Stewards/Elections 2025/Questions

A user approaches you and requests suppression on a wiki with local oversighters. They state that they have not contacted the local oversighters beforehand as they claim it is an emergency. How would you respond to a request like this one, and in what circumstances would you process such a request without attempting to contact the local oversighters yourself? EPIC (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Although stewards are able to use the oversight tool in emergencies, all efforts must be made to allow a local project to handle the urgent request — in this case, I would first attempt to contact the local oversighters of the project in question. If unable to do so, I would first alert other stewards to the situation for discussion (they may have a better understanding of the project and/or have opinions on emergency action), make the suppression, and then inform the local project's oversighters to my action. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• If the request is a real emergency, a steward can perform the oversight action. However, before doing so, I will attempt to contact the local OS team and consult with other stewards. If the request is not an emergency, I will forward it to the local OS team for handling. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I'd first check what the emergency is - if it does not appear to be one, I'll defer this to the local wiki. Assuming that it appears to be an emergency that requires immediate oversight, I would then attempt to check with the local OS team and see if they'll be around - if not, I'll do the oversight and let the OS team know so that they can check when they're able to. One thing worth noting is that if I'm "on the fence" as to whether I should oversight, I would do it - after all, unlike CheckUser, this can be easily reversed should it turn out that I was wrong. If necessary and practical, I'll also check with the other stewards. Leaderboard (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• There are two factors to assess here: whether the nature of the content in question constitutes a real emergency and to what extent (as a slightly extreme example, doxxing information about an individual that could immediately put them at risk, compared to a libelous statement from an LTA), and also the numbers and activity of the local OS team. If the request was a real emergency that could not realistically be handled locally in a timely manner, I would proceed, suppress and notify the local OS team. If it is not an emergency I would forward it to the local OS team first and after some time follow up and discuss with the other stewards if it still needs to be handled. A notable exception where I would be fairly more liberal handling the request is the Ukrainian Wikipedia, where community consensus reflected in the local policy exists, that allows stewards to handle any request, emergency or not. In that case I would proceed with the request. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• First of all, I'd discern whether the situation is so urgent that it requires an immediate response. I'd try to contact the local OS through various channels. If unsuccessful, I'd consult with other stewards, make suppresssion and inform the local OS. If the situation is not real emergency and can wait, I'd follow stewards policy by forwarding the request to the local OS team and allowing them time to respond. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• First I would evaluate whether the request really constitutes an emergency, and relay it to local oversighters if that is not the case (aggressive doxxing would be an emergency, while a random email address with no context most probably would not). If it is, a quick attempt to contact the local team should still be made, as wikis with local oversighters usually try to have enough to cover most times of the day; in the meantime, after a brief discussion with other stewards, if there is no response, I (or a fellow steward) would proceed with the action, after which the local team should be informed. In extreme cases, like when many wikis with local oversighters are affected, it can also be reasonable to act first and discuss (with the individual wikis) later, since "better safe than sorry" is generally a justified attitude with oversight of personal information. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Here it depends on the context and a balance must be struck between the protection of persons and the project standards. I would first look at what needs to be done and see if the local oversighters are active. Then I would decide further if the local oversighters are only active every 4-5 days and an fast supress is necessary, I would do it. if the local oversighters are active, an intervention by stewards would not be justified. --WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Which wiki(s) is/are considered as your homewiki? --Stïnger (会話) 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply ]

• My home wiki is the Bangla Wikipedia. —MdsShakil (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• English Wikibooks, MediaWiki and Meta-Wiki. However, for the purpose of the Homewiki policy as a steward, I'd also include the two wikis where I'm an admin for technical/anti-vandalism purposes - Wikimania Wiki and English Wikinews. Leaderboard (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• My homewiki is Polish Wikipedia. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 05:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• My homewikis are Wikidata, and English Wikipedia even though I'm currently less active there. For the purpose of the homewiki policy I would include Greek Wikipedia as well. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• My home wiki is the English Wikipedia, where I am the most active — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• As an editor, I am (削除) kind of "wikihomeless" (削除ここまで) varyingly active on many different wikis and have shifted my focus a lot over time. As a reader, I generally consult the English Wikipedia, which is why my (mostly minor) article editing usually ends up happening there. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I have two. barwiki / dewiki --WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Have you read or signed the WMF Confidentiality Agreement for Nonpublic Information? Have you ever notified WMF of a violation of the agreement? Would you notify WMF when other users do so? e 11:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (削除ここまで)Question removed by the ElectCom, questioner is not an eligible voter. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am curious about thoughts on how the U4C and stewards should work together as the U4C is a new body. The stewards have final decision making authority, as a high level decision making body, for areas that are in their remit. But also from talking to some stewards throughout the process that led to the U4C it seemed like there were things they felt like they were asked to do and couldn't that maybe the U4C can. So I'm curious what you see as Stewards work, what is U4C work, where there is overlap, and how each group may need to assist the other. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Thank you for the question. The remit for the U4C and stewards appear to be parallel in nature for the most part — stewards are primarily tasked with enacting community consensus in a range of actions (e.g. the granting/removal of permissions, the global locking of accounts, etc.), and to a lesser extent, (global) anti-abuse actions. The U4C however has the formal remit of ensuring a consistent implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct through hearing complaints, investigating their substance and providing remedies where appropriate (amongst other duties). I would imagine that committee members and stewards would need to work together on an ad-hoc basis during some investigation/enforcement actions, and would be keen to hear more as to how we could further support this important work. I am certainly aware of, from my previous terms as a steward, the pressure sometimes placed on the stewards to act as a "global arbitration committee" — I am glad of the existence of the U4C to help relieve this pressure somewhat. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Stewards are users with full access to the wiki interface across all public Wikimedia wikis. They have the technical capability to manage all local and global user rights, modify the status and names of global accounts, and impose or lift global blocks. Their responsibilities include technical and high-level on-wiki tasks, such as handling emergencies, managing rights at both local and global levels, and combating cross-wiki vandalism. Meanwhile, the U4C is dedicated to ensuring the equitable and consistent implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct.

Stewards are not arbitrators or mediators, meaning they cannot directly resolve conflicts within a project. The primary method for addressing such issues has been through a RFC, which is often a lengthy and, in some cases, inefficient process. Many conflicts within community projects, particularly smaller ones, involve administrator abuse or behavioral issues. However, stewards cannot take direct action in these cases without an RFC.

With the introduction of the U4C, it is now possible to investigate instances of abuse more effectively. Stewards can take action based on U4C recommendations, where they can. Additionally, the U4C can leverage stewards' perspectives and comments during investigations, ensuring a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing these issues. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• U4C is a fairly new body as you said, and the potential best interactions/relationship still need to be determined as the body evolves and more cases come in; to that direction I would love to hear the perspectives of the already serving members as well. When it comes to my views on the matter:

Stewards are here to enact community consensus globally, as well as locally when there's no appropriate local body/person or required by the policy (for example, granting and revoking user rights, implementing certain other changes when required, and so on), as well as handle global anti-abuse (ie global (b)locks/LWCU) as well as assist local communities in that direction, for example with SRCU, or handling compromised or clearly rogue sysop accounts (the latter especially for most wikis were bureaucrats cannot carry out desysops) and so on.

U4C on the other hand is a body resposible for the "consistent and equal implementation of the UCoC", by handling relevant complaints, providing an interpretation if required, carrying out relevant investigations and providing resources to the community.

The remit of Stewards and U4C is substantially different. In fact U4C covers a previous large gap, as in the past stewards may had been asked to intervene, as local disputes involving behaviours that can be UCoC violations etc. The work of these two groups should in a way compliment eachother. There may of course be the need for stewards to assist with the enforcement of some U4C decisions when required (for example implementing a desysop decision) or in some complex cases assistance in the investigation may be required (A theoretical scenario is an individual engaging in sockpuppetry to commit a UCoC violation where other irrelevant users may also be involved).

I think that overall open communication channels and feedback will be required to ensure smooth collaboration when there's an intersection in remits. I personally think it's beneficial that a couple of stewards are members of the U4C so that both groups can have easier access to eachother's perspective. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stewards do not have authoritative control over projects but work to implement community consensus especially in cases where this isn't possible locally. They perform technical functions such as granting and revoking advanced (global/local) user rights, blocking global accounts and dealing with vandalism between wikis. On the other hand, the U4C enfoces the Universal Code of Conduct by ensuring that all projects uniformly implement it and deals with its violations .

These two bodies can complement each other by filling gaps in their sometimes overlapping competencies. For example, stewards can support the U4C by implementing some of their decisions such as revoking advanced rights (in the case of UCoC violations) or dealing with difficult and uncommon cases, for instance abuses in various projects involving multiple accounts. They can then use the technical knowledge of stewards and the procedural approach of U4C. Such mutual support and flow of information between these two groups is, in my opinion, much needed for both to function well. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• A pretty common question would be someone saying "Admin X blocked me unfairly, please unblock me" or a similar variant. In the past (as expected) stewards wouldn't be able to help (unless things such as wheel-warring happened), and the only options would be (i) RfC, which rarely tends to be of any use other than for issuing global bans, or (ii) WMF T&S (Trust and Safety) taking action where necessary. The U4C changes this - now stewards can refer the user to U4C and the user can raise a complaint with U4C if the alleged action violates the UC4C. This helps all sides - stewards don't have to consider requests they cannot fulfil, and the user does not feel like there's nothing they can do. On the other hand, the role of stewards hasn't changed otherwise - other than implementing U4C decisions, stewards continue to handle routine cross-wiki antivandalism, CheckUser/Oversight on wikis without one or in emergencies, handling right requests from wikis that don't have a bureaucrat, etc. Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Since stewards are not not arbitrators or mediators according to the Stewards policy, they should not be responsible for high level decision making in global issues – which from my understanding is the reason for the U4C being created in the first place. So just as with global RFCs, where the function of the stewards is to assess and enact the consensus reached in the community discussion, "controversial" decisions should be taken by the U4C, and I don't think any "overloading" of the steward role with responsibilities related to such decisionmaking is appropriate. There could, however, be a designated member or group of people for communication between the bodies, like the steward observer at the ombuds, as stewards are generally users who have accumulated vast cross-wiki experience that could be beneficial to share between the teams. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Stewards act on behalf of the community and do not act independently. Except in clear cases. (U4C makes decisions Stewards only makes technical actions.)--WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you agree Civility, is the fundamental and most important policy that should be prioritized in Wikimedia? Regardless of a user's past contributions, failing to adhere to this policy poses a significant issue? Thanks! aqurs ❄️ 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Civility is indeed a fundamental policy in the Wikimedia movement, and has been since its founding (later reaffirmed with its inclusion in the UCoC), and absolutely should be prioritized. Everyone makes mistakes (myself, of course, included), but serious and/or protracted violations of this policy, regardless of a user's past contributions, are a significant issue. Thank you for the question. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Yes, civility is absolutely a fundamental and essential policy that should always be prioritized in Wikimedia. No matter how much someone has contributed in the past, it doesn’t give them the right to disregard this policy. Maintaining a safe and respectful environment requires adherence to this policy, regardless of a user’s past contributions. Our global community recognizes the importance of such principles, as reflected in the Universal Code of Conduct policy. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Yes. Civilty is a policy that reflects a core value of Wikimedia as whole, and I firmly believe everyone of us is required to adhere to it, regardless of their own contribution history, and regardless of the other users' involved contributions (or past mistakes). --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Yes, civility is a core policy of Wikimedia as it fosters the respectful and collaborative environment necessary for productive contributions. Regardless of a user's past contributions, failing to adherence to this policy can hinder collaboration because maintaining an atmosphere of respect is fundamental to ensure Wikimedia remains a welcome platform. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I'd say it's a pretty essential policy indeed - and there are enough examples of otherwise-contributing users that have fallen foul of the rule, and subsequently being punished accordingly. Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Reading "Wikimedia" as "Wikimedia community": sure. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• This must definitely be complied with. Serious offences must not be tolerated, regardless of who they come from. Apart from the serious offences, however, it must also be noted that the Civility police that there are different cultures and not everything is clearly an offence everywhere and in every context, since not every word has world wide the same definition.--WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 07:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward holds lots of high-risk privileges and has access to a lot of sensitive information. Can you briefly describe some of the ways you have taken to secure your account and ensure that sensitive information is not accidentally compromised? Stang 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• My Wikimedia account and linked email are secured with 2FA. I use a strong, unique password and only log in from my personal device, which is protected with a strong password and biometric security. I also make sure to use a trusted network whenever I login Wikimedia. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I use two-step verification and a strong, complex password. I also avoid logging into my Wikimedia account from public devices, I only use trusted ones. As well, I don't log in from unsecured public WiFi networks. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I am using a secure password which is not used on other platforms, and I have 2FA enabled (mandatory for stewards, but I had already enabled it as admin/oversighter). The email account tied to my Wikimedia account, which can be used for password resets but also occasionally receive wiki emails containing PII is also secured. I refrain from logging in from public wifis. Another consideration, which has been raised from time to time are the risk custom user scripts can pose, local or global; I use scripts that are from trusted users only, but I also feel that the mitigation of such risks, especially for accounts with advanced permissions/access to sensitive information deserves a broader discussion. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• 2FA + a strong password. Plus sensitive information should not be saved locally as far as possible - there are generally better alternatives available (eg using CheckUser Wiki instead of saving CU information on my device). Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I use two-factor authentication and a password which hasn't been used anywhere else to secure my account and related email, and only login on devices which are not shared and encrypted at rest. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 06:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I use a strong password and two-factor authentication (as already required). Not really a way I've deliberately "taken to secure [my] account", but I also only use my account from one (sometimes a second one) personal device. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I use 2FA, YubiKey, good password, botpasswords without big permissions .--WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This made-up case is to know how you judge in a situation, and there is no right answer. I'm afraid that the answer might be difficult, but that's why no one is asking you for a perfect answer. This kind of situation where there is no right answer often happens to stewards. So it is to know your judgment and the process for this, and it does not require you to know the general practice of stewards. This is an adaptation of a case I experienced a few years ago.

• [04:10 AM] <•Steward>: /me is lazy
• [04:11 AM] <Sotiale>: @steward plz help
• [04:11 AM] <•StewardBot> Attention requested by Sotiale ( .... )
• [04:11 AM] <•Steward>: How can I help you? This seems very urgent.
• [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: Admins on sotiale.wikipedia are sharing their accounts. I have proof of this!!
• [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: They even have the IA flag. This will cause serious security problems. They changed MediaWiki:common.js a while ago!
• [04:12 AM] <Sotiale>: They are a group of users and recently flagged 3 new admins using socks!!
• [04:13 AM] <Sotiale>: You must help me immediately. And you must not reveal this to anyone. They will try to block me!
• [04:14 AM] <Sotiale>: [Uploaded] [File:A photo that looks like something bad is happening.jpg // There are 3 people in this photo, one of whom is logged into his Wikipedia account. The person logged in is an admin on sotiale.wikipedia, but it's not clear what he's doing on the computer screen.]
• [04:15 AM] <Sotiale>: You need to lock their accounts now and checkuser between the 2 accounts(2 non-admin people appearing on the image) and the admin. And please take any additional action you can.

---

• There are 11 admins on sotialewiki and 1 b'crat.
• Sotiale appears to be a user who has been contributing there for over 3 years.
• There is no user there with privacy tools(CU/OS).
• Since the language of this wiki is the one of the fairies, there are no GRs, GSs, or stewards who speak this language.
• There was no global RFC related to this wiki.

Please reply as to what action you would take in response to this IRC conversation as a steward. I would also appreciate it if you could explain the reason. --Sotiale (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• It’s a bit strange that Sotiale wants to protect their privacy but shares all this information in the public IRC channel (as per the bot’s response).

From my perspective, there isn’t enough evidence to take any action at this point. Several serious allegations have been made, including changes to common.js, account sharing, and sockpuppetry in the RFA process. However, the only evidence provided is a picture showing three people, with one logged into their account. This does not substantiate any of the claims made.

I will ask Sotiale privately to provide additional specific details, such as diffs, logs, or other verifiable evidence to support the allegations.

I will also review the MediaWiki common.js edit to determine whether it is valid or not. If there is anything wrong with it, I will inform the interface administrator without disclosing Sotiale’s identity and will monitor the situation closely. Additionally, I will alert other stewards about the issue. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Firstly, I'd remind the user that IRC is public and ask them not to post photos that could identify individuals publicly (it could well be the case that Sotiale didn't know this, and thought that #stewards is an IRC channel where only stewards can view, as evidenced by the fact that Sotiale would see an empty window when they log in to IRC if they haven't visited that channel before). Then, I'll take a look at commons.js to see what exactly they changed - if it does appear to be malicious, there is a case for emergency desysop but it would be very unlikely for me to take that route without having other stewards review this case. Assuming that is not the case, there is little to suggest that emergency action is needed, and hence I will then privately contact the user and ask share whatever evidence they can provide, and take it from there using the regular process (which can involve checking relevant local users, such as the bureaucrat, if needed). At this stage it could well be that the user's allegations are completely true, but it is also important to ensure that indeed is the case - we've seen how often allegations are such that they look completely different when investigated further (eg due to a language barrier). Leaderboard (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Based on the attached information and the image by Sotiale, the situation is not fully clear. I would have to verify if there is a serious violation by the sysop. Thus, I would check with certainty the edit history of MediaWiki:Common.js to see if there is actually something going on there that could be damaging to this wiki, as well as the sysop's logs: what actions they have taken, and assess whether this is indeed an emergency situation. If so, I would check if the bureaucrat is maybe not currently active. If this is a wiki where the 'crats can revoke admin rights and they can do it immediately, I would pass it on to them. If it's not possible or I know they won't do it immediately (which is likely due to, for example, the early hour) then I would de-sysop (in the meantime consulting with other stewards). I would then inform that bureaucrat of the situation, so that it would be the local community that will take further action. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 14:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• As often with cases such as this, the involvement/awareness and discussion of action with other stewards is important, and I would of course do that before considering any action. I would review the changes to MediaWiki:Common.js for malicious code (and if present, revert the change as this would almost certainly rise to the level of 'emergency action' given the severe damage malicious code in MW:Common.js can cause). The other requested actions by Sotiale would need internal discussion, notwithstanding any evident temporary (and appropriately notified) emergency actions which may need to be done (up to & including de-sysop) to protect the projects. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• There are a few different claims to address here, that require different approach. The user doesn't seem to have shared the usernames of the admin/IA in question, so I would ask them to do so, after reminding them that #wikimedia-stewards is a public channel. Regarding the MediaWiki:common.js edits, it's important to check if there were any edits, and if yes, if they added malicious/questionable code, which is a security issue, it was vandalized, or if there was another edit that may just be questionable due to possibly being against community consensus. The first two need to be reverted and it would warrant an emergency removal of advanced permissions, but I would also discuss with other stewards a lock as it could be an indication of being compromised. If the edit was against the community consensus, it's something that should normally be discussed by the community (but see more on that below). Given that I am not TOO familiar with common.js and generally IA issues, I would ask for a second opinion if it wasn't fully clear to me, one way or another. I would also open a discussion with stewards to assess the possible account sharing
• Regarding the RfA sockpuppetry claim, I would ask the user that they share evidence including diffs to support the claim, as well as clarify which accounts are possible socks, preferably sent via Special:Contact/Stewards if they wish to avoid on-wiki claims. Now the issue is that such claims should normally be handled by the community, but stewards can assist if asked, for example with providing technical evidence sockpuppetry occured, if requested, needed and possible. How exactly to address them still generally remains a local community issue and the local procedures should generally be followed.

Now, something that caught my attention is "Sotiale's" fear of being blocked in sotiale wikipedia if anyone finds out they requested assistance for this matter - and assumably if bringing any of these claims up locally. It can be a general fear with no specific background, but it can also be due to systemic abuse of power in sotialewiki; I would ask sotiale to elaborate on why they feel they would be blocked (for example if other users who raised questions about certain admins in an appropriate manner got blocked etc) and skim through the block logs. It would need to be clarified if there are systemic issues that could be within the scope of U4C and advise sotiale accordingly. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• There is no sufficient evidence for the sockpuppetry allegation (which is a common accusation in small wiki/community disputes), so the only reason for action could be an edit to the Common.js, in case it exhibits signs of malicious intentions. I am much less experienced with programming than many other stewards, so unless it is completely obvious, I would try to let such doubts be resolved by those if possible, but clear bad-faith IA actions would be grounds for an emergency removal of all elevated-risk permissions from the account in question. Any less clear-cut matters have in the past usually been resolved (or at least attempted to be) through the RFC process, which does seem suboptimal given the non-public nature of presented evidence, so the U4C might be the right way to proceed nowadays, which is what I would suggest to the user. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I would point the user to the appropriate places U4C, RFC etc. I would also explain to him that it is not helpful to accuse publicly with alleged photos and depending on the authenticity, if he has no evidence that really proves it. The people could really know each other and work together, or help each other, and having someone you know explain something to you in your own presence would not be a security risk and would also be permitted.--WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 21:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you think the steward election and/or confirmation processes could be improved and, if so, how? --Ferien (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• It's fine for the most part and better than how the U4C elections were. Though the process is rather drawn-out (nearly two months in total) and the yearly format is inflexible for those who may want to join later on. Leaderboard (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Having seen a number of different methods of conducting elections (mostly recently, the new admin elections process on en.wiki), I think it is fair to say each has its own pros and cons — the steward election process as it stands works well for the most part — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I believe our current system functions well, as it has been a reliable method over the years. That said, I do support the ongoing discussion about including global sysops in criterion 3. Additionally, I agree with few past year candidates' suggestions to increase the minimum vote requirement. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I think the elections system is well-established and generally functional, and the rules are generally well-enforced. One problem that has been mentioned from other candidates as well as in the past is that the whole process is way too long; an idea would be to either reduce the candidacies period (since one has probably decided to run a bit before anyways) or reduce/drop the one free week between the nominations deadline and the beginning of voting. It could also be an idea to announce the candidacies submission start date at the front page current news section a bit earlier so that everyone is aware. Regarding confirmations process I think it's as it should be, BUT maybe it would be better to have a separate questions section - with a limit - as in the past some discussions were hard to read/follow. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Apart from the discussion to amend the adminship requirement to cover global sysops, I don't see big issues with the election process; the minimum vote requirement is certainly outdated but that does not seem to have any real impact. I do not feel like the process is too long, but I believe if we are talking about reducing the duration, it should be the voting period that is affected, not the submission period (but I have no strong opinions and this would need to be discussed in an RFC). As for confirmations, I have had slight concerns in the past about the fact that the stewards are ultimately responsible for their outcome; however, this has worked well with the concerns that were expressed towards individual members as far as I have witnessed it. Still, more direct consequences of the community's "votes" would be worth some consideration (like a minimal support ratio before leaving the decision to the stewards). ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is a follow-up to your answer at § Homewiki. Does your response mean that you will only refrain from changing permissions as a steward on the English Wikipedia? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the question; in regards to the wikis where I am "an active member of the local community", as used in Stewards#Policies, I would consider such wikis to be enwiki and commonswiki (considering I am a sysop on the latter), and probably ruwiki as well to be safe (even though I might not be as active there nowadays, I had been an active community member there for over five years). Should I become more actively involved in some other wiki specifically, I would consider it covered by the quoted phrase as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In your request, you state that you mainly intend on working to counter vandalism/spam. Given you aren't a global sysop (which isn't an issue and perfectly fine IMO), do you think there may be an initial barrier? If so, how do you intend on tackling any potential barriers? --SHB (t • c) 12:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First of all thank you for the question. While having been a GS in the past can be a plus, I don't believe not having been would be a significant barrier if you're already familiar with the policy and cross-wiki work. For some facets of anti-abuse work in general (like spambots, specific LTAs or xwiki vandals involving global (b)locks) it may not make a huge difference, already having experience from the overall xwiki work and making requests in the relevant pages; for others though (like handling deletions and local blocks in GS wikis or other similar requests) it can make a difference as you are assuming the role of GS for the first time and it's definitely something I need to keep in mind if elected. I think the main way to tackle this is by 1) recognizing it 2) taking it slow while onboarding, and not hesitating to ask for a second opinion from other GS/Stewards if in doubt or in complicated/unclear cases and 3) being receptive to advice/feedback from more experienced GS/Stewards or the community (which applies generally to all your work as editor/sysop/steward). I do feel though that being an admin in a multilingual project helps handling the barrier of different languages one can face as new Global Sysop / Steward.

I think though that this applies for all tasks one may have not handled before being elected as steward, like acting as a bureaucrat for wikis with no local bureaucrat, oversight requests, etc. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Excellent, thanks for answering (it's exactly what I expect). :-) --SHB (t • c) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you intend to strictly follow the minimum voting requirements? JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 21:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Generally, yes, and that's simply because stewards have been applying it that way from my experience. There may be some unwritten aspects to this rule that I'll only know as a steward, though. Leaderboard (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry but i found one question from last year is very constructive, so don't mind me coping it. "Do you define being active cross-wiki and do you think that it's important for stewardship and your current activity level fits that criteria?" Looking for reply, thanks! aqurs ❄️ 15:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The 2024 question had "How" in the beginning of your question, so I'll answer assuming that's the case. With that said,

• To be active cross-wiki can mean multiple things - it can involve reverting vandalism, solving technical issues, helping with filters, maintaining bots etc.
• It depends. For a candidate that wants to become a steward primarily to revert vandalism and block/lock accounts (i.e, what I call as the anti-vandalism track), it is reasonable to expect such a person to have significant cross-wiki experience, since that is something that's easily accessible without specialised rights, especially using tools such as TwinkleGlobal. However, this is stewardship, not "global sysop pro". For other situations, while cross-wiki experience is a nice thing to have, it is not a deal-breaker and I do not see it as a requirement for a prospective steward. The reasons are that (i) a lot of things that a steward does can be learned "on-the-job", and (ii) it is easy to run into cases when a user wants to do/improve something that is best done being a steward, such as working on AAR and even routine-looking tasks such as adjusting filters for anti-vandalism (while abuse filter manager exists, it's only meant for technical maintenance). Broadly speaking, when looking at a prospective steward, instead of asking the question "what does this user not have", I'll ask "what can this user do" instead.
• Yes and no. I am not a cross-wiki anti-vandalism specialist, but I do have significant cross-wiki experience otherwise over the years, and continue to do so especially from maintaining Global reminder bot (a lot of which is passive monitoring). This requires good understanding of crosswiki policies, since some wikis have rules that ask for a certain number of test edits, for instance, or require me to contact someone after X months.

Leaderboard (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're not a meta administrator (which is completely fine). Are you familiar with the Meta-Steward relationship, especially the rules regarding admin-actions on this wiki? Can you tell me how you will personally deal with that? --TenWhile6 22:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I am familiar with this policy. It allows stewards to perform certain administrative tasks on Meta-Wiki. I will not perform any regular administrative tasks on Meta-Wiki unless it is an emergency. From the authorized actions, I will limit myself to editing the spam blacklist, the title blacklist pages, and applying exceptions on global blocks. —MdsShakil (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for your answer! TenWhile6 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What have you learned and reflected on since your resignation in 2023? --Min☠︎rax ^«¦talk¦» 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since my resignation in 2023, I've reflected a lot on the situation as a whole, and how it affected me — this culminated in an apology to the English Wikipedia community where I went into detail on the lessons learnt. These included things like; how apparent involvement (i.e., an administrator appearing to be involved) can undermine the neutrality of role we've been entrusted with, the fact that situations where I feel a need to emphatically defend myself are often those where I should take extra care and time to reflect, and that I do not need to "operate alone" in these situations (i.e., that I can and should ask for advice and rely on my colleagues).

Thank you for the question — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Du bist im Moment Globaler Administrator, aber wenn ich deine Aktivität so anschaue (File:Crosswiki LogactionsTheresNoTime for Steward e..png) finde ich hier wenig aktive Verwendung. Wie schaut würde es mit Steward rechten ausschauen? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Obwohl ich regelmäßig nachschaue, ob neue Anträge zu GS/R hinzugefügt wurden, lag mein Hauptaugenmerk als Steward in der Vergangenheit hier im MetaWiki. Wenn ich gewählt werde, wird sich an diesem Schwerpunkt wahrscheinlich nicht viel ändern - allerdings wird die Rückkehr in eine Rolle, in der ich früher gut gearbeitet habe und die mir Spaß gemacht hat, wahrscheinlich wieder zu einer höheren Aktivität führen. Danke — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• You failed three dewiki RfAs. What have you since learned from the failed requests? --SHB (t • c) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I accept justified criticism and will try to do better in future.--WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 09:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Can you clarify if you used machine translation in your statement? Leaderboard (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  If you're speaking to my language knowledge, I understand what I've written in the statemant and written it self. I just use a writing assistant to improve it grammatically and typo. WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 07:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I noticed Special:AbuseFilter/300 (private) where the comments are almost all in German. I find this to be a potential problem since it's a global filter, and hence admins from other wikis (many of which have AFH as a result) will find it hard to understand what you're trying to do (and I got to know about this when a different user complained elsewhere). I searched for evidence that this was originally imported from de.wiki or anything else that could explain why the comments were in German, but could not find any. Can you clarify on why you're doing this, and whether you plan to do this in the future? You can answer this question in German, provided you provide an English translation which need not be perfect (however: please do not use machine translation or AI tools). Leaderboard (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yes is not a imported Filter. The comments in the filter are intended for me so that I can finde positions quickly when changes are made. You are right this is not so good for non-German speakers. At the time I started writing have i not think about non-Germans are more difficult to understand the filter. I will write filters with english comments in future. WikiBayer 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 09:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Last year you unsuccessfully ran for steward, where the main concerns brought up were views on spam, cross-wiki experience and poor answers to questions, and later that same year you also had an unsuccessful U4C candidacy. What do you believe has changed since then? EPIC (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Additional note: I take language barriers into consideration, and you may answer this question in Kannada or any language you wish, though please try to also provide an English translation if possible. EPIC (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Nothing has changed, but I was really disappointed with stewards actions which I noticed that was discouraging towards editors of smaller community there are many reasons as you already know, anyway I have chosen withdraw from applying to steward group as I may not have grasp of this usergroup though i thought I had sense of how this usergroup works but clearly not.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• In your statement, you simply say "I will address questions which raised to opposing my candidacy last year" but then don't go to say one bit how you miserably failed both SE2024 (at 16.38%) and U4C Special Election 2024 (at 47.41%). Why do you think that's sufficient enough for someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year, and how do you think controversial actions are supposed to be addressed. --SHB (t • c) 10:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Also like EPIC, feel free to answer in whatever language of your choice. --SHB (t • c) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @SHB2000, "I will address questions which raised to opposing my candidacy last year" i really had to go away so i couldn't complete statement so reverted my edits to Stewards/Elections 2025 and Stewards/Elections 2025/Questions page so that I could respond to when I get back.

  someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year

• can you explain about it a bit more.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  It doesn't take long to figure out what the main reasons for people opposing you at Stewards/Elections 2024/Votes/~aanzx#No. --SHB (t • c) 12:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I know it doesn't take long to read that page, you could have let me what controversial on that page, anyway I felt volunteering is a lost cause So I decided to withdraw, But I would truly like to know what are controversial things you like to be answered by me, if you really wanted ask 10or more questions you should really ask me in User talk page, instead of asking here.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 12:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I know you've withdrawn, but why should I ask on your user talk page? This is (or was, at least) regarding your controversies on your steward nomination? I am definitely not the only one wondering what has changed. As for "you could have let me what controversial on that page", any basic responsibility with holding advanced rights is the ability to recognise if you've messed up – your inability to do even that is very telling. --SHB (t • c) 13:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @SHB2000

  Before I withdrew you asked question "someone who garnered a whole heap of controversy last year" I would like to what that would be you like to know answer, would it be responsible for you to ask specific, instead me replying to some random question to don't want answer for, if you have any specific questions you could just ask, instead you point me to page which has questions.--~aanzx · ✉ · © 13:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward elections 2025