Open main menu

Stewards/Elections 2017/Questions

Warning

The 2017 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.


2017 elections 2017 Steward Elections (Questions)
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 as concise and relevant as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

For all candidatesEdit

Question from VogoneEdit

  • What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Vogone (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi. It's important, local CheckUsers and stewards need to be able to work properly between them, as on wikis with local CheckUsers, stewards can't normally act (CU policy allows acting just in cases of emergency and cross-wiki checks/investigations, but this is very very rarely done by stewards, they normally use loginwiki or a wiki where the vandal/LTA edited, if possible, for cases like this. The CU wiki, mailing and IRC channels are also very useful in cases like this). Local CheckUsers normally know more than stewards about local cases, and when a vandal/LTA starting moving to more than a wiki, the information (patterns, information about the IPs/proxies, etc) that local CheckUsers can provide to stewards is very important to be able to identify to the vandal/LTA in question). There are also cases where local CheckUsers need some help from stewards (e.g. local CheckUsers don't have enough CheckUser data about a case to take some action) and stewards need to be available to handle such cases. Please let me know If I wasn't enough clear. Matiia (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754Edit

  • Per the m:Stewards policy, stewards are required to avoid "changing rights on home wikis (wikis where they are active community members), except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies)." If elected, how would you practice this? What would you consider to be your homewikis? --Rschen7754 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are around 30 stewards who can handle such requests, so I'd only change user rights if 1) it's an emergency and I find no other steward at that moment and 2) it's the global rename rights, which isn't a Meta-Wiki thing, but a global one. I currently consider both Meta-Wiki and the Spanish Wikipedia as my home wikis and both of them have local CU, OS and bureaucrats, so most of the work can be locally handled. Matiia (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fairly transparent, I'd refrain from changing rights on my homewikis where I haven't got the rights to do so locally. As previously stated amount of stewards available makes it unnecessary. I consider tr.wikipedia and wikidata as my home wikis. --HakanIST (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I deem as home wikis the projects where I hold local adminship or regularly participate in community processes. At this moment they are the Portuguese Wiktionary and this Meta-Wiki. I'd not change user rights on these projects using the steward tools, with exception to 1) global rename rights on meta, which are not a local meta affair and 2) urgent cases requiring immediate response to protect the project, if I absolutely find no other available steward (or local user with the necessary rights) at the time. Defender (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see my original wiki (nlwiki) and projects where I have a lot of contributions or rights (Wikidata) as places where I wouldn't use my steward rights. There are enough other stewards to cover those places. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from RadiXEdit

  • Please, describe in your own words how do you see the role of a steward as and what are your expectations if you are elected. And, in short, what do you think will be the biggest challenge so far facing stewards in 2017? RadiX 20:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi. Stewards are users who were trusted by global community to implement local consensus and to do some things that can't be technically (not enough rights) done by other users, they are to assist in both global things (e.g. renaming accounts and gblocking IP addresses) and local things that can't be done by local communities (e.g. grating CU and OS rights, deleting pages and blocking accouns and IP addresses on wikis without local admins).
Well, if elected, I'd continue doing that I do as a GS now and start handling requests by users to stewards, my main interest is to perform GS work, to lock/gblock accounts/IP addresses and granting/removing users rights, but I'd like to help with other requests as well. Please let me know if this wasn't what you meant to say by expectations.
I can't know what will happen in 2017, but I'd say it's very likely the work to stop abuse (spammers, LTAs, etc) to be the biggest challenge (or at least, one of them) in this year, as it has been in past years. Matiia (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's really hard to say. First I want to learn the different aspects of the stewardship, I don't think there is a better way to learn it than by actually doing it. Abuse and harassment are topics that I really care about. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from Samuele2002Edit

  • Which do you think is the main task of a steward? --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    Hi. I think my answer would be similar to what I said above, their main task is to implement consensus and to assist users with both global things and local things that can't be done by local users. Matiia (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Per candidateEdit

Cekli829Edit

Question from Rschen7754:

  • Last year, a current steward wrote this about your candidacy:

User still has several and serious problems of understanding our processes. Cannot handle his own requests for sysop rights. And that does not change with time. Could never properly address the canvassing accusations raised on previous candidacy. Actually, I could never see a question properly addressed by him, whose answers are close to sarcasm. Terrible reasoning to become a steward on statement.

How do you respond to this? --Rschen7754 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, canvassing accusations and etc. was an experience for me. Last year steward Teles partially right. But the wrong idea at the end. --►Cekli829 08:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain in more detail what you mean by "etc."? --MF-W 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
What Teles mean. --►Cekli829 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from Steinsplitter:

Your candidature wasn't successful in 2011, 2011-2, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. What do you believe has changed since the last seven candidatures? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the vote to be given to me. Otherwise, the anti-record will continue :) --►Cekli829 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You are clearly not taking this as serious as you should, but on your statement you mention previous candidacies and say that they were a good experience for improving. That is what is being questioned. How did you improve with that? If only the votes are different, you are the same.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
What a joke answer.. MechQuester (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from InsaneHacker:

The Steward "job description" on m:Stewards state that their function is to change user rights following community consensus on wikis where there aren't any local admins/bureaucrats who can do it, as well as fighting cross-wiki vandalism. Are there any other roles you think Stewards could be used for? (I'm not asking if Stewards should use their powers for anything else currently, but rather if you would make any additions if the WMF ever changed the scope of the role). InsaneHacker (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from InsaneHacker:

You were not elected in previous Steward elections. Have you thought of what made people not vote for you, and if so, have you taken steps to rectify the issue? InsaneHacker (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Except for the block, I analyzed the others. For example, I improved English a bit. --►Cekli829 13:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you know that Wikipedia is the global, multilingual project? NasssaNser (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754:

  • Being a steward is often an unpleasant task. You will learn about the WMF's intentions to globally ban editors for many reasons including, but not limited to, child protection and harassment of other editors in real life. If your steward actions anger the wrong people, you may be subjected to doxing, and may even face harassment in real life. You will learn things that you simply do not want to know, including information that if divulged publicly may result in you being sued. Not to mention the criticism you will face, some of it legitimate, some of it not. Are you prepared to take this role seriously, keeping in mind that Wikimedia can affect real people in real life? --Rschen7754 07:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from RadiX:

  • Have you ever dealt with any issue on wikis in language different from those you currently speak? RadiX 03:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from NasssaNser:

  • What is the "tradition" you mean? What do you think is the duty of stewards? What is the point of continuously nominating yourself without any thinking? Thank you. NasssaNser (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

DefenderEdit

Question from MF-Warburg:

Dear Defender, please imagine you were a steward and experiencing the following situation. Please describe and detail how you would handle this if you were elected as a steward, and try to answer it without asking anyone for more information. Thanks in advance.

You receive the following mail:
Hi Defender, congratulations on your steward election. I'm Αἱρεσιάρχης, a checkuser on the Greek Wikipedia. I'm writing to you because I need some CU data in order to answer a request our team recently received. The user Ἀϑανάσιος was blocked six months ago on our wiki, and then moved to Pontic Wikipedia and contributed there recently. Now the account Μέγας Βασίλειος has been created in recent days but has obviously the same behaviour as Ἀϑανάσιος. Can you please provide checkuser results from Pontic Wikipedia so that we can be sure how to answer the request, so that we can also block the IPs?

--MF-W 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I would make sure 1) Αἱρεσιάρχης really is the sender of the email and is a local checkuser on the Greek Wikipedia and 2) the facts mentioned are true. If these conditions are met, I'd proceed as follows: If Ἀϑανάσιος is currently blocked on elwiki and is using the account Μέγας Βασίλειος there (as behavioral evidence suggests) to circumvent the block, a check to block the underlying IP address/range (if it's not too big) is justified, but if the first account (Ἀϑανάσιος) has made edits or logged actions within the last 90 days (before blocked) on elwiki, there is CU data available there, therefore there's no need to check accounts on another project (Pontic Wikipedia) and I'd tell Αἱρεσιάρχης that it's up to them and the other elwiki local checkusers to perform the check. On the other hand, if Ἀϑανάσιος is stale (no CU data) on the Greek Wikipedia, but they're active on another project (pntwiki) and their sockpuppet Μέγας Βασίλειος is also active there (both accounts have made edits/logged actions in the last 90 days), I'd perform the check, provided pntwiki has no local CUs, otherwise I'd advise Αἱρεσιάρχης to forward the request to them. The results would be sent privately to Αἱρεσιάρχης, so he can compare with the data he has and decide whether to block or not the accounts and IP addresses/ranges related to Ἀϑανάσιος. The access to nonpublic information policy allows checkusers and stewards to share such data between themselves in the course of their duties when necessary (see (b) Disclosure of nonpublic information. [...] (i) other community members with the same access rights [...]). Thanks for the question, and let me know if my answer is insufficient. Defender (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I've edited the answer to make it more comprehensive. I hope you don't mind. Defender (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Partially your edit improved the answer a lot, but partially it now seems like it is an answer to a different question. --MF-W 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You are correct. I made changes to the text again. I apologize for making this many edits to answer your question. Defender (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Question from User:MechQuester:

If someone came into IRC and ask for temporary sysop powers to combat vandalism, how would you respond? MechQuester (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. My course of action would be the same as described by HakanIST below (you asked him the very same question before). For a user to be promoted to admin on a project, they have to start a discussion in the appropriate place (requests for adminship, village pump, etc.) and obtain local approval. Defender (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from User:Gamebuster1990:

Behavioral evidence shows that an account with global permissions is compromised, what do you do? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I would lock the account as a temporary measure to safeguard it and prevent disruption until the owner is contacted. Defender (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

EllywaEdit

Question from Steinsplitter:

When it is allowed to lock a global account or block a ip address globally? When it is allowed to global suppress an account? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter, thanks for your questions. I would like to emphasize that if I would be selected as steward, I will act very carefully, especially in the beginning. I would ask other stewards for advice before acting. In addition, I would not take any hasty decisions. Here are my answers:
  • Global lock: I think there is no approved policy for global locks (see Global locks). I think this mainly used as a preventive measure, or in case of obvious vandalism on various wiki's when local blocking of a user is not sufficiently protective.
  • Blocking of a global IP address: This is allowed if other measures (e.g. local blocks) are not effective (see Global blocks)
  • Global suppress: I am not sure what you mean by "global suppress an account". I suppose you mean a global ban? In that case my answer is as follows: A global ban is a very severe measure and interferes with the freedom to edit on the Wikimedia projects. The procedure is described here: Global bans. There are three criteria listed for a global ban which should all be met: 1. the user is showing an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse, 2. the user is informed and has had the opportunity to rectify, 3. the user is indefinitely blocked on at least two projects, on basis of broad community support. If these criteria are met, consensus about a global ban should be obtained before globally banning the user. It will take time to reach consensus. The procedure includes informing the user and all wikis where the user has edited. Through creating an RFC the discussion about the global ban will start. I expect a global ban will not be a decision of a single steward.
Regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from Vogone:

Hello Ellywa. You say that "[f]ighting global vandalism and vandalism on small wiki[]s will be [your] main job if [you are] selected as steward". However, while I notice you have done a fair amount of non-homewiki edits, I do not see any kind of (at least recent, your account is very old :-)) involvement in this area. While help with small wiki countervandalism is always appreciated, is there any reason why you have left out the common first step of getting involved with the SWMT and instead immediately request steward permission? Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Vogone, I will try to explain why I didn't start helping with the SWMT team. I've had a long-time experience in countervandalism using the administrator rights (of course only when necessary and allowed), especially on NL-Wikipedia. It feels very ineffective if you have to do a similar job without these rights, because after some initial warnings to an unconstructive user, you will have to notify an administrator or steward for even a temporary time-out, while the user is continuing his/her damaging actions, and you are "running" after him/her while reverting these actions. So I decided to apply for stewardship when I saw the announcement. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754:

What were the circumstances of your resignation of admin/crat on nl.wikipedia? --Rschen7754 19:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754, I understand you are interested in these circumstances. In general, the community at NL-Wikipedia was content with my functioning as admin at the time. The reasons I resigned in 2004 were personal. The work for Wikipedia as an admin had become very intense. Furthermore, I profoundly disliked the bad atmosphere at NL-Wikipedia, with its many quarrels. This destroyed the pleasure I used to feel in the work as an administrator. Finally, people from my professional network outside Wikipedia started questioning me because they noted the atmosphere at Wikipedia. I found that particularly disturbing and unpleasant. Since then, I have learned not to take quarrels too personally, I have learned to interfere more rationally and effectively if I note personal arguments between users and I have become much better in dosing my workload. Finally I fully separated my professional network outside Wikipedia from my presence at Wikipedia. I hope you will recognise the situation. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from MechQuester,

Where do you see your self most active, with respect to steward roles?MechQuester (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is already said in the statement, and was also quoted in Vogone's question above. --MF-W 15:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MechQuester, perhaps you didn't note my statement. Please click here: Stewards/Elections 2017/Statements/Ellywa. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
right.....19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk)

HakanISTEdit

Question from MF-Warburg:

Dear HakanIST, please imagine you were a steward and experiencing the following situation. Please describe and detail how you would handle this if you were elected as a steward, and try to answer it without asking anyone for more information. Thanks in advance.

You receive the following mail:
Hello HakanIST, I am Tschallerhannes444 from Upper Silesian Wikipedia. I see that recently User:MF-Warburg has done a check on szl.wikipedia. I think he has done this to check me in order to find out where I live, because he hates me. He always opposes my legitimate requests for permanent adminship and always tries to prevent necessary configuration changes for our wiki as well. Please tell me if I was really checked by him.

--MF-W 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Categorizing this as a serious allegation -possibly libelous- and also a privacy violation complaint due to misuse of tools my course of action would be as follows;
  • Firstly for the allegations I'd ask Tschallerhannes444 send me another email providing diffs and/or Phabricator tickets of questionable discussions, ensuring them that this situation is unlikely to happen as CheckUser policy strictly requires valid rationale to perform checks, and for Tschallerhannes444 to notice the check is not possible.
  • Then to properly address complaint, I'd check if User:MF-Warburg is a local CheckUser,
If local CU, I'd check if there are other CheckUsers (most likely there're more than one). Then I'd check if there's a local policy covering this complaint; describing a procedure or a proper venue for the discussion. Not revealing any information, I'd forward the issue to corresponding venue or the other checkuser(s).
If not a local CU, then User:MF-Warburg has global rights, in this case I'd suggest Tschallerhannes444 -with clarification of necessity of the evidence inclusion- to send the report to ombudsman commission for further evaluation. HakanIST (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, which was even more comprehensive than I expected. For the record, I was thinking of MF-Warburg being a steward in this situation and "see that recently [he] has done a check" would refer to this being visible on Special:Log/rights. So the one part of your answer wouldn't have been necessary but it's still good to read ;) --MF-W 23:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear HakanIST, Thanks for massive cleanup work. I just have one question. If someone came into IRC and ask for temporary sysop powers to combat vandalism, how would you respond? MechQuester (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. considering it as an emergency request for reverting vandalism/mass deletion/blocking multiple vandals. I'd refuse the request and ask for clarification to handle the situation myself. If it's not enough, I'd suggest making this request onwiki at SRP.--HakanIST (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do you fully support freedom of press and what would you do if confronted with an edit critical of Erdogan?--Mathmensch (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully support freedom of expression except for statements that are deliberetly false/defamatory. Wikipedia-wise this is already covered by policy, and that applies to articles about anything.--HakanIST (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that anybody who is to serve as steward should distance himself clearly from autocratic leaders, and be unafraid to do so in public. Therefore, I will abstain from voting. Be said, however, that the rule of Erdogan is unlawful, since his (required) academic degree is a fake. His anti-semitic utterances are furthermore worrying and inadequate, as are his attempts to curb press freedom, brutally crack down on academia (up to the point of publicly shaming some by putting them on a terrorist blacklist without proper legal proceedings, so that they cannot find a job and find themselves empoverished and in total social isolation) and possibly even support the so-called Islamic State. His suing of a German comedian shows, in my view, a somewhat thin-skinned nature. In my view, your nation is great because of Atatürk, and I heard a Turk living in Germany (who has a Kurdish wife, by the way) say that were it not for Atatürk, Turkey would look like Syria today. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you misunderstand the role of a steward: 1) Stewards have no special role when it comes to content, and 2) HakanIST is required not to act on tr.wikipedia, their home wiki, except in limited uncontroversial cases, anyway. Your questions might be more relevant if this were a tr.wikipedia adminship nomination. --Rschen7754 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

HindustanilanguageEdit

Question from Ajraddatz:

  • Last year during your run for stewardship, you managed to (by coincidence or not) oppose the confirmation of almost every steward that voted no on your election, usually without even giving a reason. A lot of what stewards do is collaborative work; do you still feel that retributive action like that is the best way to operate in a collaborative environment? – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I remember meeting you this year. I hope in the brief interaction we had together, you noticed a friendly and not a retributive approach. I don't believe in that sort of approach and I am personally thankful to you for the kind support I got from your side on Urdu Wikipedia. Also, some of the other stewards have also extended their support to me in managing the Wikipedia matters. I greatly acknowledge these gestures and I consider them as my friends and would love to work with them. Thank you. --Muzammil (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I did appreciate our meeting at Wikimania. You certainly seemed different than the initial impression I got online, which is always possible of course. While I am still concerned regarding that sort of behaviour on-wiki, I appreciate your answer here and it helps remove some concerns. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from MF-Warburg:

Dear Hindustanilanguage, please imagine you were a steward and experiencing the following situation. Please describe and detail how you would handle this if you were elected as a steward, and try to answer it without asking anyone for more information. Thanks in advance.

A sysop from Incubator contacts you on IRC, to tell you that a bureaucrat promoted an account to sysop without any vote or local decision. He tells you that, judging from his recent onwiki comments, the bureaucrat has become mad. The other bureaucrats are all inactive since months. He asks you to be as discreet as possible as he's afraid that the bureaucrat will remove his sysop status if he publicly opposes him.

--MF-W 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MF-W, Thank you for asking a good question - this also perhaps a case study for aspiring as well as novice stewards. I apologise for rather a lengthy reply, but I have to since it raises multiple points. I request you to please review these points in toto and not separately as they may give a different picture:
  1. As a general rule, stewards would prefer not to meddle with internal matters of a Wikimedia project. As pointed out by Billinghurst in response to a request for unblocking a user on Hindi Wikipedia: "Stewards fulfil a technical role and are generally unable to intervene in local independent wikis as administrators; we have no arbitration role."
  2. While on some Wikis Bureaucrats could possible grants and revoke admin rights as seen in description here, Its not common to all Wikis. As a bureaucrat I have granted admin rights to a user on Urdu Wikipedia, but I have no power to revoke it.
  3. Care also needs to taken to study the situations where admins can be removed on Wikis. While community consensus can be one ground, there could be also other rules such as long period of absence or incidents of suckpuppetry justifying such actions on Wiki projects - this needs to be looked into.
  4. In the case which you've mentioned, the situation is rather complex since the admin wants to maintain a confidentiality of his identity as a complainant and yet wants some action to be initiated against the bureaucrat. The role of a steward under this situation should be a) to gather full information. b) encourage the admin to present the case on Meta (in case of actionable grounds) c) Review the basis and areas for steward intervention in order maintain the smooth working of the Wiki project. While I am unable to find an exact situation matching your description, I suggest referring to the possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia case where we acknowledged the "awry" situation and took a decision leading to the removal of all local sysops and bureaucrats after due consideration. It is therefore clear that in complex situations, decision will have to be taken after carefully studying the situation and taking a decision after due consideration in the wider interest and smooth functioning of local Wikis. --Muzammil (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you explain why you included point 3 here in this explanation? I don't see the connection. Also, is there any circumstance (related to the situation I described) where you think that stewards could immediately remove a user's local rights? --MF-W 23:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, MF-W, for your patience. I agree with you that perhaps point # 3 is an extra piece of information, not necessarily fitting here, although my aim was just to highlight the different policies of Wiki projects. Since the question is about incubator bureaucrat, a worthwhile point for consideration is the fact that Incubator:Administrators#Bureaucrats policy there guarantees any administrator to optionally ask to become a bureaucrat after one month (providing they have behaved well). So its rather strange why our complainant sysop friend expresses his/her concerns or fears about a bureaucrat instead of he himself becoming one. Under the current situation, I personally feel there could be more need for RFC similar to Pashto Wikipedia cited above, if there is a situation warranting this, based on the complaints / practical bureaucratic blunders presented by the sysop ("the bureaucrat has become mad", etc as mentioned by you and the fact that other bureaucrats are passive). --Muzammil (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Question from MechQuester,

Where do you see your self most active, with respect to steward roles? MechQuester (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

May I quote from the candidate's statement? "My main objective in asking for steward rights is to address Steward requests, fight cross-Wiki spams and to counter vandalism." --MF-W 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • facepalm myself* for not carefully reading. MechQuester (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from RadiX:

Hello, Hindustanilanguage. Thanks for volunteering. Do you have any sort of experience in cross-wiki countervandalism? RadiX 03:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi RadiX, there were many instances of vandalism I encountered. For example, on both Urdu Wikipedia and Khowar (incubator) Wikipedia, some vested interests tried to indulge in disruptive edits, distorting the available information on Khowar language, people and culture. I traced many sockpuppet accounts involved through CU on meta after getting inputs from other users active on both Wikis, and based on the prevailing policy on Urdu Wikipedia, blocked them. I reverted/ rolled back many vandalism edits on English Wikipedia, including the userpage of Justin Anthony Knapp (koavf). Similarly, I reported many sockpuppets on Commons at the appropriate discussion forums. I have also combated vandalism on Hindi Wikipedia, besides discussing related issues of many Indian Wikis on the social media. Thank you. --Muzammil (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from Emir of Wikipedia:

How do you deal with conflicts and edit warring in the controversial Indian related edits across the multiple language wikis? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emir of Wikipedia, thanks for asking this wonderful question. On Urdu Wikipedia, where I am a bureaucrat, I've protected the pages and discussed the conflicts with the editors. On Hindi, I've used Village pump as well as WhatsApp group "विकिसम्पादक" as forum for dealing with edit warring/ conflicts on Wikipedia. On Commons I received a customed barnstar for bringing peace and harmony to the Commons project. --Muzammil (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

MatiiaEdit

Question from MechQuester

I see in your statement that you will be active in every aspect of the steward role. Is there a specific place you anticipate being the most active? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk)
Hi. I think SRG would be the place where I'd be most active. Matiia (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754:

Last year, there were concerns related to your only sysop flags being held on non-content wikis. Adminship on a content wiki shows both engagement with and understanding of the purpose of Wikimedia, demonstrates a level of trust that a candidate will not abuse their rights in a content dispute and proves that they can work collaboratively with others on sometimes difficult and contentious areas. How would you respond to these points? Is there a particular reason why you have not run for adminship on, say, eswiki where you have 15,000+ edits? --Rschen7754 02:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I've been active on Wikimedia since I registered and I've been trying to help as much as I can in different places, so I think my engagement with Wikimedia and understanding of its purpose is demonstrated (although I'm not very active adding content to wikis).
I don't think it'd be fair to think I'd abuse rights in a content dispute (or other type of dispute) because I'm not an admin on a content wiki, which an admin flag on a content wiki doesn't really demonstrate, as abuse of power is one of the commonest reasons to open a removal of adminship or a discussion on local pages, sadly. I've learned well when I must do something or leave it to other users and I have no problem in requesting a third opinion.
During my time on Wikimedia, Wikia and IRC channels, I've worked with many users in different cases and I haven't had some problem. From my previous experiences, I've learned to work well with users.
I'm not very active on content stuff (creation and edition) on eswiki, which is a thing many eswiki users seem to want on their candidates, I've prefered to use my time helping out on smaller wikis (reverting vandalism/spam or deleting pages) rather than trying to become an admin on eswiki. If I start to create lots of articles on eswiki (and do anything else the community wants) to become an admin there, I'd have less time for smaller wikis. Matiia (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from InsaneHacker:

You might've written this somewhere on the 2016 election pages, but for convenience's sake, can you tell us why you chose to withdraw your nomination back then? InsaneHacker (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I did it because I don't think that request would have passed, there were too many oppose votes. It'd have been just a waste of time of future voters and people watching it. Matiia (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from Samuele2002:

Want to become stewards but are curious to know what are the reasons that lead you to contribute to the wiki projects? --Samuele2002 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Basically, I find Wikimedia interesting and I like its purpose, so I try to help where I can. Matiia (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from MF-Warburg:

Dear Matiia, please imagine you were a steward and experiencing the following situation. Please describe and detail how you would handle this if you were elected as a steward, and try to answer it without asking anyone for more information. Thanks in advance.

A user leaves you the following message:
Season's greetings!

I'm PRT from Erzya Wikipedia and one of the admins there
hasn't edited the wiki for over 2 years already!
Please remove his admin rights ASAP! Thanks!

--MF-W 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'd check if there are local bureaucrats and they can remove admin rights, which isn't the case, so I'd take a look at Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies to know if this Wikipedia has a local inactivity policy listed, which isn't the case. As the Erzya Wikipedia isn't listed, I'd take a look at d:Q4039395 to find the local admin page and know if it says something about inactivity, which isn't the case either. As I can't find something about a local inactivity policy, I'd ask PRT if this wiki has a local inactivity policy (the policy could be new and hasn't been added yet) and which is the name of the admin in question.
  • If PRT gives me a link to the local inactivity policy approved by community (I'd check if it was really approved by community), I'd check the edits/logs of the admin to make sure that the admin is really inactive according to the local policy. If the user is really inactive, I'd ask PRT to make a request on SRP (per transparency, as SP says) and once the request is made, I'd remove the admin rights unless the local policy makes us to wait some time (e.g. the admin should be notified some time before removal).
  • If PRT gives me a link to the local inactivity policy and the admin hasn't indeed edited, but he did enough admin actions (e.g. he did 30 admin actions in 2015 and 23 in 2016) and the policy doesn't talk about edits, only admin actions, I'd say to PRT that we can't remove the admin rights because he meets the activity requirements (e.g. 15 admin actions in a year) and why he meets it.
  • If PRT says me that the Erzya Wikipedia doesn't have a local policy and that the local admin is inactive according to AAR, I'd explain PRT that AAR is a process done by stewards normally once per year, It's not a policy which you can invoke to get advanced rights removed due to inactivity at any time.
  • If PRT says me that there's no local policy, but he wants the user rights removed because the admin hasn't used it for over 2 years, I'd say to PRT that unless a local inactivity policy is approved by community, we'll have to wait until stewards start an AAR. Matiia (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your most comprehensive and correct answer. --MF-W 09:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

SjoerddebruinEdit

Question from Rschen7754: There was an incident in late 2014 about two users who had violated the privacy of another editor not linking to it here out of respect for all involved. At the time, in related rights removal requests, you supported one of these individuals with the words "Keep, to avoid losing a friend". Is this still a position that you would hold today? If not, what has changed? I suspect that this question is going to come up sooner or later, so I figure I might as well ask it now. --Rschen7754 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754, there was the same discussion during my application for oversighter on Wikidata. Around that time, I had really mixed feelings about the situation as I wouldn't be that active on Wikimedia projects without them. I've cleared my mind later and changed my views. So no, that is not my view anymore. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Question from MF-Warburg:

Dear Sjoerddebruin, please imagine you were a steward and experiencing the following situation. Please describe and detail how you would handle this if you were elected as a steward, and try to answer it without asking anyone for more information. Thanks in advance.

A request for CU rights on et.wiki is posted on SRP. There are 35 supports and 16 opposes. The first 20 supports were cast 4 weeks ago. Then the other votes all came 2-7 days ago. The user has identified, but his userpage indicates he is 16. Users are coming to SRP and complain of canvassing both for and against the candidate on other et: projects. You see that indeed a majority of the voters from last week has less than 50 edits locally. Requests for checkuser information are also already being filed by both "parties". Do you grant this request? Why (not)? / What steps should be taken in which order?

--MF-W 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello MF-W. I will check when the age was added to the user page. I'll refuse the SRP request if the user is indeed underage. I will also notify the Wikimedia Foundation then, so further action can be taken (like revoking identification). If the user seems to have to reached the age of 18, but forgot to update the user page, I'll wait for the checkuser results to be finished. The request on SRP will be set on hold until then. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And the rest of the question? --MF-W 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Your question was hard to understand in full. Should the last "request" be "requests" or? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. While it would also be interesting to hear under which circumstances you would accept such CU requests, I was referring to the SRP request. In other words: If the user is indeed 18, would you make him a CU - and would the CU results influence the answer? I hope this is clearer. --MF-W 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a SRP request, but according to CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_Checkusers at least 70% of the votes must be for support. Even without the checkuser results, the person only meets 68.6%. The checkuser results can influence that, but there is also a requirement for at least two checkusers per project. et.wiki doesn't have one yet, so at least another candidate is needed. Sorry for my late answer, I don't feel comfortable with imaginary situations.Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Question from Bjarlin:

I've just translated your statement into German. Can you please tell me, what the word "LTA's" means? I have no idea. Perhaps you could describe that in your statement, so that everybody can understand, what you mean? Thanks --Bjarlin (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the wiki jargon that most English-speaking editors already know, so allow me to answer this question: it stands for "Long-term abuse" a.k.a. a user who's been banned a lot of times and came back as different users. Bennylin 19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe it would be good, if abbreviations in statements could also be written in the long version. You never know, in which wikis abbreviations are common and known and translations are easier without too many such abbreviations of English wikis. Here we are on Meta, a multi-language wiki (should be so, but it ain't really). I can't remember to ever have read this abbreviation. Maybe, other ones can be read also in non-English wikis, but this one surely not.
My first thought was that the sentence would be about fighting Nazi language which has an abbreviation like that, namely LTI: en:LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii, de:LTI – Notizbuch eines Philologen. From time to time, LTI is also a blocking reason at dewiki, so that was quite well matching, but a bit special for a candidature. ;-) --Bjarlin (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)