the bot policy and other non-sensitive info policies. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 23:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from B

1. As you surely know, the steward work is often about crosswiki issues and vandals. We often have to checkuser the vandals (Swiss vandal/Edgar, Bambifan101, and several others). Now, there are projects that have local checkusers. What do you think about this? Would you do a checkuser on projects with local checkusers? Under which circumstances would you act and when not? -Barras 09:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: No. If an user vandalize projects with local checkuser, I would contact a local checkuser, so s/he can check it. If there is really a need for a global IP block to avoid further vandalism on other projects, the IP can be informed on steward's mailing list or on private, according to Privacy policy.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Trijnstel: No. Personally I wouldn't checkuser on a project if they have local checkusers. Rather than that I would inform the local checkusers and wait for a reply. Though I can understand if someone does perform a checkuser on such projects (for example in the case of the Swiss vandal and Bambifan). Stewards are not prohibited to act on projects with local checkusers ("Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them, except in emergency or cross-wiki cases."), so I think I would (in extreme rare and urgent cases) indeed perform a checkuser. But I would first, before doing that, ask the opinion of another more experienced steward. Trijnstel 10:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Mys_721tx: I believe the quotation from Steward requests/Checkuser, "Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies.", will also apply to this circumstance. Stewards should request help from local CheckUser. But there is a question I cannot answer yet, what if there is an emergence, and the local CheckUsers are not available, though it looks hardly ever happen? -Mys_721tx(talk) 10:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: I share the same thought here. Stewards are not allowed to perform CU tasks in projects with local CUs. But as it is not forbidden, stewards can act in case of emergencies. I would personally ask other stewards before acting in such emergencies. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quentinv57: I will deffer this work to local checkusers as much as possible, as performing checks on projects with local checkusers is out of steward's guidelines. But in case of emergency, providing that none of the local checkusers are currently available, I will grant myself temporarily the checkuser status on this project to perform the check, and left a message on the checkusers-l mailing list to inform local checkusers about what I've done. I have a recent example of a user that announced he will commit a suicide, in such cases stewards can't wait for a local CU and need to perform the check to release data to the authorities in a short delay -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: I usually won't perform the check as well. If in case of emergency, I will have a quick discussion about the issue with other stewards to gain more opinions before taking an action. --Bencmq 12:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quadell: I would avoid using checkuser tools in regard to a wiki that has local checkusers. It's good that our policy instructs stewards to avoid this. It is hypothetically possible that there may be an emergency situation where local checkusers are not available, and in those circumstances I think a steward's use of checkuser tools would be acceptable. But I don't expect to encounter this situation. If I were unsure, I would discuss the situation with other stewards, if possible. Quadell 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: I prefer to hand it to local CU. First I would inform local CUs through their emails (if I didn't see other stewards contacted them through their talk pages yet) or IRC (if they provide one) to make sure I get the fastest response from them. Bennylin 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Vituzzu: Making an example...if I would have been Laaknor I would have behave exactly in the same way he did, sometimes reality takes precedence on our rules and sometimes is worth to risk to lose our flags, but, actually, since Wikipedia is made up by people, I think they will surely understand the reasons of ignore sometimes some rules, obviously I prefer the actions of local CUes also because they have a deeper knowledge of their "customers" :D --Vituzzu 21:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from axpde: It depends ... as usual. I'll tend to act whenever there are no (active) local checkusers, esp. if there's "danger in delay". I'll tend to refrain whenever I'll manage to contact a local checkuser, esp. in case of low priority. a×p_de^Hello! 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: I would not carry out a checkuser on a project that has active local checkusers, I would defer it to them instead. Nonetheless, Stewards are not explicitly forbidden from performing such actions, and supposing there is an emergency and that local checkusers could not be reached, I would be inclined to expeditiously run the situation past (a) more experienced Steward(s) beforehand so that there could be at least some measure of mutual decision involved. I would of course send notification of my actions to the local CheckUsers. However, such situations are unlikely, and I do not expect to have to take such action. WilliamH 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Glavkos: In relatively small wikis like el.wikipedia where a local CU is missing a Steward may interfere after a call for help from the community, but also directly if the vandalism is serious. Personally I would discuss the issue with other stewards before I exert such rights. Definitely I will stay away from checking IPs in wikis where local CUs exists. Γλαύκος 08:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: According to the Checkuser policy, "If local CheckUsers exist in a project, checks should generally be handled by those. In emergencies, or for multi-project CheckUser checks as in the case of cross-wiki vandalism, Stewards may perform local checks.". So, I'd say if an user, registered or not, vandalizes a wiki with local checkusers, a steward must first contact them and wait for a reply. Although, as per policy, stewards are allowed to act on projects with local checkusers in emergency or cross-wiki cases, I'd rather waiting for the local checkusers response and, if it didn't come, ask the opinion of another more experienced steward. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 23:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

2. A similar situation appears for oversighting nasty stuff. A lot of projects have local oversighters. What would you do if you would have to remove something from a project with oversighters? If you'd contact them, how long would you wait until it is done or until you get a reply? Are there any cases where you would just remove something without contacting local oversighters first? -Barras 09:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: I have seen that problem already. I would not use oversight tool either. On this case I would just revision delete it and make contact with local oversighters. If local users take too long to answer, I honestly don't know for how long I should wait. After a day, I would ask for an opinion from a more experienced steward.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answers from Ezarate: 1 and 2: ídem Teles, the policy is clear, if the project has a local checkuser/oversighter we may not act there, ask a local checkuser/oversighter to do for us Esteban 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Trijnstel: I give a similar answer, so no. In my opinion oversight is less important than a checkuser, because without knowing the IP adress a vandal can continue creating vandalaccounts. You must know that before you're able to really stop him/her. I would contact the local oversighters and maybe in the mean time hide the revisions. And then it's up to the local oversighters. But it's the same as with the checkuser, I would ask another steward for some advice in case this would happen. Trijnstel 10:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Mys_721tx: I think it depends. In emergencies cases, for example, some one is spreading cross-wiki hate-speech and the victim wikis have no avaliable Oversight, stewards should perform local oversighting. But in minor cases, I would like to wait the local oversighters for a day and left the message in the #wikimedia-privacy, oversight-l and stewards-l.-Mys_721tx(talk) 10:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: I would not perform OS action in projects with local Oversighters. I would mail local OSes to perform the action. Generally, I would't hide the revision too, (not being a local sysop) that would be my steward action, so I would leave this to local OSes. But in case of emergencies, I would perform actions after consulting with other stewards, but I hardly think I would need to do that. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quentinv57: I will first check the #wikimedia-privacy channel to check if a local oversighter is available yet or not. As oversights aim to hide non-public data, it is very urgent and should not last long. So I won't wait and hide the informations instantaneously, and of course contact the local oversighters to notify them about it. It's not the same as checkusers, as we can't leave such data public until a local OS has time to handle the request.

   And yes, if the global user name is offensive / libelous / public injuries, I will globally oversight the username (via Special:CentralAuth) without notifying every projects where the account has been created. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: My answer is generally no. Teles mentioned a good point - to revdel the revision first and wait for the reply from local OSers. But I will not hesitate to oversight information if it is extremely sensitive (e.g personal information) and there are no local oversighters around at that time. Of course local OSers should be notified about this. --Bencmq 12:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quadell: Situations do arise where it is urgent to quickly remove defamatory or otherwise illegal content from a Wikimedia project. Leaving that information visible can result in legal trouble for the Wikimedia Foundation. If I can quickly contact a local oversighter, that would be the best situation. If I can't do this, and the matter truly is an urgent legal problem, I would oversight the problematic revisions and then contact local oversighters to let them know. If I were unsure, I would discuss the situation with other stewards before I acted. Quadell 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: Hypothetically it is possible that in some cases a steward has to act first and cannot wait until a local OS available, but such cases would be very rare. In most cases where a project have local OS, at most I would only revert the vandals and probably block them too if necessary. Bennylin 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Vituzzu: Some oversights must be done in order to abide by Law, even before by WMF's policies, so I'll try to let local oversighters (if any) do them but in case of emergency I'll have to do them by myself.--Vituzzu 21:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from axpde: Same applies as above. I'll tend to act whenever there are no (active) local oversighters, esp. if there's "danger in delay". I'll tend to refrain whenever I'll manage to contact a local oversighter, esp. in case of low priority. a×p_de^Hello! 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: This is not dissimilar to the checkuser situation above. I would not perform an oversight on a project that has active local oversighters - my first action would be to make them aware. If this cannot be done, and there is an urgent legal necessity to remove something and it takes precedence over WMF policies, I would act accordingly. However, although situations where the ends justify the means can be suggested, they are few and far between, and I do not expect to have to take actions that are out of a Steward's scope if there are active local flag holders. WilliamH 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: I would not oversight either. However, if it was a case of emergency, I would instantaneously admin-delete such content / revisions and then contact a local oversighter, and, in the mean time, I would also contact other stewards and ask their opinion. If local OSes took too long to answer, I would perform actions after consulting with other stewards. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions from J

1. (Optional) What specific areas do you think you can help with or would like to focus on and what do you think is the most challenging aspect of the work?

   Answer from Vituzzu: countervandalism! --Vituzzu 23:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Mys_721tx: To help those projects that doesn't have a local bureaucrats, checkuser and oversight for name changings, SUL problems, checkuser requests and oversight requests-Mys_721tx(talk) 03:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quadell: The most challenging aspect of the work would almost certainly be interpreting cross-wiki consensus when there is a dispute. This would require transparency and sensitivity, and would involve understanding different languages and cultures. Consequently, I don't expect I would do this in contested areas while I am new as a steward. I would instead watch the way more experienced stewards handle such situations and give my opinion as needed. I expect I will do more with uncontroversial requests for global permissions, for bot status, or for speedy deletions to prevent backlogs, while learning the more difficult tasks as I go. Quadell 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quentinv57: I will of course continue to do cross-wiki countervandalism and to be available on IRC. But I will be able to handle more on-wiki requests (in fact I try to help yet on some as I know that stewards need help but it's tricky to handle steward requests when you are not one). For emergencies, I have written a script that allows me to be connected to IRC all the time : when I'm at home and not in front of my computer, it warns me that somebody is trying to reach me, probably for an emergency situation. If there is internal stuff to do (I don't know, as I can't read the steward wiki), it would be a pleasure for me to help on this side too. To my mind, the most challenging aspect is to investigate cross-wiki vandalism, to oversight what has to be oversighted and to find the IP adresses that can be blocked to stop these attacks, at least temporarily. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Trijnstel: Obviously I will continue with fighting vandalism, as I do now. At the moment I ask the stewards to block/lock an IP/account and it would be nice if I could do that by myself. Apart from that, I would like to focuss on crosswiki sockpuppetry and abusive usernames. Both requeres in most cases global locks and checkusers (sometimes oversight too with the abusive usernames). In short: I would like to help the other stewards with carrying out their tasks. Trijnstel 23:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer for Ezarate:To help solving requests on steward board and those projects without sysops, bureaucrats, etc. and doing anything of countervandalism Esteban 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: I feel very comfortable with antivandalism-related issues and that is possibly where I would focus, if I had to choose an area. I am more close to the usage of oversight, checkuser and locking tools, by watching and somehow participating of routine of this area when placing requests and discussing with others. I am sure that anyone that are elected steward and start using the tools has the opportunity to acquire more experience from that. No matter how experienced an user is and no matter how many times policies were read, some would have knowledge improved after praticizing it and I think that would be great to learn even more about global procedures.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: Stewardship would help me a lot in dealing with counter-vandalism work and that would be my main focus. This also include emergency requests on IRC. As for other areas of the work such as CheckUser or SUL issues, I had no practical experience with the tool, so I will learn as I go, but still I would like to help these areas whenever possible. --Bencmq 14:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: The areas I would focus on are assisting projects that don't have local bureaucrats or checkuser and oversight functionaries, and (b)locking accounts with blatantly abusive and blatantly unacceptable usernames. I think that the most challenging aspects are working in accordance with all the various other projects so as not to tread on their toes, and interpreting cross-wiki consensus. At first though, I'd deal with uncontroversial things and requests before undertaking more complex matters, and would never have any qualms about asking another Steward for a second opinion. I consider myself as the sort of individual who is not interested in doing things quickly, but doing things correctly. WilliamH 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Cekli829: High-speed internet. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 12:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: As I said in my statement, I would like to work on global locks and blocks, and various kind of steward requests. With my steward tools I would be happier to help small wikis (as I am more familiar with small wiki environment). Also I would like to take care of quick requests on IRC. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Glavkos:I would like to deal with the all the spectrum of the requests that a Steward has to deal. Mostly with Checkuser status and local rights. --Γλαύκος 10:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from axpde: I got some experience as an admin and crat on several project and did a lot of cross-wiki work. I'm using IRC to monitor abuse and to stay in contact with stewards and other admins. I'll continue my work but with no need to forward certain requests to the stewards (esp. to (b)lock abuse). a×p_de^Hello! 22:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: I would like to focus on global countervandalism/spam activities (keeping my work on SWMT and dealing with cross-wiki vandals and sockpuppeters). Furthermore, by having the toolkit, I could directly work on global locks and blocks, as part of my global tasks, and could also attend a huge amount of steward requests and IRC quick requests. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: Giving extra hand, helping with backlogs and projects without Oversights (currently only 13 projects has Oversights) and CUs (currently only in 34 projects out of more than 750 projects). As a steward I also would serve as support for the w:languages of Indonesia and Malaysia (I think the whole population is under-supported: 700+ local languages and 260+ million people) that might not able to communicate using English. Bennylin 04:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

2. (Must Answer) Please describe the most challenging issue you had to deal with as an administrator in a wiki and what steps did you take to effectively resolve it? Given a second chance to do it, what you would have done differently?

   Answer from Vituzzu: I've been really active as a sysop on it.wiki since 2008 (my 10.000th block was in May 2011) and I can remember a lot of issues, year by year I learnt how to solve most of them, but, on the other hand I found new challenges, so having a second chance I would have done almost the same things since they made me learn so much. --Vituzzu 23:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Mys_721tx: The recent "meatpuppet" blocking is the most challenging issue I had to deal with: I don't think the solution I made is effective, because bureaucrats made their decision month later. If give me a second chance to do it, I'd like to left it to bureaucrats because only them make decisions in difficult and complicated circumstances literally according to the local policy. It would be an argument if any admin or burct does not literally following the policies, even it is against commonsense, in Chinese Wikipedia. -Mys_721tx(talk) 03:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quadell: I have been an administrator on the English Wikipedia for over seven years, and have run into many sorts of challenges. Guidelines and policies have changed over time, and it's been important for me to keep up with current policy to make sure I am enforcing it correctly. For me, the most difficult part has been dealing with situations in which different administrators feel that they are in conflict with one another. Wheel warring can be extremely damaging to the community, and it takes tact and restraint to protect the community from this sort of conflict. For instance, in 2006 I was applying minor fixes to articles to bring them into compliance with the Manual of Style, and one of the changes was with the formatting of dates. Although I believed my edits were in line with our style guidelines, I soon found that some users felt strongly that the guideline should be changed. Another administrator with a strong opinion on the issue blocked my account for disruption. I felt offended, and I believed the block was unwarranted, so of course I was tempted to unblock myself. (I did not do so, however.) Even after a different administrator unblocked my account, there were two administrators who threatened to block me if I altered date formats again. I felt this threat was unwarranted, since I still thought my edits had been in line with our guidelines. I was angry; it's amazing how strong one's feelings can get about the most trivial of formatting issues. People were lining up on both sides of the conflict, threatening to block one another. In the end, I was determined not to make the situation worse, and I felt I needed to take a wikibreak. By the time I returned, the general issue had gone before the arbitration committee (without involving me), and clear guidelines were in place. I am committed to never wheel warring, and to doing my part to prevent wheel wars from occurring in the future. I hope that I can help admins see each other's points of view so that compromise can be reached. Quadell 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Trijnstel: I'm one of the most active admins on the Dutch Wikipedia and as such I had a lot of issues to deal with. Lots of sockpuppeteers (as well as known ones and new persons); sometimes it can be hard to recognize the sockpuppeteer. One case I remember very well was the sockpuppeteer Piet van der Wal. He was my first sockpuppetcase I handled myself as an admin on nlwiki. After checkuser four accounts were blocked and one IP adress. Months later I noticed coincidentally a block on enwiki of Piet van der Wal. Lots of investigation later 77 accounts were globally locked from two (later three) IP adresses. My first case and it turned out to be one of my biggest I discovered myself. It was challenging for me to find all those sockpuppets - to find the evidence. It gave me a good feeling when all accounts were blocked. Trijnstel 23:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quentinv57: On the Wiktionary, I faced the obligation of blocking an account reluctantly. This account was used by a bot that received a lot of complaints on his talk page and was blocked several times by local sysops wanting to stop the bot for disfunctionment. The situation became critical, as more and more people were complaining and the bot was doing more and more mistakes. I was trusting the bot owner, knowing that he was well-meant and that he already helped a lot on the project with his bot. But he was apparently overcaming a difficult period, as the bot already got blocked and lost his bot flag on several other projects for the same reasons. That's why I blocked the bot account for three months, to let the owner de-stress and think about it. I had to be strict with him, and it was very hard to me because I knew that this contributor had good faith : it's hard to be strict with friends, even when it is your duty as a local sysop. But one month after the bot stopped, I had a discussion with him on IRC and, as I saw he understood that the action of his bot must be reviewed if the script is not stable, I unblocked the bot.

   I don't regret this action at all, and if I was faced anymore to this situation I would have act the same way. Now there is no more people complaining about his bot, just people reporting errors that now get fixed in a short delay. The result is evident in the logs : no more blocks have been set for this bot after mine. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ezarate On the Spanish Wikipedia I had to block vandals, sockuppeteer and so more, I don't remember any case in special. If give me a second chance to do it I will study the case again, now I have more experience --Esteban 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: I am a sysop of pt.wikipedia, a project with many problems, and have faced lots of difficult situations. Though I recognize pt.wiki community has a few needs, I feel sad when people from other projects say something bad from my home-wiki and sometimes it is an incomplete view of the issue. I will talk about one of its problems. Sometimes, to be an old user is an argument on pt.wiki used as a permission to do something wrong (which has to do with the called "vested contributor"). For example, a few users uses to discredit IP edits only because they are made by non-registered users. On pt.wiki and on other large projects, there is a clear vision that edit warring is something harmful that should be stopped; it is the first step to incivility. Pt.wiki has documented this kind of behavior as something that should be avoided. However, it happens sometimes and an administrative action takes too long to occur specially if there are old users involved. Some sysops don't want to be involved because they know they will have to spend a lot of their time explaining a block (in case a block is needed). Some users blame sysops, by saying they are responsible for the existence of edit war as they didn't do anything to stop it. I've seen some extreme situations, when users on edit warring reverted themselves more than 50 times (yes, more than 50 times and that is not a hyperbole [18]) and no block was done, and this same behavior was seen several times after. On the linked case, the page was fully protected twice, which I am not agreed. I've discussed on talk page and the case was solved with the participation of other users. If I remember correctly, at that moment I didn't make an administrative action as I had already applied a block on both users involved due to the same reason, which is also another problem of pt.wiki... the lack of active sysops willing to block old users forces a small number of sysops to take care of several cases and they end by being accused of not being impartial. So, sometimes sysops don't do anything when an action would be clearly according to rules. What is also sad is that it happens with users that could be spending their precious time with something useful.
   There was an attempt to enable the three-revert rule on pt.wiki (vote page), which was denied unfortunately.
   I think a way to solve the pt.wiki problem with edit warring is improving and implementing the three-revert rule. Other projects have more severe rules against edit warring and that is why they don't have big problems with this kind of behavior. On pt.wiki, however, it became a virtuous circle and nobody wants to restart a discussion to solve that as it would possibly awake previous conflicts. I've done everything; mediation, page protection, block and even nothing when I thought I could be partial. Pt.wiki needs more sysops and sysops that are willing to apply the decisions of community. In cases like this, the participation of the community is important to help sysops... sometimes community don't want to participate either. More recently, I have slow down my participation on some difficult blocks to see how other sysops would handle a few cases. However, there are too little "other" sysops willing to do that.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: I would like to talk about w:zh:User:Martinoei. Who he is and what he did is a long story and I won't bore you with the details. Anyway, he was heavily involved in the off-wiki anti-Shizhao campaign and did many off-wiki personal attacks (towards me included) and revealed many wikipedians' IP information (including me again) on his blog if they oppose him. He was in the end indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, MEAT and legal threat. At that time I was not involved in the blocking, but a few days later a user came to me and asked me to "independently investigate the situation to restore justice. Unblock him if needed or provide a more valid reason for the block". From what he's done to me I don't think I can make a neutral decision. so I denied the request saying he had to understand that it is impossible for me to not bring personal issues in here and make an neutral decision. I would leave it to others to deal with. Given a second chance, I would still deny the request and not get myself involved in the situation, because I believe avoiding conflict of interest in important. Same thing applies to stewardship. Thanks. --Bencmq 14:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Orangemike: the continuing struggle with those who think Wikipedia is a venue for them to advertise their company, their product, their neologism, their religion, their band, their ideology, or whatever. I sometimes compare it to wrestling with a firehose hooked up to the sewers! In the most persistent cases, this can lead to sockpuppeting, false accusations of bias or "hidden agenda", and general vituperative abuse. The key is to remain calm and dispassionate, and to remain aware that the other party may well see themselves as the Hero in this struggle, and the administrators as the Villains trying to suppress The Truth. (Few people outside the most primitive vandals see themselves as the bad guys in a matter like this, no matter how clear-cut we may perceive the issue(s) to be; and often even the vandals just see themselves as pranksters having a little fun.) --Orange Mike 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Cekli829:Şimdiye kadar en zor iş, şu an yapmış olduğum işdir. 1981bot isimli kullanıcının yapdığı hatayı düzeltmek çok zamanımı alıyor. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 12:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: My primary wiki is Bengali Wikipedia, which is a small wiki. I am the most active sysop there. As a small wiki sysop, I had to deal with almost every possible issues come forward (as there are very few to deal with). I have dealt with sockpuppet issues there (this one was before becoming an admin which is a long-term abuser, and this one was after becoming a sysop). I also dealt with wheel war and edit war. I do not agree with all the actions. For example, we blocked Pravata and all of his related socks, but with the same time we blocked an user who was productive (he said that he was accused because he shared the same computer in a cyber café, which was a possible and logical cause). I proposed unblocking for that account, as we are in a great need of productive contributors, and that account had no history of trolling or vandalizing at all, but unfortunately, we didn't have a consensus to do so. If I was given a second chance to decide in this situation, I would have unblocked that productive account in order to give him a second chance. Another challenging thing I deal with is, there are not enough users to take place in a discussion. Also some are not interested. Thus, sometimes I had to take actions without a discussion. But while doing so, I always maintain the good practice and respect the policy to avoid any kind of controversies. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Glavkos: No serious challenges to deal in a small wiki like el.wikinews so far. We are two temp admins there and so far didn't implement not one block ....I know that this is not very good for my bio, but it is mere truth. Sorry..Γλαύκος 09:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: Like most seasoned admins, I've faced many challenges. I can think of several content disputes concerning controversial articles where the other individual's edits are a violation of en.wikipedia's core content policies. They usually resulted in admin intervention being needed, although that never came from me if I was an involved party. Recently I've helped stop a couple of coordinated vandalism raids, which were fast and furious but very satisfying to stem. Spam and the circumvention taken by those who wish to used Wikimedia Projects for vested interests as Orange Mike mentions are also significant. How do you defeat an enemy that isn't afraid to die? Excuse the beligerent language, but the point is still the same - I think that one of the biggest challenges for admins concerns extremely bad faith editors where sanctions against them are neither an incentive to stop what they're doing, nor disencourage them from circumventing those sanctions and probably face more. WilliamH 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer by axpde: Luckily there was no "challenging" situation yet. Ok, maybe it was not the best idea a German trying to negotiate with some users from Israel and Syria who weren't unable to come to a mutual agreement on the status of the Golan Hights in File:BlueLine.jpg. It was a heavy edit war so I blocked both and restored the original version, problem seems to be solved ... (at least inside wikimedia). a×p_de^Hello! 22:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: Definitely, dealing with flame warring, disruptive editing, harassment and trolling face to face on ptwiki. As you know, both Portugal and Brazil have a turbulent political past, marked with dictatorships and censorship and live very recent democracies. I venture say that this political background makes Portuguese and Brazilians very prone to game the system and POINT. Libertarian discourse is such a powerful weapon on the hands of trolls in this context, since newbies will always believe that Wikipedia is dominated by conservative old editors and will be willing to sap this "evil cabal". On the top of that, the only widely accepted concept of organization among Portuguese speaking people is the "one person, one vote - democracy" and community is not willing to adopt "rough consensus" and refuses to endow sysops (or whoever) with the right of taking a final decision in a discussion. Even AfD are treated as simple-voting polls. There two great drawbacks in this approach: 1) Voting has become a official way of gaming the system because any rule of the project may be voted down, mainly because people think "my vote is up to me and I vote as I want". 2) Even experienced users unknow important policies like "verificability" and "no original research" (they don't need that to take part in discussions). What we see today is that every time a troll is blocked, there are a group of users who will engage themselves in questioning the blocking, even when the reasons are pellucid. So what happens is that a troll will still cause trouble and consume community attention even when he is blocked. Since pt.wiki has a policy of desysoping based on community vote and it is approved with only 1/3 of votes (yes, a sysop must have more than a 2/3 support to keep his flag), most administrators shy away from sensitive issues and pt.wiki lives in a kind of "spiral of silence" where most people (mainly administrators) are afraid of dealing with disruptive editing face-to-face. I sincerely don't know a proper solution to this kind of behavior. We definitely lives in a "spiral of silence" and we have no sysops willing to deal with this face to face. In the past, I was used to do everything as possible: mediation, community consultation before blocking, a dozen of changes proposed on blocking policy, previous discussions on administrators' noticeboard, block on sight and even nothing when I thought I couldn't be impartial. I have also slowed down my participation on every difficult block to see how other sysops handle such cases. However, there are too little sysops (or even none) willing to do that. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: I was one of the most active admin in id.wp, but I'll try to keep my answer short. The case that came to my mind was the Disney sockpuppet. The vandal made a lot of nasty redirects and other edits with a lot of puppets. I had to revert the page moves and edits and block the puppets. It was obviously vandal from a determined person, so I wouldn't change my mind on second chance. Bennylin 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from V

1. What do you think about admin abuses on Wikimedia projects? --N KOzi^Talk 05:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Teles: Well, if I understand your question, the answer is quite obvious... I'm sure that you and all other candidates will agree with me that admins or any type of user should never make any abusive action. From the definition of the word "abuse", we can infer that it is something improper, not correct, a misuse and just should never be done. The abuse of admin tools, usually leads to removal of the tools by community decision. An abusive action is something against rules and against community desire, so it is not a proper behavior. Thanks for your question.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 07:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Cekli829: Hörmətli Vugar 1981. Azərbaycan dilinin ana diliniz olduğunu və onu mükəmməl bildiyinizi nəzərə alaraq, Sizə Azərbaycan dilində cavab verməyi daha məqsədəuyğun hesab edirəm. Sualınızda qaldırdığınız məsələ Vikicəmiyyət üçün ən aktual problemlərdən biridir. Vikitəcrübəmə əsaslanaraq deyə bilərəm ki, bu problem daha çox yüksək aktivlik nümayiş etdirən idarəçilərin fəaliyyətində müşahidə olunur. Sui-istifadə hallarının yaranmasının əsas səbəblərindən biri Vikiqaydalara əməl olunmamasıdırsa, bunu yaradan digər bir amil həmin qaydaların bütün Vikilayihələrdə, müvafiq dillərdə olmamasıdır. Xüsusilə, kiçik Vikilayihələrdə sui-istifadə halları daha çox baş verir. Fərdi idarəçilərlə bağlı isə bu problem belədir ki, sui-istifadə hallarına yol verən idarəçilər, sysop seçilməmişdən əvvəl özlərini mükəmməl formada təqdim edib, istifadəçilərin etimadını qazanır, idarəçi dövründə isə bu etimaddan sui-istifadə edirlər. Bu problemin ən maraqlı tərəfi isə odur ki, adətən sui-istifadəyə yol verən idarəçi fərdi fəaliyyət göstərirsə və onun tərəfdaşları olmursa, bu halın qarşısını çox tez bir zamanda almaq mümkün olur. Bu zaman həmin idarəçi ya Vikidən uzaqlaşır, ya da fəaliyyətində ciddi dönüş edərək, gələcəkdə daha nümunəvi davranır. Bu problemin ən qəliz tərəfi isə odur ki, sui-istifadə edən qruplar meydana çıxır. Bu zaman həmin qrupların zərərsizləşdirilməsi çox çətin olur. Mən bu kimi qrupları daha çox Şikə şəbəkəsinə bənzədərdim. Əgər qlobal səviyyədə həmin qruplarla mübarizənin dəqiq yolları müəyyənləşərsə və onlara qarşı çox ciddi tədbirlər həyata keçirilərsə, bu problemin həllində mühüm bir nəticə əldə etmək və hətta sui-istifadə hallarını sıfıra qədər endirmək mümkün olardı. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 09:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Quentinv57: Personnally, I found that abusing one's tools is a disrespect to the rest of the community, especially for people who are not in the sysop group. I can quote the recent example of a sysop protecting his talk page on the French Wikipedia to prevent non-sysops to send him messages. I would think the same if a user got blocked just for his political opinions.

   However, if a sysop abuses his tools, then it is a local issue. So that's to the local community to decide if the rights of this user should be removed, temporarily or permanently. Stewards don't have the right to remove the sysop tools due to abuse if there is no local community consensus. An exception might be done for some small projects where the whole community is involved in the conflict. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer for Ezarate I am not agree with the abuses, but as stewards we can't do anything, the community may decide what to do with the abusive admin and we do the action based on the consensus Esteban 13:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer of Mys_721tx: I agree with Teles that all users should not take any type of abusive action. Usually, abuses are local matters and can be stop by local warning, blocking and future community discussions including a de-sysop vote for admin. For more serious case, like using automatic/semi-automatic scripts to attack the project, technicians may help. -Mys_721tx(talk) 13:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer of Quadell: I'm against it.

   (Seriously though, when admins consistently abuse their tools, those tools should be taken away. That's up to the community, and is usually enacted by local bureaucrats. I don't anticipate, as a steward, having to decide whether a specific action is "abuse" or not.)

   Answer from Trijnstel: Of course I disapprove abuse of adminrights, but stewards are not prohibited to interfere. It's up to the local communities whether to decide if they want to keep this person or not. Stewards can only perform the desysop per request and discussion on that wiki (locally). Trijnstel 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Orangemike: obviously, I find such abuse horrifying; but as has repeatedly been pointed out, this is not something with which stewards are supposed to deal, unless under the most peculiar of circumstances (i.e., a tiny Wikimedia project with only one or two admins and no bureaucrats). --Orange Mike 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bencmq: Honestly, I do not know what to answer. The question is too generic and I'm not sure what I say is what V intended to ask. As said by many others, 'abuse' means that the actions by this admin are not justified. In case of emergency, stewards can remove the sysop flag temporarily to prevent further harm to the project. --Bencmq 11:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Vituzzu: mmmmmh it's quite pleonastic to say "I'm against admin abuses", but, anyway, local communities must be able to manage such these issues. Making an example I blocked an user for personal attacks (the worst kind of personal attacks I've ever seen) on it.wiki and then he blocked me and Melos on scn.wiki...well, finally scn.wiki's local community forced him to resign as sysop. --Vituzzu 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from WilliamH: For obvious reasons I feel like I'm preaching to the converted here, but nevertheless, I think it’s unacceptable for not just an admin but any editor to abuse a flag on their account. However, the ascertaining of the abuse and the decision whether or not the admin should retain the flag are local community matters, and beyond my scope as a Steward. WilliamH 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Wikitanvir: I don't agree with abusing any rights. Admin abuse is comparatively horrifying that's all. Although, as stewards we shouldn't interfere in local issues, but in case of small wiki communities (with 1 or 2 active sysops and no active local community to discuss the actions), I support stewards' intervention. Also, stewards can always perform de-sysopship under local consensus. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from axpde: Obviously any abuse is bad. I guess you'd like to know what we think about whether there are admins abusing their power. Yes, there is, I have observed that at least on German Wikiquote, actually a shrinking project due to this behaviour. But as long as there is no community to stop those admins, we're hogtied. a×p_de^Hello! 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: I think that is a quite simple question with a quite obvious answer. Users are granted admin rights as per a community decision and shoud not abuse their privileges to override consensus or take any inappropriate course of action. Any serious, controversial and repeated violation of rules may lead to removal of the tools after gaining the on-wiki approval of local communities. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   Answer from Bennylin: I was accused of one (see my previous nom.), and since then I realized my mistake and what I shouldn't do in cases like that, so I'll try to answer the question from different point of view. Sometimes the so called "abuse" was simply an honest mistake on the admin part, so if an admin did something wrong, it proves that she's still human. Give him a second chance, and tell him your concerns. If the abuses continue (or only once but very serious, like abusing CU's rights) and there are hard proofs, then of course an action should be taken accordingly -- by the local community (for most of the cases it's not up to stewards to tell the community what they should do; the exception for this case, for example, is small wikis where all the active users are admin and they're all abusing their rights.). That's my point of view in my local community. On the other side, what the question implies and in relation with the roles of a steward, if a local community which has no bureaucrats has decided to desysop an admin because of some abuses, then it's my duty as a steward to remove his/her sysop right. Bennylin 05:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

   In response to Orangemike's answer: It's not that peculiar. In fact it's the state of the majority of Wikimedia projects. Bennylin 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Optional question from A

A scenario for your consideration:

An administrator on some.wikipedia.org has decided to vandalize that wiki. He has abused his editinterface right by adding a js code which disallows all other admins to access their tools, has abused his block right by blocking quite a few active users, and is now proceeding to do further damage by mass deleting pages created by some of the heavy content creators. Desysopping this user would stop additional abuse, but there is a local policy which specifically prohibits stewards taking any action - never mind desysopping without community consensus. Preventing further abuse would come at the cost of violating both the local global rights policy, and the global stewards policy, but there is no other way of stopping the vandalism (bureaucrats do not have the technical right to remove the sysop bit on this wiki). Ultimately, what is more important to you - strictly adhering to policy, or using your own judgement in situations that really weren't considered when creating the policy. This is an optional question, since some people feel very strong both ways on this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Vituzzu: I'll stop it, also considering in this situation the sysop's account may have been hacked...finally js-hacking doesn't work if you shutdown js in your browser :D --Vituzzu 22:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to add in something about the admins not knowing how to do that, but seems I forgot to... assume that please :p Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No pb, your question is clearly about a theoretical situation when the literal respect of local policy may bring to serious damages. --Vituzzu 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Orangemike: at some point, over-adherence to local policy could lead to the total destruction of a Wikipedia, especially in some of the smaller ones where there are not that many contributors to go around. I would be inclined to say that past a certain point, I would act to stop it, and immediately fully disclose what I had done and why to the largest possible cross-section of other admins on the local project, as well as to the WMF itself, explaining the unique circumstances and my reasoning in full, and being fully prepared to face the consequences of my actions. (As Vituzzu says, this could be a usurpation of some kind.) --Orange Mike 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Quentinv57: It depends how critical the situation is. If the administrator is still abusing his rights and if he does it fastly (i.e some blocks per minute), I will first send a message to him asking why he is blocking these users. It will prevent me to be wrong if he was not abusing his tools. But if he's not answering to my message and continue to abuse the tools, I will try to contact their IRC community and eventually remove the sysop rights, and block if the removal is not sufficient. But I won't take more actions (removing the blocks, etc.) as it can be done by local sysops and there is no more emergency.

I will then try to contact the victims of the abuse (recently blocked users and sysops that can't take actions) to propose them my help, giving them a link to Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access and to Requests for comment, as this is the only way the community will be able to show their will that a steward takes some more actions (removing the sysop flag if not done, and restoring the situation as it was before the abuse, notably for the JS code). -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Bencmq: It really depends. If it is a small project, I will likely take action because there may not be prompt response from the community to stop the vandalism in time. If there are enough active users, I will try to contact them. If the response I receive is that they want the issues to be solved in their hands, I'll let them deal with (telling them how to disable javascript etc.). Otherwise, I will take action. Temporary removal of sysop flag is not permanent and can be easily reverted by a local bureaucrat.

To me, it is more important to use my own judgement (well, not my own, I will discuss with others. No one has to act alone) but only in such extremely rare cases. I strongly agree what User:Wing said to a group of zhwiki sysops, that it is every Wikipedian's (Wikimedian's) duty to protect the project, and it is especially so for those with community trust and access to extra tools. In such urgent situation, it is important to ignore all rules. Maybe we already have some examples that are not based on rules but on common sense.--Bencmq 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer for Ezarate As the case is critical, I'll desysop his/her and delete the vandalic script and then ask to the community for another decission but first stop the vandalism.

Answer for Teles: It seems to be a clear case of abuse of sysop tools that requires a fast response as it was said that the administrator "has decided to vandalize that wiki" and "there is no other way of stopping the vandalism". I really hope that a rule that disallow *any* action from a steward do not exist on a wiki. Acting on emergency situations and when a local user can't perform some action is perfectly allowed by Stewards policy. What would be acceptable (not needed, but acceptable) is a rule to disallow only actions that can be performed by local users, but not *any* action. It would be too much dangerous in cases like this.
Assuming that there is no steward around to have a second opinion and I have to decide by my own, I would remove the tools and make local community aware of my action. After being aware of that, if the community decide to restore the tools their decision will be respected. The possible harm that would be done by the sysop (and was already done) is a lot bigger than the possible harm of removing a tool, which can be restored in a short time if needed.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of this is to provide an uncommon, but not impossible situation in which violation of the steward policy is needed (specifically the first section in regards to following local policy). Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Mys_721tx: If possible, I would like to try manually revert common.js and others script to the version before it prevent local admins working, and left this case to them :-D. But still in this urgent situation, I will remove the abusive admin's bit if this project doesn't have enough active users, furthermore, it's important to let the community know any action I take, I will leave a note to their village pump. -Mys_721tx(talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually they would be unable to stop him, an emergency deflag would always be needed. --Vituzzu 13:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Wikitanvir: I will go defensively. If the sysop performs the abuses quickly, I would leave a message on his talk page, and then after some time, if I don't get a satisfiable reply and the abuse continues, I would de-sysop him primarily (per discussion with other stewards on IRC). Also I would clear that code from common.js so others can act, but I would not perform unblock as it can be done by local admins. And I would give them the advice to initiate a local discussion about that abuse (to justify our de-syspship). Maintaining the policy strictly in all cases at all time is not something I would support. There are no firm rules. In my judgment, and the judgment of other stewards, that case is an emergency and needs intimidate attention to prevent more abuse. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Glavkos: As long as the vandalism is serious - and is described as such in the question- the first step is to desypop the vandal. All other measures come after that. Γλαύκος 09:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Trijnstel: If it's really critical and there's no other solution possible, I would desysop and (if he continues vandalizing) block the user. I would immediately inform the local community about it and restore the adding of the js code. After this, the admins are able to act by themselves and I would leave it to them to decide about the user (whether or not he should be blocked if he's not blocked already, etc.). In such critical and urgent cases I would act, although I'd decide then if it's important enough and I would limit it as much as possible. Trijnstel 09:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from WilliamH: This is a curious scenario and I would be interested to learn more about that community's policy. It really would seem that that community didn’t consider the notion of a rogue/compromised admin account urgently needing to be stopped, and thus do not have the policy means to do this. If the two options are a) stop it or b) watch the project go down the pan, then really, what other options are there? Although en:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is an English Wikipedia policy and can’t really in itself be cited, the principal of it can: let common sense prevail. Furthermore, if the account has been compromised and is an account with CheckUser and/or Oversight rights, then I would have to intervene. My first move would be to try and contact active local users and hear their perspective. (Chances are that some of them might already be in IRC, trying to contact Stewards and explain that this is an emergency and despite their policy, intervention is required.) Clearly an emergency situation requires emergency measures - I would remove the flag and let the situation go from there in the hands of the local community. WilliamH 21:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer by axpde: Policies are made to protect the community and their express will. If there is danger in delay a steward has to act to protect the community (emergency-de-sysop/block, restoring original conditions), any further action can be done by local authorities. a×p_de^Hello! 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer from Ruy Pugliesi: It depends on how critical the situation become. First of all, I would contact other stewards on irc and make them aware of that. Next, I would message the administrator and then I would wait for awhile. If I didnt get any response and he continued abusing the tools, I would remove his admin bit (after gaining the other stewards' approval on irc.) However, I would not take any action that could be done by local administrators, as unblocking abused users. Stewards policy does not prohibit stewards to act on emergency situations, and that is definitely a clearcut case. Next, I would inform the local community of my actions and let them take care of the situation and decide if the admin flag should be restored or not (whatever was their decision, I would surely respect it). In my view, preventing more serious damages to happen is more important than maintaining the local policy strictly under any circumstances. That's simply common sense. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This situation would violate the steward policy, since there was a local policy which stated that stewards should never use their tools on that project. Part of the steward policy is following local policies relating to global rights. Ajraddatz (Talk)

Answer from Bennylin: No need to ponder upon removing the admin rights. Discuss with other stewards, and most likely me or another steward would block him on account of obvious vandalism first (I personally would assume that the account has been hijacked, therefore, an immediate desysop is out of the question and block would be more appropriate), revert the .js code, and let the local admins/crats deal with the rest. Bennylin 06:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A policy question with an example by Mbz1

According to this policy "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is canvassing.

This post is a "posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."

Was the above post canvassing, and if not why not? Clarification: The administrator in question en:user:Gwen Gale was never involved with en:user:mbz1 before the above message at her talk page, but had a very special relationship with en:user:Daedalus969. Does it mean she is involved? Thanks.--Mbz1 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we keep these questions relevant, instead of trying to sort out enwiki drama here? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very relevant question. Stewards should be able to understand the policies and explain them to the editors. It has nothing to do with dramas. I am really trying to understand how to read this policy. Thanks.--Mbz1 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• You all successfully passed the test! You demonstrated that you know how to be a part of the upper class of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hierarchy,in which one of the most important tasks are keeping your own tools and protecting one of your own! --Mbz1 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)