Stewards/elections 2010/Questions

Removed sections for users that have been disqualified:

• 97% your edits in sv-wiki. Can you add your cross-wiki activity? Regards, – Innv | d | s: 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Probably, you have meant this? --Microcell 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Could you tell me please have you ever resolved (as the admin) any controversial, conflictful situation in your home community? Do you reckon you have diplomatic behaviour in discussions with conflictful people? Thank you, مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• ...

• ...

• Can you please tell us why you apply, and how you want to use the role? --81.166.249.24 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I am a strong believer in what we are doing here. I love to sift through "wiki world" and learn random things. I become very annoyed when I am involved in reading something and it has been vandalized, I want to maintain the quality of this great thing we have built. This position seems like a clear next step from a contributor and patroller, to increase my contribution. I will read and follow all the policy's for this position, I will be impartial and always have the integrity of the site in mind. Garkeith 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Actually, administrator/rollbacker is the next obvious step (at least, to me). Majorly talk 15:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed. There's also the global rollback position, although that requires extensive experience. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• You have small global contribs. Can you add your cross-wiki activity? Regards, – Innv | d | s: 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• ...

• ...

• Can you please tell a little about why you apply, and what you want to do in the role? --81.166.249.24 14:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I am someone who always strives to give back to whatever community they are involved with, and the Wikimedia community is no different. I believe I bring many qualities to the table which will help me in this position, including the ability to consider positions without bias and to build consensus. My goal is to be an active Steward, helping the community as needed, included through helping combat cross-wiki vandalism or vandalism on sites without a large active user base and no active administrators. --mwilso24 (^Talk /_Contrib ) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)...[reply ]

• What is a steward's role on Mediawiki Wikis? Razor flame 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

A steward's role is to be an impartial and transparent promoter of consensus building, tasked with the implementation of the collective will of the entire Wikimedia community. A steward aids the community through emergency response and through more direct involvement in smaller projects. --mwilso24 (^Talk /_Contrib ) 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• 99% your edits in en-wiki. Can you add your cross-wiki activity? Regards, – Innv | d | s: 05:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

While it is true to this point I do not have an extensive cross-wiki history, this is a trend which will not continue. Stewardship is not a prize and not an award but is something that must be taken very seriously, and in my opinion should only be granted to worthy candidates. I am here because I believe I fall into this category. --mwilso24 (^Talk /_Contrib ) 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Please describe the history of your activity in the Wikipedia category at Yahoo! Answers. -- Thekohser 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hi there thekosher. Is this question going to eventually get around to things to deal with stewards? Razor flame 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I do think that integrity and honesty are important characteristics of a Steward. If you are heartfelt and honest about your response here, I would vote for you. -- Thekohser 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Integrity and honesty are important characteristics for a steward to have, however, I don't see how my actions about 10-12 months in the past matter any longer because of how long ago it happened. I've changed quite a bit over the past year, so while I might have acted like an arrogant jerk a few years ago, I now am a kind and helpful person who likes to help new people out with things on Wikimedia wikis. If I didn't believe I had any integrity or honesty, I would not have applied to become a steward here. As the old saying goes, "What has happened has happened." and "no need to dig up old bones that you've already buried." Razor flame 20:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Given your recent issues on en.wiktionary, simple.wiktionary, and simple.wikipedia, do you feel you are likely to be appointed to steward? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• You recently withdrew your 12th RfA at Simple.Wikipedia. Please explain how you would be suited to the role of steward when you have no current "flags" at wikipedia, and your only experience of those is on a relatively inactive Wiktionary? Kennedy 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hello Kennedy. Thank you for your concerns about whether or not I would make a good steward. I'll try to answer this question as honestly and completely as I can.

  In my opinion, stewards are the people that you go to when you are dealing with cross-wiki vandalism. I, for one, am thouroughly disgusted by people who think that if they vandalize on one project and then hop to another project, that they think that they can get away with it. Since I joined the SWMT in January or February of last year, I've been exposed to these kinds of things and it makes me upset that people do cross-wiki vandalism, just to have a laugh or to have a hoot. Stewards help to control these cross-wiki vandals, as well as help to serve as the link between all of the different wiki projects, and to communicate with many different people of many different countries, which I find fascinating, and even more so when I am able to help them solve a problem that they have so that they can continue on volunteering at that project of their choice.

  While it is true that I have not had any of the flags on a Wikipedia project, I have had both the bureaucrat and administrator flag on the Simple English Wiktionary, which, while not as active as some of the other Wikimedia wikis, still had vandalism happen on it. When I first became a sysop on the Simple English Wiktionary, I was one of the only people who noticed a trend between a bunch of different IP ranges and malbots editing two specific entries on the Simple English Wiktionary: adder and conformity. I then proceeded to map them all out using NMap and found a huge open proxy farm on the Simple English Wiktionary. If I were to become a steward, I would strive to root out people who vandalize using open proxies or who are malbots on other wikis and stop them from harming those wikis. While it is true that I did have some difficulties with the flags on the Simple English Wiktionary, I took the high road and took other administrators' advice on how to do things. For example, when Tygrrr called me out (happened in March or April of 2009) for blocking someone without giving them a sufficient warning first, I took his advice to heart and didn't block any IP after that without first warning them for vandalism. The problems that I had with the administrator flag weren't earthshattering and problem-causing issues; they were small issues that were easy to fix, and they were fixed as soon as they came to my attention.

  While it is true that I did just withdraw (about a week and a half ago) from my 12th RfA on the Simple English Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is is that the reason why the number of RfAs is so high is because of the fact that when I first joined and started editing the Simple English Wikipedia, I didn't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia then, or what each flag was for, so I foolishly ran for RfA in too quick of succession. I attribute this to the fact that I was ignorant and unknowledgable back then and that I didn't really know what I was doing. Over the two years that I have been editing Mediawiki wikis, I believe that I have grown and matured quite a bit from when I first started editing. Instead of being the person who asks other, more knowledgeable editors for help with writing an article, I am now the person giving other, newer, lesser experienced users the help and advice that I was given when I first started editing. While I know and understand the problems that people have with me being an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia, I believe that while they do have valid points, the fact of the matter is that I believe that I have matured immensely, and that I am now sturdy as a rock in terms of stability. Both of those were concerns that other people had about me on my RfAs.

  I understand that my judgement might not be the best, but what you really need to understand is that I do everything that I do for the benefit of the Wiki. I know that people make mistakes; it is in their nature, but is the right thing really to continually chastise them about it, or to let them grow and become more confident?

  People might be thinking, wow, this user has never been a Checkuser on any Wiki, how is he going to be able to do the Checkuser? Well, I will be able to use the checkuser tool appropriately because I will, if elected seek out help with things that I am unfamiliar with, so as to minimize the chance that I would make a mistake. For example, if I needed to checkuser someone on, for example, the Swedish Wiktionary because of a request that someone from that wiki made on Steward requests/Checkuser, I would first ask another steward to help guide me through the process the first time because even though I don't have any experience, I would learn quickly. While some people might think: Oh? We shouldn't elect a steward who would need to ask another steward for help when he needs to run a checkuser, the fact of the matter is that stewards help other stewards out when they have a problem with something, or if they just need a second opinion. I would utilize this to be absolutely sure that what needs to be done is the right way of tackling things. Since I would be a new steward who wouldn't know the lay of the land, I would be more prone to make mistakes, but that is how people learn, and I, too, would learn the lay of the land.

  Honestly. I was a fool to have run so many RfAS in such quick succession when I first started editing the Simple English Wikipedia, and adminship doesn't really interest me that much any longer. The only reason why I want to become a steward is so that I can help as many people as I can solve as many problems as they have on their wikis, and to help make sure that all Mediawiki wikis run as smoothly as they possibly can. My intent is pure.

  I believe that I would be well suited for the role of steward because I like helping other people solve their problems and because I like making a difference in the community. While I might not know everything, what I don't know can easily be learnt over time. Again, my intentions for running for steward are completely and honestly pure, and I only want to be able to help out as many people as I can and help keep all Wikimedia wikis running smoothly.

  I hope this answers your question, Kennedy. Razor flame 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Did you resign your sysop and bureaucrat rights on the Simple English Wiktionary? If so, why and under what circumstances? A Stop at Willoughby 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hello there A Stop at Willoughby. That situation was complex and caused the stewards to get together for a discussion about it. What happened was I requested my bits removed, and then requested them restored about 15 minutes later. Please keep in mind that this happened on the 22nd of November. Basically, I made a terrible snap decision and resigned my bits, in good faith, because I thought that I wasn't going to edit that Wiki any longer. After mulling it over for several minutes (10-15, to be exact), I decided that that was not the right thing to do and requested them back, which were restored to me. However, after the stewards talked it over with each other, they decided that even if people who request their bits removed and then request them restored fairly quickly afterwords, that people can no longer do so over IRC.

  That whole incident was due to the turmoil that I was going through on the English Wiktionary at that time. This happened over two months ago, and I've moved past it. I made a stupid decision then, because of what was going on, and I regretted it almost instantly. However, I fully respect the stewards' decision to remove them again because it was the right thing to do. According to the Stewards' Handbook, stewards can only remove the bits; they cannot restore them. Only a local community discussion and community consensus to regain the bits can allow you to regain the bits.

  Two months later, I have gotten those rash decisions under control. I no longer make extremely rash decisions at a seconds' notice.

  The bits were removed due to a mistake that I completely regret, and I can assure you that I no longer make those kinds of mistakes any longer. If you were to elect me as a steward, I would carefully think through every action that I make before I make them, and if I am unsure about making an action, I would ask another stewards' opinion on the matter, especially if it has to deal with one of the wikis that I am active on.

  Below are the log entries for this incident:

 * 02:42, 23 November 2009 Lar (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from Bureaucrats and Administrators to (none) ‎ (Stewards can remove permissions but absent a community process or consensus, cannot restore them.)
 * 02:21, 23 November 2009 Pathoschild (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from (none) to Administrators and Bureaucrats ‎ (Steward requests/Permissions)
 * 02:11, 23 November 2009 Lar (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Razorflame@simplewiktionary from Bureaucrats and Administrators to (none) ‎ (request)

• Thank you for the question, and I hope this answers it! Cheers, Razor flame 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• You have a lenghty history of blocks on many wikis, including five blocks till infinity on your home wiki, you have created dozens of sockpuppets in English Wikipedia and you have almost no experience as a sysop, crat or checkuser. Why you apply for steward rights? Do you think it is appropriate for a steward to be blocked on several wikis? — NickK 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Do you really feel that being an admin on Wikimedia Laboratories Flagged Revisions, a wiki where anyone can become an administrator for testing Flagged Revisions, is an "achievement"? 74.50.118.91 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• ^This. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Is it true you compromised the English Wikipedia admin account Cool3 in c. November 2009, and used it until it was discovered and desysopped? Majorly talk 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Could you tell us why you would like to become a steward? Why you didn't write any reasons in your campaign speech? Thank you, مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 21:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Can you please tell us why you apply, and how you want to use the role? --81.166.249.24 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• ...

• Steward elections 2010