# Stewards/Elections 2022/Questions

 The 2022 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.
Eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate (in total; ie. all questions a candidate needs to answer are counted), and keep them as concise and relevant as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

## For all candidates

### Uniqueness

The union of the abilities of all stewards is very large, while the intersection is practically the null set. Considering that you all are versatile and would be able to perform most of the work required, what do you think you can offer as a steward that would help the Wikimedia community the most? In other words, if you are a steward who can do tasks in Sn, there are n - 1 other stewards who can each do tasks in ${\displaystyle S_{i}}$  (where ${\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq (n-1)}$ ) and noting that ${\displaystyle A\backslash B}$  represents the elements in A and not in B, what would be the result of ${\displaystyle S_{n}\backslash \left(\bigcup _{i=1}^{n-1}S_{i}\right)}$ ? Leaderboard (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• My answer isn't a specific task, but more of a way of going about tasks. For years, I've been working with editors, admins and functionaries from projects that I don't actively contribute to, including many who speak languages different from my own. Collaborating with other editors from a variety of backgrounds to improve our projects is invaluable, and I believe my experience on that side would help me more smoothly and effectively process steward tasks. On the math side, I hate to contradict another candidate but the answer is clearly 30941. Best, Vermont (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• That is a very interesting question. On the whole, although the field in which I stand out most is related to counter-vandalism, I think the most valuable thing I can offer others is availability and willingness to work, and that I am always willing to listen to and take advice, step back and re-evaluate if I could have done something better. On the other hand, my experience in working with users of different wikis at various venues to reach positive results is another aspect that, from my point of view, has the potential to benefit to the Wikimedia community overall. Sgd. —Hasley 03:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think any one steward should make an outsized impact in any particular task. It is important that our stewards are generalists and are able to apply their skills wherever they may be needed, within the limits of their abilities. I think I would fulfill that role, as I often step in to assist others when needed in a wide range of areas. I have the experience to understand when it is necessary to take an action quickly, but also to know when it is better to step back and take in new perspectives. My time as a Commons administrator has given me a good ability to collaborate with others in this uniquely multilingual community. Perhaps predictably, my solution is ${\displaystyle \mathbb {P} }$ . --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hello. What I can offer is my ability to work with a diverse group of people, my availability, which allows me to respond to emergency requests swiftly, and my language skills. Like others, I am willing to learn and improve. And I know when to step back are rethink things or ask for a second opinion. Thanks -BRP ever 07:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Haha, first of all, thank you for the added nerdiness, @Leaderboard! As I did state in my candidature, my attention is mostly drawn towards technical aspects but considering the bigger picture, the Wikimedia community could probably benefit the most from me, at least this year, from my free time and overall involvement. Because of personal reasons IRL, I've been having a lot of free time in my hands currently and most of that time is already spent doing different stuff on Wikimedia projects. I try to help where I can believing that time spent here is almost always a good thing to do that will be helpful for upcoming generations. Stewards' tasks would be just an addition to those daily wiki activities I do. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I do think that my experience, being a Wikipedian for 15-16 years, a lot of this time as an admin means that I have probably seen many of the situatins that can occur. Combine this with living in a place where you have two languages (and two groups of people) within a radius of perhaps 50 km, and three or four such groups within 200-250 km. Combine this with trying to be approachable, and open-minded, and you likely get a nice person to work with. And no, its not about being unique, it is about being a valuable addition to the community. Eptalon (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

### Home wikis

Where would you consider to be your home wikis? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

### Removal of rights

Let's say that you are an admin on XX wiki and decided to make a "difficult" block on a user (either based on the behaviour of the user throughout the years or via an RfC that has a slim margin/consensus to block). Thereafter, that particular user makes a big hoo-ha, such as providing evidence of your wrongdoings from the past via an RfC, with the motive of getting your steward's right removed. How would you react? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I believe the roles I hold on Wikimedia projects (both locally and globally) are granted and maintained based on the trust and consensus of the community—that being said, difficult blocks always attract a certain amount of controversy, and I am mindful that to protect some users (i.e. blocking users engaged in harassment) I will come "under fire" by others. I always intend to cooperate fully with any community RfC into my conduct, and would voluntarily resign should it appear I have lost the communities trust -- TNT (talk • she/her) 08:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is a great question. Functionary work inevitably involves difficult choices in the interest of protecting users and projects, and we do that work as long as it is in line with community consensus. RfCs are a great way to seek local or global input on the actions of a functionary, whether they be a checkuser, global sysop, or steward, to see whether their conduct is acceptable to the community. If my actions are contested I am always happy to discuss them and to see how I can improve. I do my best to be approachable and available on multiple channels of communication. Vermont (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• If such a situation ever occurs, and if an RFC has started regarding my conduct, I would explain my actions where asked or where relevant in the discussion. And if it appears that a significant minority no longer trusts me with the tools, I would voluntarily resign. I would also take the productive comments into account and try to improve myself moving ahead. --BRP ever 15:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• In short, I would always be open to criticism. I would not have any trouble in listening to what others say on board, displaying clarifications of the concerns raised, and addressing these issues properly—looking to hash out a solution. However, similar to the first answer, if it became obvious that people had lost faith in my ability to hold the tools, I would step down as I consider that one cannot effectively serve to the community without people's confidence. Sgd. —Hasley 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Minorax, good pragmatic question! Truth be told, during my 3 years of being an administrator, I have yet to be involved in a situation like the one you describe. But I'd find it totally normal if it would happen. Errors are part of the human experience and so is irritation and the search for justice when you've been wrongly judged. I'd let the story (RFC discussion) unfold accepting the mistake and act accordingly to its overall agreement. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ultimately, as a local administrator and (were I to be elected) as a steward, I serve the community, and must be accountable to the community for any action that I take. When I am informed of a mistake I have made, I work to undo my actions as much as possible. If I did not believe I had made a mistake, I would explain the reasons behind any decision that I made, and let the community decide if I still had their support at the next steward election. There is no provision in Stewards or Stewards policy to remove a steward by RfC, but if I felt I had significantly lost community trust (to the point where reconfirmation would be unlikely) or I was desysopped locally, I would resign Steward access. I am fully aware of the controversy that some "difficult" blocks can create, but I have acted and will continue to act to protect the community where required. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Both as a local functionary (admin) or a steward, you are elected by a communnity. You are grounded in that community, and accountable for the actions you take. So it is best to stand by your decisions. Also note: Even if it is long into the past, there was a reason I took a particular decision. At that moment, it looked like the best choice,because.... Note also that a request for removal of rights is not guaranteed to succeed. In the end it boils down to each side presenting arguments, and an (ideallly uninvolved) third party deciding based on these arguments. So: its all about the arguments.--Eptalon (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

### Timezone

Since I don't have much questions this year, let me use one of my quota on this perennial question. Thanks for all who had put in your candidacies, appreciate it. For those who did not indicate, can I know your active periods in general. This of course doesn't mean that you have to be active all the time, I just hope to see a general spread. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

### Office actions

Quite an open ended question, and mainly related to OA2021; What are your views regarding the entire chain of events with the hat of a steward on (i.e. assuming you are a steward during OA2021). I know Office actions aren't appealable and involves many sensitive issues, so I am not asking for a the foundation should have done it / should not have done it stem of thought, just a more general approach will do. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Stewards are not involved in office actions, nor should people acting in the capacity of a steward have polarized views on it. Acting in a steward capacity (what I assume is meant by "with the hat of a steward on") means putting community consensus and policy first, not individual opinion. Best, Vermont (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Respectfully, I believe viewing the office actions of 2021 "with the hat of a steward on" is the same as viewing them without the hat on—as volunteer stewards we work closely with the Wikimedia Foundation. Trust and Safety is a department I have interacted with a countless number of times, through my role as a functionary, during my previous role as a steward and generally as an editor. They have an incredibly difficult job, and one which on the whole they exercise well -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is hard to imagine because I don't see my views being any different with or without "the hat of a steward on". Office actions come after a lengthy investigation from Trust and Safety department and stewards generally aren't a part of that investigation. That being said, I lack an in-depth understanding of the office action to make any further comments. Thanks--BRP ever 12:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with what others have said. I cannot view any noticeable distinction between whether looking at this wearing a steward hat on or taking it off. Though stewards are not engaged with office actions—nor should they be—communication between stewards and the WMF is frequently beneficial, and this may be a needful approach under certain circumstances, such as those concerns that involve sensitive information. With that being said, I would expect that the foundation would avoid those actions unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. Sgd. —Hasley 05:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Camouflaged Mirage, I'd like to give a simple answer to this: Even though we usually think of this in terms of edits, assuming good faith is a foundation pillar of the whole Wikimedia activity. If we are to have faith in regard to anonymous users actions on the internet, I believe we should have faith on the WMF actions. Having said that, I'd hope from the WMF part to be open for clarifications in regard to their actions most of the time (I understand that there are times when the sensitive nature of the information at hands doesn't allow for that) and that those actions be kept at a minimal usage like they're supposed to be. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'll echo what the others have said. While there is frequently an overlap between the work of WMF T&S and the stewards, office actions are solely the responsibility of the WMF. Based on the publicly-available information, I do not think that my perspective on office actions generally or OA2021 specifically would change as a steward, nor would they be particularly relevant to steward work. While stewards may be informed of office actions (where appropriate), stewards must act based on community consensus and not personal opinion. I think the WMF generally exercises good care when making office actions, though there is always room for improvement in the process. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No matter whether you look at it from a steward perspective or another one: The reason for office-action not being appealable is that in some cases you need to take a decision fast, and while you generally want to communicate you decided, you leave out the details, to protect those affected as much as possible. If I am the viceroy of Spain, I do have a lot of power, yet when the king comes, and asks for something, I had better do it. As others have said: let's hope office actions are limited to the bare minium, and when it comes to putting community consensus into practice, it is again time for stewards to act. Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

### Personal qualities

What important personal qualities do you believe that stewards should have? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• On the personal qualities side, I believe good stewards are capable of working as a team with other stewards, easily approachable by community members, and open to feedback on their activities and actions. Best, Vermont (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Stewards should strive to be team players (as we rely on each other for advice, accountability and support), good listeners (as we often need to parse complex situations) and capable of self-reflecting (i.e. to know when to ask for help) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would say that responsibility, competence, and willingness to help, listen others input, and work together as a team—sharing their own individual skills—are qualities I would expect from a steward. Sgd. —Hasley 21:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, a steward should be calm and understanding. Someone who is willing to give/take help and advice where/when needed, and someone who is capable of working with a diverse group of people. They should also be reliable and competent. Thanks-BRP ever 12:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• @ZI Jony, nice question! Of course, given the nature of the job, responsibility is the most important quality a steward should have. This means being responsible enough to not break wikiprojects' local autonomy and mature enough to take action where your help in those communities is needed. Willingness to help is also a good quality to have in all volunteering projects. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• It is important that stewards have the ability to listen and take in information. That includes listening to other stewards in order to work effectively and cohesively, listening to the community, especially in RfCs or when a complex dispute is brought for steward attention, and listening to those with questions, concerns, or different views. Stewards should be deliberate when they act, be responsive to concerns or changing situations, and care for the community they serve. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• A steward should be a good listener, and after the other party finished the story, he/she should act, and try to find a good solution, perhaps after talking to other people. A steward should also have the ability to decide fairly, when asked, for example when several parties cannot agree, and want a second opinion. And lastly, he/she should also have the fairness to step back and let others decide, when he/she sees that there is personal involvment in the matter (and therefore, a conflict of interest). A lastly, a steward should communicate clearly, and state when there's a problem that is keeping him from deciding. Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

### Personal attacks and harassment

As a steward, you will be party to the dark side of Wikimedia, one of those is personal attacks. What do you do to try to prevent such attacks and ensure that users can, as far as possible, contribute independently without the risk of harassment? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is something that I have experience with as an admin and CheckUser on two projects. In that capacity, frequent tools used to manage harassment are blocks, page protections, and revision deletion. Stewards also have the ability to lock an account, as well as hiding accounts in the event the username itself is a personal attack. Harassment, especially from LTAs, is a frequent cross-wiki issue, and unfortunately most of the tools to manage it are reactive, rather than proactive. I do my best to be frequently available, including in off-project communication platforms (IRC, mainly) to quickly react to instances of harassment and personal attacks. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• As a returning steward, and functionary on the English Wikipedia, I have been the target of harassment, and am yet to find any method of "preventing such attacks"—the tools available to us allow for fairly effective reactive management of on-wiki harassment and attack, but obviously fall short when this occurs outside our projects. Regardless of where this is taking place, I have found the most effective steps any Wikimedian can take in supporting our fellow contributors is compassion—helping them know they are not alone in facing this. Anyone can, and should, do this 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I do not think there is a fully effective way to prevent such abuse. While we have a variety of useful tools like blacklists and edit filters, their effectiveness can be reduced due to technical restrictions and a need for regular maintenance, besides that some vandals are quite good at overriding these barriers. Notwithstanding these limitations, I have gained experience in dealing with this kind of issues over the last couple years, particularly since I have been repeatedly attacked by numerous trolls. As a steward, I would be willing to work to protect those users from further harassment, drawing on the resources we have at our disposal, such as the ones mentioned above—trying to achieve a healthy environment. Sgd. —Hasley 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• During my past term, and as an admin/cu I have some experience in dealing with personal attacks and harassment. Even though there is no effective way to completely prevent these kinds of abuse from happening, measures can be taken to prevent further abuse. And the best way we can help anyone affected by this is by listening to their concerns, understanding them, and guiding them to the measures they can take. Thanks --BRP ever 12:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• @ZI Jony, apart from the edit filter functionalities there is little that anyone can do to prevent personal attacks beside fostering non-toxic environments. Getting involved organically with the communities and quickly resolving arising disputes helps in that direction. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Personal attacks and harassment are a complex topic, without a simple answer, and the role of stewards is limited. Harassment, incivility, and personal attacks is generally associated with two different groups: LTAs and otherwise-productive contributors. Stewards have the most tools to deal with LTAs, but these are largely limited to responding to problems after they have already presented themselves (locking LTA accounts, revdel/os). Some tools (globally blocking webhosts/open proxies, global abuse filters) can prevent further abuse from reoccurring, but are limited in effectiveness. The best we can do is be responsive and to stop abuse from continuing as fast as possible. There is little stewards can do to prevent or respond to incivility or personal attacks from otherwise-productive contributors, especially when it does not rise to a cross-wiki problem (this may change as the UCOC is implemented). In any case, the most important thing stewards can do is to be positive role models for the community, call out uncivil behavior when it is noticed, and to assist the targets of harassment as best as possible. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Personal attacks and harassment are a complex topic. In my capacity as an admin (&adcanced functionary), I have seen different cases: First, an otherwise unproductive editors (vandlaism-only account, sometimes also as an IP) start to write (usually shot) articles that are there to cause conflict; article can be deleted/reverted, and the editor blocked for some time (usually, short blocks are enough, few come back).It is generally best to listen to the user, and to cross-check the evidence. People who harrass and attack others often have multiple accounts, that need to be dealt with. I also think that civility is important; many of these users want to provoke through their actiona, perhaps to get attention. In the end, the user can be blocked, perhaps the account locked, if it happens on several wikis. This block also helps the affected users, who often act this way because of bad experiences they recently made. Eptalon (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

### Universal Code of Conduct

According to the current enforcement draft, stewards, as "global functionaries", will be partly responsible for enforcing the UCoC and working with the U4C Committee whenever it goes into effect. Do you expect you will be OK working in this role (in contrast to "traditional" steward duties)? Do you intend to vote to ratify the UCoC if/when it goes to a vote? Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• The UCoC is the chosen solution to a number of issues the global community has been facing—working closely with the U4C Committee to help protect our users is an extension of the duties of the steward role which makes sense and one I support, pending any further clarifications/amendments. I intend to vote to ratify the UCoC if/when it goes to a vote -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't expect the new UCOC enforcement guidelines to cause any significant change in steward workflows. I was on the committee writing the enforcement guidelines, and existing conduct-related steward processes, namely in normal steward work of locks, blocks, and most steward requests pages, will be largely unchanged. Practically all of the issues covered under the UCOC are already covered under existing global or local policy. As for working with the U4C, I would be very interested in working with new people and seeing how the changes could improve Wikimedia projects. On the topic of ratification, community consensus is paramount in all enforcement processes, and my personal views on the UCOC would not affect my work if elected. However, I believe the UCOC could have a positive effect on projects with systemic problems, which we have unfortunately seen a lot of these last few years, and will likely vote to ratify. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hello. I am willing to work with the U4C committee if the community consensus is to ratify the UCoC. I do not expect there to be a significant change in steward duties even with its enforcement. And based on what I have seen, this might be the solution to some of the difficult issues that communities are facing. As for the vote, I am not certain yet and would like to know more about how it will be enforced in detail. Thanks--BRP ever 01:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am optimistic that the UCoC will be an useful tool for those communities that have ultimately been suffering from chronic, widespread issues, though I do not anticipate a substantial shift in the dynamics of the steward environment. Hence, I will possibly provide my support to ratify the UCoC, and would happily collaborate with the U4C Committee if this tool is approved thorough community consensus. Sgd. —Hasley 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Legoktm, personally I'm a proponent of extending stewards' duties per se in different ways so this aligns well with that idea. As for ratifying it, I suppose I will. Generally speaking, I'm pro the idea of having a UCoC. I'll have to see what the final product is though, even though the current state looks promising. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am also optimistic that the UCoC will be useful and provide a common baseline of expectations for behavior. However, I don't think that UCoC enforcement would significantly change the roles of a steward. The enforcement guidelines do not change the criteria for a global lock, allow stewards to take local actions on wikis with active administrators, or otherwise expand the tools available to stewards. Dealing with incivility on the projects requires a shift in the culture of many projects, and accordingly the UCoC must be ratified by the communities to be effective. I would support ratifying both documents once a clear process for future amendment of both documents has been identified, as no plan survives first contact with our community. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• A group of people has woked out the universal code of conduct; as such it sets the standards of what is considered to be acceptable behaviour, and what isn't. I am prepared to collaobrate with the respective body, to put the UCoC into practice, but I don't expect there to be much change over the other things I am elected to do as a steward. --Eptalon (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Intervention

When do you believe that it is appropriate for stewards to intervene in local wiki affairs, or advocate on behalf of local communities? I am specifically asking about two types of scenarios:

• As stewards, we must respect valid community consensus—we should be incredibly mindful of the use of our technical access and not allow our personal opinions to cause any overstep into the affairs of local Wikimedia projects. That being said, stewards are often contacted in these situations, and we should attempt to assist and advise local communities and enable them to advocate for change themselves. How I feel about certain topics will not influence my use of the steward tools, but may cause me to recuse from handling a request in some especially charged situations -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Aside from emergency or uncontroversial actions (rogue admins, global sysop actions, most SRM requests, etc.), direct intervention should be only as a result of solid community consensus, generally from RfCs. Hopefully, in the future, UCOC enforcement will help take a lot of the burden in managing systemic problems, but until then we have the RfC system to seek direct input from the global community on such issues. Importantly, these actions involve stewards reviewing discussions and gauging community consensus, independent from their personal opinion or biases. As for WMF actions, though Stewards take actions on behalf of the global community, they do not speak for them. Stewards should help in the facilitation of dialogue about Foundation-related issues, but should not be positing their individual opinion as that of the wider community. I suppose the overall theme here is that Stewards, elected by the global community, are tasked with carrying out global consensus, not deciding it. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• As for the first part of your question, except in special or emergency circumstances, stewards are not expected to interfere in local affairs. These are very, very infrequent cases in which there is an escalating problem that the community cannot handle on their own, and things get out of hand. Any actions taken should adhere to community consensus, through a discussion (such as a RfC) resulting in support for external intervention. That said, rushing, unilateral actions should be avoided—such steps tend to only make a bad situation worse, which means that any outcome must be discussed and worked through as well, leaving personal opinions outside.
As for the second part, and similar to the above response, a steward reverting or intervening in an office action would just exacerbate the conflict, rather than calm it down. There is not much stewards could have been done in such situations, other than helping out as facilitators between the community and the foundation, handing over community consensus and feedback to the WMF. Sgd. —Hasley 13:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Except during emergencies, stewards should not act unless there is a clear community consensus to do so. Stewards are not arbitrators or mediators to resolve local conflicts. However, if the issues cannot be resolved locally, and if there is a clear consensus for certain actions through RFCs, stewards may intervene. It is important that we respect consensus and keep our personal opinion aside while handling these cases. As for the second part of the question, like others, I think stewards can help in relaying community consensus or feedback to the WMF, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to intervene in the office action. Thanks --BRP ever 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Rschen7754, good question. As I've stated earlier, my belief is that stewards should have a more organic involvement with the wiki communities itself. This of course doesn't mean to override the projects' autonomy but rather to offer more assistance and advices to them as opposed to having "a bureaucratic role" that "only deals with the papers". Having said that though, I feel weird giving a specific answer for the situations that you mention given that I've never been a steward before and even though I've been aware of those situations priorly (except for the azwiki case) even if I was elected one, I wouldn't immediately jump in, reserving myself for some more easier tasks in the beginning. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• The Stewards policy is quite clear on this -- it is not appropriate for stewards to override a local community consensus, and it is not the role of stewards to act as a global ArbCom. There are two exceptions: emergency situations or when there is consensus in a global RfC. Stewards may of course participate in discussions on or about other wikis, just like any other community member, but carry no extra authority when doing so. Global RfCs can be difficult to use effectively, and I think the examples you gave highlight that. I am hopeful that the UCoC will give the community more tools to handle these situations. Most conflicts with the WMF are best resolved without the use of steward tools, and the consensus to use steward tools in such a situation would need to be very strong. I think both the WMF and community are both working in good faith toward a common goal, and the use of steward tools would generally escalate a conflict instead of working toward a mutually-agreeable resolution. Ultimately, stewards serve the global community, at the direction of that community. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Except for very specific cases, stewards should not intervene in a working local wiki, with local functionaries. When asked, we are free to give our opinion. As to the different points: Neutrality of articles/absence of bias: that's for the local community to work out, and generally no need for steward involvment. Please also keep in mind, that when looking at historic events, there are always different possible opinions, and for the sake of completeness, there's often no harm in mentioning that other people have other opinions (if they are well founded). Wikimedia has other functionariers which are better at mediating between different editors who do not agree on an issue; it is generally not my role as a steward to do this. As an editor, I am free to voice my opinion on a given topic, but this also means that once I did this I am biased (towards one outcome), and I therefore must not use my role as a steward (or admin, or functionary) to influence the decision process any further. And, as pointed out above: Tools that keep a steward from doing what he/she was elected for should be used with care. When a steward removes a right from a user, after a Request for Removal of Rights (or whatever that process is called), he/she does this in accordance with the gloabal and local policies, and backed by community consensus. (Again: If I am an involved party, becaused I expressed an opinion in the case, I cannot reasonably close the request). --Eptalon (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Steward Reconfirmation

Do you believe that the Steward Reconfirmation process is suitably rigorous in all regards (in the way that its frequency is)? Past attempts to raise concerns have found the process somewhat lacking in several regards from my perspective, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on various areas, including: the lack of a dedicated question-asking structure akin to 1st-time Steward elections; the lack of formal clarity in Steward (!)votes to close; the presence of anomalous past reconfirmations (that is, where from the weight of editor comments a refusal to reconfirm should have happened, and didn't, and vice-versa). From these, do you think any change should be implemented (and what)? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Having been through reconfirmation in the past, I believe the process could be changed somewhat. The status quo of having current stewards provide a reconfirmation statement and then allowing the community to give comments allows for a wide range of opinions on the steward to be collected—I'd personally like to see the addition of both "all candidate" and individual questions. These would give the community an opportunity to question past actions and gain an understanding into how each steward handles perhaps difficult situations. We would need to be mindful to not allow such questioning to become a heated debate -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Optimally, steward confirmations would be a way for the community to show whether a given steward retains community trust. To some extent it works; there have been instances in the last few years of stewards, who sought reconfirmation, not being confirmed after editors raised concerns. But you are certainly correct in your description of some of the problems. I agree that a dedicated questions page or section would be a step in the right direction in improving the efficacy of steward confirmations. On the issue of formal clarity and what weight is required to remove a steward, current policy states that a "majority of other stewards" must support removal. For global sysops, it is quite different: the method of removal is a global RfC, involving direct participation by community members, showing at least a "significant minority" no longer trusts them. I would be very interested to see an RfC to poll the community on potential improvements to the confirmation process, perhaps reviewing other projects' and userrights' removal processes. There are many possible ways to increase direct community involvement and better ensure that steward confirmation results accurately reflect changes in community trust. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hello. This is an interesting question, but I believe questions and concerns about individual steward conduct can always be raised on their confirmation page. Having a dedicated question-asking structure might just invite unnecessary heated debates. That being said, I understand the concerns about anomalous confirmation, but am unable to think of any possible changes that would actually be able to resolve these concerns. Maybe a need for a certain percentage of the positive votes could work. All in all, if someone has a good proposal, I am interested in it. Thanks --BRP ever 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that the current confirmation process works relatively well; however, I also feel that there is a lot of room for improvement. SC should be a place where the community should have the opportunity to review stewards actions, in order to confirm whether a steward maintains people's confidence, or, conversely, whether people does not trust them anymore. A dedicated Q/A form, such as a general page or section for it, may present a chance to assuage any possible doubts or concerns more effectively, but I agree that it would be necessary to ensure debates will not result in unnecessary flare-ups. As for the concerns regarding a lack of formal clarity, approaching SC results requires a thoroughgoing analysis of community comments, though the final outcome actually lies in an internal process among stewards. I am tending towards an RFC on this issue to get different perspectives on how to make community participation closer/more direct. Sgd. —Hasley 15:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear, I've yet to become a steward so personally I can't say much for the reconfirmation process. Judging from the text here, things look generally fine but maybe some more standardization could be added into the procedure. However as said, I find myself currently unable to comment on that. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overall, I think the confirmation process works well enough, but there is always room to discuss improvements. I think the idea of separating direct questions from comments is interesting, but wonder how effective it would be. There are typically 2-3 times more stewards being reconfirmed at a time compared to the elections, so I think a "questions for everyone" section like this one would quickly become difficult to parse. Stewards usually do a good job at responding to criticism or questions in the Comments sections, but creating separate sections for questions may be useful. As far as anomalous reconfirmations go, I think they can be a problem, but I could only find one recent one based on non-inactivity conduct, and none that weren't resolved by the next election. If we had stewards being weakly reconfirmed one year and then removed for cause the next (or otherwise showing a pattern of problems), I would see it as a larger problem. I do think a larger discussion on SC would be reasonable, especially with more participation from stewards who have participated in the past. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• As it stands now, I think it works reasonably, well. Some of the points that should be looked at: The "Neutral votes section" should be renamed to "Comments", or merged with that section. It should be clear that all votes = number of supports + number of oppose votes. Also, a dedicated Q&A section might be helpful (provided the number of the "Questions for all" is kept low, if 20-30 people each answers 10 questions, that's quickly a lot of text to read, for perhaps little additional value; also keep in mind, that these peopele have been stewards for at least a year, so the number of "useful questions" that actually provides more info is probably limied). --Eptalon (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Best fitting as steward

Why do you think that you can handle the steward tools well? Given the amount of work stewards do, why do you think you will fit as a steward? Do you think the users who rarely request Steward assistance will stand a chance to become a steward? Thanks, Hulged (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• As a returning steward, I've had a first-hand go at using the steward tools—I believe I previously handled them well, and see no reason why I wouldn't again. I believe I'll fit in as a steward for the reasons I gave in my statement—such as my experience, a proclivity to work together with others and a fairly good[citation needed] sense of humour. Lastly, I believe all candidates should be judged on their merits, and there is no one thing which makes a candidate a good one 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The amount of work or time has not been a problem for me so far and there have been periods I've committed 6-8 hours daily (voluntarily) to Wikimedia so I believe I will have no problem in that direction. As for why I think I deserve the said privilege, apart from being a dedicated user and a big fan of team working (and asking for advice!), I can't remember any accidents of abuse having happened by my part in my years of administration in the communities where I already hold administrative power. The part about SR was interesting. I wouldn't say "they don't stand a chance" because the way elections are organized here I think provides equal opportunities for everyone. Having said that though, I do think that getting involved organically with the community, whatever that community may be, does provide a bonus and even asking for help is a kind of involvement. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Like TNT, I also have experience in using the tools as a former steward. I have experience in dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, spam, and abuse. I am also familiar with the policies surrounding the use of tools and am always happy to communicate and work with others. And while participating in steward requests shows one's understanding of the processes, it's not the only thing that makes a good candidate. Thanks :) --BRP ever 13:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• For why I feel that I would work well as a steward, my current workflow is and has for years been very involved with stewards. I do a lot of volunteering in the field of cross-wiki abuse and spam, conduct enforcement, small-wiki assistance and mediation, mostly in my roles as an admin and checkuser on Meta-Wiki and the Simple English Wikipedia, and as a global sysop. If I become a Steward I would be more expanding, rather than radically shifting, the work that I do. I give some more background on this in my statement. Not to mention I can make a very good stew (this is a joke...I can't). With your other question, that definitely depends on the user. Though most people who run have experience relevant to steward work, that is not the only thing that makes a good candidate, and fundamentally it is for the community to judge that. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why do I think I would fit in as a steward and handle the toolset well? I have been dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, spam, and various other forms of abuse for over 2,5 years now. Through this time, I have acquired a good grasp of the steward processes, and I now find myself in a situation where extra buttons would improve and expand my functionality in dealing with these issues. I provided a few additional reasons in my statement, in conjunction with this response.
Regarding your last question, requesting stewards assistance on a regular basis may show that the candidate is intimately acquainted with the global environment. However, it is not, nor should be the only way to demonstrate that someone is a good candidate. Sgd. —Hasley 06:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think I'd be a good steward because I have experience with cross-wiki problems. Commons is unique, aside from Wikidata and Meta, because almost everything is cross-wiki and multilingual. I am used to working in that environment, resolving conflicts, and taking action only where necessary and in line with community consensus. Over the past year, I've noted the growth of steward backlogs and found it more difficult to find a steward on IRC, which is why I'm running. I feel that I will be able to adequately split my editing time between Commons, which is still facing a shortage of active administrator time, and steward work if elected. Experience at the various SR pages can be useful when evaluating a candidate, but only as part of a balanced breakfast. Most of my requests happen via IRC, where they are unfortunately not logged. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have held the roles of Checkuser & Oversight on my home wiki for quite some time now, and I have seen many cases of what stewards do globally on my home wiki. The duty of the community who elects these stewards should be to elect the best candidates for the job. Requesting steward assistance or interacting with stewards in the past is not part of these requirements; so, yes, any qualifying user should stand an equal chance of getting elected. --Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Local steward policies

What do you think about the local policies related to use of steward tools on a local wiki. Do you think it is a hindrance for Stewards to act efficiently? Why or why not? Hulged (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe the requirement that stewards check local policies before taking any actions on a project hinders our ability to carry out our duties—stewards are always able to act in emergency situations, and any situation which is not an emergency can be delayed by the few seconds it takes to check the local steward policy. There is no rush, and we must always respect a local communities autonomy -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with TheresNoTime that there is no need to hurry. In the event we had to put out a fire, I do not think reviewing local policies would represent a major obstacle, nor would slow down for a steward to handle that particular situation more than a few additional clicks. I consider that complying with policies of each project is one of the healthiest—and essential—approaches in relationships between stewards and local communities. Sgd. —Hasley 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hulged, good question. I can't say that checking the local policies in itself provides a hindrance for steward duties (many would say the total opposite of that - checking the local policies is an integral part of steward duties) but I'd like to touch a "side-topic" to this and that is the language barrier. It's no news that unknown languages are a strong barrier for every setting but I think in regard to steward duties they provide one of the biggest hurdles in their activity. Being asked for judgement in settings where an unknown language is used, sometimes in unknown scripts, is an impossible task, especially when that involves judging about fine details and word nuances. Sometimes in these cases, the wikis are small enough that most of their community doesn't even remember having put up those policies in the first place and may have discontinued following their practice but never notified at Meta because of small wikis not being that much involved in matters outside of their local community. A steward acting on those policies then would appear very alienated to all but the most veteran users who may remember "the old days". Hence why I say that we must find tools to be more efficient at breaking the language barrier in these cases and why I think the ideal steward involvement with other wikis is the organic type (as opposed to the "bureaucratic type", when you act solely on what you've read on papers). - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• As with all functionary roles, stewards abide by and support community consensus, globally and locally. Local policies on global rights usage dictate how to best go about doing that, and are thus by definition not a hindrance to Steward work. Working with local communities, rather than working around, is integral in effective steward work. It's about working with people, not just pressing buttons. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• None of the local policies appear to be more restrictive than the general Stewards policy or the practices in the Stewards handbook. Requests that can be performed by local administrators/bureaucrats should be performed by local administrators/bureaucrats, and these policies help make this clear. The policies do not affect stewards' emergency actions, and in non-emergency actions there's plenty of time to check local policies and verify there are no active local users with sufficient access. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, it's not really a hindrance since stewards can usually act during emergencies. And when it's not an emergency, checking local policies related to the use of steward tools doesn't take all that much time. Also, existence of a clear local policy for the use of steward tools helps in maintaining a healthy relationship between the community and stewards. Thanks -BRP ever 12:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Local policies are often helpful, because they are short and to the point. Except for emergency actions, reading them does not take long, and as there are few, I guess with the time you know what a given community does or doesn't allow. So I don't think efficiency suffers. --Eptalon (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Energy

What keeps you contributing? --Jonathan5566(talk) 13:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The goal that one day everyone will have free access to all the knowledge in this world. Also, to build a healthy and inclusive community for upcoming generation of Wikimedians. :) -BRP ever 13:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The idea that the work we all do helps people learn more about the world around them. And on the volunteer end, that the community we create and support fosters friendships, happiness, and fun. Vermont (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Wikimedia means a lot to me, both it's mission and the community driving it, and doing my part to help is what keeps me going. I also enjoy what I do here a lot, which is very important in ensuring I can volunteer my time without "burning out" 😊 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• A lot of reasons. There's less room for "self-made creators/inventors" in the modern world than it was in the past. Wikipedia is one of the great things humanity is currently creating and having an active part on it feels good on its own. The overall community is pretty inclusive, and personally I've always been passionate about teaching/explaining/mentoring in general and Wikipedia allows me to indulge in that. The most motivating thing though is when you see your work, be that an article or a technical change you helped make possible, be used by other people. Sometimes you will even get thanked for that. And that will usually release enough dopamine to keep you motivated until next time. - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• My prime motivation is simply: to build a place where valuable knowledge is freely available for every one of us. I have confidence in the principles of cooperation with others and openness. Finally, I believe that being a part of this translates into learning experiences and enjoyment. Sgd. —Hasley 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I got nerd sniped into contributing, found a community that I enjoy being a part of and a mission that I care about, and now I can't leave. Sometimes I'll be drawn into another hobby, but I've kept coming back here because I enjoy it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• As long as there are artcles that aren't there, and that should be, there's a reason to add them. Very often, this comes after deleting a completely graffitti article about a subject that could acually exists. Its easy to write a stub, many times. The other is the community that inspires...-Eptalon (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

### Pronouns

What are your preferred pronouns? Best of luck in the election! — 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

### Security

Stewards hold a large number of high-risk privileges and have 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? This includes but is not limited to, password policies, multi-factor authentication, third-party js scripts used, Internet habits (e.g. what do you do with an unknown link) etc. Stang 15:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have two-factor authentication enabled, and a strong random password stored in a password manager (also multi-factor), for my Wikimedia account and my email. I make use of browser containers, Linux containers/namespaces, and other segmentation methods where appropriate. I run an ad blocker. I do not currently edit from public computers or centrally-administrated computers, and would use an alternate account if I planned to do so. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I use two-factor authentication for my Wikimedia account and related emails, and strong passwords. I avoid scripts from untrustworthy sources when possible, otherwise I sometimes fork my own. I do not edit from public computers and I have had no issues with compromises in the past. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• My password is complex and unique to my Wikimedia account. I change it periodically and it is not written down anywhere, as I have it memorized. Like other candidates, I have two-factor authentication enabled for both my account and my e-mail. I edit exclusively from my own computer, and do not load any javascript unless I am completely sure about it. Sgd. —Hasley 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have a strong password and use two-factor authentication for my Wikimedia account and my email. I do not edit from public computers. And I do not add js scripts that I don't trust. Thanks --BRP ever 22:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I too use two-factor authentication, and a secure and unique password to protect my account. My SUL is linked to a dedicated email account which also has a secure and unique password, and requires a physical MFA token to login. I only use this account on private PCs. Having worked in IT-adjacent fields for quite some time, I am naturally suspicious of links and tend to run them through https://urlscan.io to check they're safe. It's good to see everyone is being appropriately careful with their accounts :) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I use 2FA, an unique password and I try not to stay logged on my phone much, fearing account compromise in case it gets lost or temporarily falls in bad hands. Other than my laptop, which may leave home 2-3 times a year, I can't really remember if I've ever used another device for accessing my account. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have a strong password, and only use Wikipedia from a very limited number of devices. As to my email: I also have a strong password there; note however, that by default, email is sent in clear text, so there's less of a problem there. --Eptalon (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Range blocks

Good day, candidates. Stewards often have to make decisions on range blocks, which may potentially cause damage to constructive users. Here is my question for you, based on a true story:

I requested for a global block for a /32 range due to cross-wiki vandalism done by an LTA. Alaa ultimately marked it as   Not done, saying "there's very huge collateral damage". Also note that I checked the last 1000 edits at the time and even when most of them (95.2%) were in viwiki or reverted, he still decided to decline my request.

Given that you are a steward, what kind of threshold will be sufficient for you to global block a (a) /48, (b) /40, (c) /32 range for at least 3 months? Try answering this question without asking anyone else, and please give me a number if possible. Needless to say, I'm not asking about OP here. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 04:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, hello! Personally I'd be reluctant to global block an IP range, whatever the range was. I'll also give a true story for my rationale. After having a vandal that changes dates in articles in my homewiki come back with different IPs many times, I tried temporary IP range blocks 2-3 times (increasing the range each time). It did stop him temporarily but we also started having questions from random users asking why they suddenly couldn't edit so thinking about doing similar things on the global scale makes me uncomfortable. Truth be told, I'd be reluctant to act much on IP blocks in general given that normally for me it would be the first year being a steward. I'd leave that to another more experienced user. - Klein Muçi (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Rangeblocks are hard, especially fairly wide global rangeblocks like the one you described. It would be inappropriate to give a hard number on collateral damage compared to range size. There are several factors that can play into a rangeblock decision, including (but not limited to) the type and severity of abuse, frequency of edits and account creation, whether the abuse comes from IPs and/or accounts, effectiveness of past blocks, the type of ISP (residential/commercial/hosting/mobile), the prevalence of proxies on the range, the nature of internet access in the area served (are people likely to have another way to create an account on their own), the ISP's IP address allocation, and the size and length of the block. In this case, this is a mixed residential/commercial wireline ISP with some hosting, without any indication of range separation between customer types (at least for IPv6). Proxy use appears unlikely, but IP hopping is frequent and not geographically limited so only a wide rangeblock would be effective. The block length requested is not short. That all increases the likelihood of collateral damage, and makes me start thinking about if page protection, AbuseFilter, or other tools may be a better option. I'm not familiar enough with the behavior in this case to make that judgement, and probably wouldn't implement the rangeblock. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• There's unfortunately no simple threshold for this—each case needs to be weighed on its own merits. A higher percentage of collateral damage may be reasonable in cases where the type of abuse being combatted is significantly serious, and vice versa. It should also be noted that although it may seem like a range would have little collateral damage, checkuser evidence may show a significant number of logged in editors -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unfortunately there is no specific number I can give to answer this question. Outside of proxies and short-term blocks preventing immediate cross-wiki vandalism, global rangeblocks are rarely done. Long-term non-proxy global rangeblocks are generally only necessary when there is significant cross-wiki vandalism that local blocks cannot manage over a long period of time, and it's best to keep to as small a range as possible to minimize collateral. Whether a block is needed depends on a multitude of factors, effectively balancing the benefit of preventing vandalism from occuring on that IP against the costs of the rangeblock's collateral. Every range's situation is different: ISPs differ in how they allocate ranges, user behavior is different from region to region, some ranges may have thousands of established editors on them and some same-sized ranges may have none. It's a case-by-case decision, and not always a simple one. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Global range-blocks can be drastic, and should be essentially used as a last resort, especially when other practicable mechanisms have failed. I am unable to give you a specific number as each block would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but one would take into account various elements that have to be balanced, in order to minimize the potential collateral damage it could cause, such as the size and the overall usage of the range, that can be better measured through CheckUser tool. That said, I would prefer to explore other viable techniques prior to consider a large range-block, like abuse filters (that can be more selective by using certain functions), or even setting a minimum period of time in urgent cases. Sgd. —Hasley 00:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Hasley: Thank you for pointing out AF#275, but since I can't view it, would you mind sharing its rules (the most trivial part that would not cause WP:BEANS)? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Large global range blocks for non-proxies should only be used when all other options have failed, and even then several things should be considered. Like, if the range block would be able to prevent the abuse or not? How much collateral damage it might cause? and what is the nature of block going to be, soft or hard? In several cases, abuse filters and local blocks on the affected wikis might be a viable option. As for me, I would hesitate making a large range block and explore other options first. And in the rare cases it's needed, I would choose the shortest length and smallest range possible to minimize the collateral. Thanks --BRP ever 01:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• In very short terms: A global range block of that many IP addresses should be avoided at all cost. ASk yourself: If you have the standard IP hopping vandal, who is abusing multiple accounts, you block between 10 and 20 users, with the ip addresses they use. Blocking IP ranges means you need to except the "known good" editors operating from these ranges. Also note: we have on influence on the IP addresses, they may change frequently. So thinking about it, if the rangeblock affects more than about 5 "known good" editors, the hassle of extempting them from the block is too big. Note also: CU evidence goes back only a short time, this means that the collateral may be even bigger. But each case needs to be looked at individually; so far I know of no cases where we'd need a three month global range block of ip addresses (not users). Eptalon (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

### Long-term abuse locks

Sorry for the late question here to the candidates. There seems to be a varying view in the community about what constitutes a long-term abuse lock. Since it is a very broad term, what specifically would you use as criteria to lock someone as LTA? Also do you document how the abuse has occured or who it is? -- Amanda (she/her) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is something which has evolved since I was last a steward, and something I would like to work to clarify in policy if elected. I personally would look at the length of time the user has been disrupting projects, and the number of projects they disrupt—LTA accounts should be locked in cases where they have caused significant disruption, over a long period, to multiple projects, and where multiple local blocks are ineffective in stopping them. Where appropriate, I believe logging which LTA an account is in the lock reason is helpful for reviewing locks and tracking abuse -- TNT (talk • she/her) 19:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Long-term abuse" doesn't have a clear definition, and it usually ends up being separated from simple sockpuppetry based on the Jacobellis test. The clearest case for an LTA lock is when the account has been recently blocked as an LTA on multiple projects, especially if it is continuing to cause significant disruption on other projects. LTA locks can also be justified when behavior or CU evidence clearly links the account to a known LTA with a history of cross-wiki abuse. To lock an account not connected to a previously-identified LTA as an LTA, I would look for disruption and evasion of blocks on multiple wikis using several accounts for more than a short period of time. In general, I do not identify specific LTAs in block log entries, and would continue to not do so when locking accounts if elected. This is because the LTAs I most often deal with impersonate each other and/or can have similar/overlapping behavioral characteristics, as well as per w:WP:Deny recognition. I do keep notes privately when I find it useful. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hello there, I wlil be clear: For me 'long term abuse' means that the editor has persitently caused trouble, and has been blocked several times, by different administrators, possibly on different Wikis. I think I will be very specific here: The editor distrupted at least three projects, each at least once. Attempts have been made to talk to the editor, but they were unsuccesssful. And I think a third criterion must be there as well: The disruptive behaviour stopped at some point. With that I want to rule out blocking users who are in a bad mood (eg. because they are drunk), but the next day (say) they'd again do regular edits. I also think that such account locks should expire, or be subject to review, for example after 6 months. And I think that documenting account locks would be a necessary thing to do. The documentation should include the usual checkuser-accessible information, as wlel as the Wikis where the user has been active.--Eptalon (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• As a Meta-Wiki and Simple English Wikipedia admin/CU, we have a lot of long-term vandals, which is a term I generally apply to those sort of users who create new accounts whenever the last one gets blocked and has been in a cycle of bad faith contributions for at least a few months. From a Steward's perspective, that definition changes somewhat, as single-project vandals generally should not be locked globally. There is of course no explicit definition, but that seems like a safe one to me, and one I generally use when reporting their sockpuppets to Stewards. As for documenting, it is often helpful to note who the sockmaster is in the block/lock summary, depending on the sockmaster's history, certainty, and subtlety/lack of subtlety. Best, Vermont (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Long-term abuse has a quite ambiguous definition, but multiple factors play onto this term—which I reserve for those vandals with a chronic, recidivist pattern of disruptive behaviour; coupled with this, to globally lock someone as a LTA, I would analyze each case individually, considering if they have been abusing on multiple projects for a significant length, especially when local actions become insufficient. On the documenting part, filling the lock log with information about who it is may be helpful to track and identify them, as the case may require—one should balance in providing useful data without running against DENY. Sgd. —Hasley 01:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Except for the socks of accounts already locked as 'Long-term abuse', if elected, I would mainly use the reason to lock someone who has been disrupting multiple projects using different accounts to evade local block for a significant period of time. As for the documentation part, like others, I think using suitable locking reasons where appropriate can be helpful. That being said, in most cases, it is usually already apparent based on behavior and/or local block logs. Thanks --BRP ever 12:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• As I've repeated many times now, I generally don't like dealing much with blocks and anti-vandalism personally. Having said that, I've had to locally block IPs in terms of LTAs in the near past. Usually the LTA involves a certain editing pattern and deliberate vandalism. If we are to talk in global terms, I'd search for those 2 factors and see how spread the damage was in a global scale. Documenting the reason for the block is always a good thing but I'm not sure I'd be too fond on writing down way more details than that. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

#### Follow-up to 'LTA locks'

Firstly I echo the apology for the late follow-up question and secondly thank AmandaNP for starting this controversial topic! (my follow-up somewhat relates also to the issue of proximity to experience of regular users and work in the community some of you referenced)

I am curious if you would decide to globally lock and apply LTA tag to a long-standing Wikimedia contributor, what actions would you take (aside from the technical task of confirming that it constitutes min. requirements for your LOCK under LTA decision) to make sure you did right (consulting with other stewards, communicating to the user and/or else?) and also that user has a good chance to understand what happened to them and what are the paths to prove different and get unlocked (considering that there is no clear regulation, documentation and fast+reliable way to communicate to stewards since un-answered cue of emails is often in hundreds)? --Zblace (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

### No Chinese

Translation: Rumour has it that all steward candidates don't speak Chinese. Why is that and what do you think about it? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (zh-0.25) 10:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I think there are two reasons for it: For those not speaking Chinese, it may be difficult to learn, so probably there are few people learning it as an additional language. And the other reason is: anyone can apply as a steward, if few people with knowledge of Chinese apply, then few will be elected. But as Wikipedia is also about cultural diversity, I can only encourage people to apply. So: if you know good candidates (that also fulfill some other criteria), tell them to apply. Eptalon (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think the question would need more context but if we are to take it at face value... I've talked a bit above in my answers in regard to the need of finding ways to make the language barrier thinner in a global sense between languages that use different scripts by having more auto-translation features imbedded on the projects. Of course this can also be achieved by approving more stewards who know more languages and it would ultimately be a good thing but I think an automatic solution would be more efficient. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

## For each candidate

### AntiCompositeNumber

• Hello! As far as I can see, you don't have any CU/OS experience at any of the Wikimedia projects. Considering stewards are de-facto CU/OS for the majority of Wikimedia projects, I'd like to ask: What do you think about prior CU/OS experience when it comes to running in SE?--Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Candidates with prior CU/OS experience will always be better candidates because they bring that additional knowledge and experience. On the other hand, the community has consistently elected at least one or two non-CU/OS candidates every year (as long as I've been paying attention), in recognition of the fact that prior CU/OS experience is not required for a good steward.
As far as my own candidacy goes, I feel that I have a good background understanding of computer networking and IPs, both through my anti-webhost work and my more general interest in understanding the Internet. I am also familiar with ANPDP and CAFNI from my VRT and ACC work. I recognize the complexity of CU/OS work, especially related to cross-wiki problems, but feel that I would be able to gain the necessary skills to be an effective steward if elected --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

### BRPever

• Hello and thanks for running! :) There are already two simplewiki sysops that are stewards currently and three are running this election. If all of them succeed, you could say simplewiki is one of the most represented, if not the most represented, with sysop:steward rate, with 5 stewards who are sysops on simplewiki. Why do you think so many simplewiki sysops are running and how do you think your experience there will help you as a steward? --Ferien (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ferien, Simplewiki has always been affected by a lot of crosswiki vandalism and spam, and it was also probably what led me in being active crosswiki. And that is probably why we see so many former simplewiki sysop as former stewards. That being said, I want to make it clear that my candidacy is my own and as is everyone else's. I have experience with the tools and related crosswiki experience as GR/GS and wikidata admin/cu. And I believe with that I will be able to make the overall processing time for steward requests somewhat faster, and be there to deal with emergencies if we ever come across one. And that is my motivation for applying for the role. Stewards should avoid conflicts of interest, which means I won't be using my steward tools on any wikis that I consider my homewiki above. Thanks -- BRP ever 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
You know why Simple English Wikipedia is also called SE wiki? ~~~~
17:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

### Klein Muçi

• You ran last year but your candidacy was not successful. What has changed since last year? --Rschen7754 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rschen7754, straightforward answer: My overall involvement with Wikimedia has grown. From the technical aspect, I've started being more active in Phabricator and Wikimedia Code Review. My community has also trusted me with bureaucratic privileges this year in SqWiki which have made me more aware of the responsibilities that come with added privileges. In regard to what may be interesting from a steward perspective, I've started getting involved with global cross-wiki patrolling using SWViewer and lately I've been heavily involved specifically with LaWiki, helping the community there on-wiki and on emails with technical matters. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• My question will likely overlap partially with the question asked above: what would you deem to be the most imporant feedback you received after your run in the 2021 elections and how have you used this feedback in the past year? (In case you would not be fully sure what I meant with my question, please get in touch :) ). --Daniuu (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Daniuu, I believe the comments I received in the last run (not counting the supportive ones) could be divided into 2 general groups: Some were skeptical about me because of the lack of my cross-wiki and/or GS/antivandalism experience and some were skeptical about me because of my name being rather unknown, most of which were urging me to have a try next year while the most extreme one was "Who are you?".
As I said above, given that as more time passes I find myself getting more and more involved with every part of Wikimedia, this year I found myself getting involved with LaWiki and interacting weakly with SWViewer, thus following the advice for increasing the cross-wiki and antivandalism overall experience, something which I hope to further increase gradually. As for trying again the next year... Well, here we are. The elections are overall an interesting experience, I have plenty of free time currently and finding new ways to help around the community is always nice. In the end, even if you don't succeed, you can at least feel good knowing that you did offer your help.
In case I didn't answer the question in the way you were expecting, please let me know below. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
That covers what I expected, thanks for answering the question! Daniuu (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

### Hasley

• Being one of the most frequent user of SWViewer with nearly 19,000 actions, do you intend to be as active as before, or at least keep being relatively active, if elected? If yes, how will stewardship help you in patrolling? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The short answer is yes. If this candidacy succeeds, my activity levels in cross-wiki patrolling may scale back slightly (this considering that the current stewards' workload is significantly large), but I do not expect this would be a significant shift as I am already balancing my work between cross-wiki-related areas and continuing to contribute on my home projects without neglecting either—I have enough spare time available to commit here.
Regarding the second part of your question, although cross-wiki patrolling is not pre-conditioned by holding steward tools, they do come very handy in those day-to-day situations—there are multiple ways in which those instruments would enhance the effectiveness in working there; for instance, the one I would use most often is the global (b)lock tool and related functions, like hiding abusive usernames when warranted, in order to give high-profile vandals a pause and protect projects from further abuse. Sgd. —Hasley 05:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question: You mentioned LWCU in your statement. I searched LWCU in meta and did not find the explanation. What does the acronym mean? Taivo (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo, LWCU = LoginWiki CheckUser. See log-in wiki. Best --Alaa :)..! 12:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Hasley I would like to ask about persistent vandals. I'm thinking of globally banned users such as George Reeves Person, though I understand that you might not be able to comment on specific cases due to CU confidentiality agreements with Wikimedia. Could you at least speak broadly on extreme abusive editing and how this could be contained or minimized? On a number of wikis this activity has caused a great deal of distress and disruption to productive contributors. As a steward how would you approach difficult situations such as this? FWIW, I am unable to support your candidacy due to a pandemic wikibreak where I have too few recent edits to participate but very much support your stewardship and highly value your contributions based on my observations of your participation cross wiki. --mikeu talk 02:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the question, mikeu. As said in above questions, this is something we cannot completely prevent, but I think the best to do is handle those cases swiftly—and carefully—as to mitigate further damage being done, taking use of the tools available within our grasp; global blocks, locks, page protections, etc., are not the only options, but abusefilters and blacklists are good choices in particular situations. We must take this seriously, especially in cases like the one you mention, and we should display empathy to those affected users—there can be both on and off-wiki consequences to this, unfortunately.
On the stressful situations matter, I am aware of the risks of being a steward as I have already experienced myself such kind of abuse during my time as an administrator on multiple projects. I do not stress easily when facing such situations, and tend to find something else to work on rather than get myself stressed out—dealing with this may be a quite unpleasant experience, but I have managed to stay out of that sort of distress, working on the issue while still keeping tempers cool. Best, Sgd. —Hasley 23:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

### TheresNoTime

• Could you comment on the events of a few months ago, where you announced your resignation from the English Wikipedia Oversight team, but later retracted the resignation about an hour before it was due to take effect? A day before the resignation, you said the functionary team was act[ing] like a real cabal, show[ing] actual disdain for the community and at best indifference to mental health and prior to the withdrawal, said it was gaslight[ing] anyone who dared suggest otherwise. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Many thanks for the question Sdrqaz—due to the nature of the incident and the subject it covers, you will need to excuse my brevity in detail, as I am mindful of my requirements under the access to nonpublic personal data policy. My 'resignation in protest' arose from an unfortunate situation relating to a change of English Wikipedia oversight policy (or, to be more accurate, an update of policy to reflect current oversight practice). I later realised it was my own misunderstanding which led me to believe the functionary team was act[ing] like a real cabal (a statement for which I have apologised), and have used this as an important learning experience. We all lose our temper from time to time, and I'm not proud of myself for having to learn this "the hard way". I hope this answers your question, and would be more than happy to answer any follow-up ones you may have -- TNT (talk • she/her) 14:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Predict the outcome of your candidature for this election, with justification. I'm not looking for simply a binary answer but also an estimation of the support percentage (to around a 90% confidence interval), but it is understandable that what you predict may not be reality and that's fine - more interested in the justification. Leaderboard (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you for the question Leaderboard—I would not have stood for election had I not thought I would pass (as that would just be wasting everyone's time) for the reasons given in my statement. I am bemused by being asked to estimate a support percentage, but I'll give it a go. In the 2018 election I passed with a 86.82% support percentage, and would hope to see this rise somewhat given my already demonstrated competency in the steward role and increased experience in the four years since passing. I will be cautiously optimistic in my estimation and place myself at 90% -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

### Vermont

• Given that you are a native speaker of English, had your simple.wiki account auto-created only a few months after joining Wikimedia, and have more edits in en.wiki than simple even now, why did you choose to, from the perspective of advanced roles such as adminship, do it at simple.wiki than the English Wikipedia? Leaderboard (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you for the opportunity to clarify on this! Edit count does not tell an accurate story; roughly 90% of my edits on the English Wikipedia (12203/13443) occured in 2018 or previously, prior to my involvement in cross-wiki work. Most of those are automated, as well, unlike my contributions on other projects since then. Though I started editing on the English Wikipedia, by November 2017 I had begun to shift my focus to the Simple English Wikipedia. At the time, the project's anti-vandalism bot was down and a lot of unhelpful edits were getting past the few humans checking recent changes and new pages. Myself and a few other users went to help out, and stayed. A few months after, in June 2018, I was elected as an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia, and started working in mostly conduct enforcement areas, including spam, vandalism, and harassment. It's a project subject to a lot of vandalism from cross-wiki problem editors, and that naturally led to cross-wiki editing. Over the years that followed, my workflow has shifted to focus on global anti-spam, anti-vandalism, conduct enforcement, and clerking. In that time, I was elected a global sysop, checkuser on the Simple English Wikipedia, and admin and checkuser on Meta-Wiki. In short, though I registered my account on the English Wikipedia and took my first steps in the Wikimedia world there, that has not been my primary project since 2018, and I truly love the workflow that I currently do in the global community. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Although you somewhat recently joined Wikimedia, you seemed to have climbed up in the ranks exceptionally fast. I am not certain of how long do Admins, Check Users and Stewards need to be active in the community to progress this fast, but it seems that you are very proactive, highly driven and have good score-card with like minded technically focused users. What actions in any aspects of your work you would like to have corrected as your own mistakes? --Zblace (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Zblace: Sorry, but you can only ask each candidate no more than two questions. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh. I UPDATED the text above and reduced to a single question. --Zblace (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the question, Z. I lay out a basic timeline in my statement, and I'll summarize it here. I've been an editor for about six years, and involved in cross-wiki editing for four of them. I've been an admin for almost four years, a global sysop for about three years, and a CheckUser for almost two. Currently, I'm an admin and CU on Meta-Wiki and the Simple English Wikipedia, and a global sysop. My workflow has gradually become focused on cross-wiki cleanup, clerking, and conduct-related work. My years contributing and with advanced permissions is not exceptionally fast compared to other candidates and current stewards when they ran.
As for your question, functionary work is often complicated. There are a lot of decisions, a lot of paths, that the community trusts functionaries to navigate. Being human, I have not always made the correct decisions, but I have always been open to community feedback and to reconsider or defer actions. In any volunteer role, I do my best to represent community values and act in line with established consensus, and that means being responsive and adaptive to concerns and changes. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are most welcome. Always excelling at being curtious and diplomatic, but not really precise and correct... I wish you were able to respond to the question (rather than copy-paste text from elsewhere...) therefore I am less hopeful of getting other answers and trusting you with anything beyond most formal interpretation of technical rules. The fact that you created almost no mainspace pages with in any of the wikies is IMHO illustrative of your limited focus. --Zblace (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

### Eptalon

• You were not reconfirmed as a steward in 2012 due to concerns about misuse of the checkuser tool in dewiki (see Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2012/en and Stewards/Confirm/2012/Eptalon). At that time, the main criticism was that you did not respond to the accusations. I know it's been a long time, plus this is deliberately phrased as an open-ended question. What I would like to know are things like: Is there anything you'd like to say about that today? And how will you try to prevent such a situation from happening again if you should be elected? --Zabe (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for asking the question, I was expecting it. Note that the events happened ten years ago, and I recount them without reading up on the details, from memory. They may be wrong, or incomplete. At the time, I ran a checkuser, for a case of common graffitti (One user: locally known troublemaker, other user:probably unknown/new). From what I gather, the case could have been decided based on the editing history of both users, and running a checkuser was not strictly necessary. Note also, that DeWP is one of the largest wikis, they both have local checkusers, and local oversighters. So: As there are local checkusers, there's no need for a steward to intervene, as the local checkusers can handle this case on their own. I can imagine the case, where a steward is asked for a second opion, if the situation is unclear, or the local checkusers can't agree (rather unlikely). The case where a steward needs to intervene is more of the form that a functionary (admin, or other) is abusing his/her power, for example by using a different undeclared account. Back to the case being discussed: When running a Checkuser, there often is one "main account" with many edits, and several "dependent accounts" (with few edits, usually focused on one domain). What I can imagine is that based on the edit history, this was not the case (both accounts may have had several edits in many domains). Running a checkuser will reveal additional information, such as the ip address, which can then be checked (same ISP, same web browser, similar geolocation...). Note that CheckUser is a tool that helps identify known troublemakers, and prevent them from harming a Wiki. Without going back to local policy (which exists, in the case of DEWP): The CU policy covers this case. In hindsight: the CU intervention wasn't necessary in this case; we are talking about a routine intervention any DEWP CU/Admin could have done. -Eptalon (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I will perhaps also clarify the situation in a case of a Wiki without local functionaries. As outlined, the case above is routinely handled by admins,If there are local admins, they can handle this case. Steward intervention on request. For the very small wikis, without admins: Steward may take the admin role, and decide, likely without the need to run a CU. Eptalon (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Do you think that quit for personal reasons [1] is an adequate description of the incident referenced above? --Rschen7754 23:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll notice that my candidature came at the very last moment, as I was undecided whether to run again. As to the personal reasons: At the time, I didn't like the level of Wikipolitics Stewards are exposed to (in one form or another). In my understanding, a Steward is a functionary who helps run the Wiki smoothly. This should be possible without getting involved in Wikipolitics. Hence my statement, for personal reasons.-Eptalon (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I can sympathize with personal reasons, however in your statement you make your departure from the team seem like it was voluntary, when it was not. Is this a fair assessment? --Rschen7754 01:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I failed to communicate (properly), so I wasn't confirmed. - So yes, that assessment is correct. Eptalon (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hello and thanks for running! :) There are already two simplewiki sysops that are stewards currently and three are running this election. If all of them succeed, you could say simplewiki is one of the most represented, if not the most represented, with sysop:steward rate, with 5 stewards who are sysops on simplewiki. Why do you think so many simplewiki sysops are running and how do you think your experience there will help you as a steward? --Ferien (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ferien, you are an admin there as well, so you know about the charms of this Wiki: the "simplicity of rules", and the size of trhe community probably makes it attrctive for new editors, even though the task of writing articles that are easy to understand, is a very complex one. Another speciality is perhaps that there are advanced admin roles (Bureaucrat,Checkuser, Oversighter), despite the community being small; I'd guess it has the higest "admin count per active editor" (between a fourth and over half of the active named editors have the admin flag, numbers depend a bit on what you consider an 'active editor').
I have been at SimpleWiki since 2006. To my knolwedge, there is only one editor on Simple Wiki who has been there longer and still edits (and yes, he also held the advanced roles, but gave them back some time ago). I have been an admin at SEWP for over a decade (15-16 years), and during that time, I have probably seen most situations that occur in such a community, both as a user, and also as an admin or advanced functionary. In mmany cases, I was involved in resolving problematic situations, such as implementing community bans (of people who despited being told to change their behavior multiple times, did not do so). Another situation where this occurs is when discussing measures to implement with other admins, and of having to support a decision I didn't necessarily agree with.
In my view, volunteering to be a steward to help the Wikimedia community as a whole is about taking decisions (every time you take a decision, some people will not like it), and taking the responsibility for these decisions. They may be unpopular, they may hurt the community, but when you took the decision it was the best you could do. Like with the smaller community, as a steward you will be part of a team, and even if you do not agree with the decision taken, you will have to support and defend it, because at the time it was taken it was the best option for the community. I have gone through this process, with other admins at SEWP, for well over a decade, and as you can see above, I volunteered to do it again with the community of the other Stewards, for Wikipedia as a whole. Eptalon (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why is your home wiki simple.wiki and not the German Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia? In other words, what made you work at simple and not somewhere else? Leaderboard (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: All language editions are equivalent, just because I have a preference for one does not mean it is better than the others)
That's a very interesting question, my mother tongue is German, and I am fluent in English and French. I don't know how I came to Simple English, in 2006. I guess my motivation is a combination of factors: First of all their "reason for existing" is very interesting. At Simple we write for people who are learning English, or who have learning difficulties (or who are children, though we don't explicitely target them). So, writing or improving an article there boils down to being able to explain a concept well, to leave out ununecesary detail, while still being scientifically accurate. Look at en:Navier–Stokes equations (or fr:Équations de Navier-Stokes, de:Navier-Stokes-Gleichungen): What you will see is that there is an introduction section, and perhaps a section on their history. The rest of the articles are devoted to showing the equations, discussing different ways to solve them, and criteria which affect the solutions. I don't say that these parts don't belong in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is about explaining. Now go look at simple:Navier–Stokes_equations: There. the article is much shorter, there are no mathematical formiulas, and we even managed to place an image.
With the time, the small community managed to have two categories of better-quality articles, much like other wikipedias do. Another example: a some time ago, I was looking for images to illustrate the article about "law" (I ended up with two images of the Code of Hammurabi, and one showing Cicero accusing Catiline of treason). What I also found was that while there's an article on Cicero, there's no article on Catiline or his conspiracy. As you see: there's a lot left to be done. As I also do a lot of translations, using the translation tool I recently translated de:Musca_depicta from English to German, which made it to the "Schon gewusst" ("did you know") about a month ago. So I guess, I simply stay there because I have the feeling, that I can have more impact. Larger communities need more rules. As an example: At EnWP there's the rule, that articles about the US, should use the American spelling of words, and not the British one: This is a very nice rule, and certainly worth the effort if your target audience are native English speakers. Rules such as this one become pointless once you accept the fact that you also write for people learning English. Btw: If you browse through the community proposals, one of them is about building an App with a Wikipeia for kids; the proposer wants to base the work on SEWP. Does this answer the qzestion? -- Eptalon (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ich möchte dich bitten, deine deutschsprachige Vorstellung auf Orthographie-Fehler zu prüfen. Vielleicht bin ich ein wenig altmodisch, aber ich lege Wert darauf, dass Kandidaten die korrekte Rechtschreibung beherrschen. Solchen Kandidaten bin ich auch bereit, meine Stimme zu geben. --Bernd Bergmann (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hallo BerndBergmann. Ich habe das deutschsprachige Statement nochmals überarbeitet (bezüglich Ortohgraphie, viel mehr ist ja nicht machbar, da es jeweils übersetzt werden muss). Ausser 2-3 Kleinigkeiten (v.a. Kommas, ein Langsatz) habe ich nicht wirklich viel Problematisches gefunden. Ich habe vor den 2-3 Rechtschreibreformen der 2000er-Jahre schreiben gelernt; d.h. evtl. benutze ich Formen, welche heute anders geschrieben werden. Das heisst: evtl. komme ich als altmodisch rüber. Ûbrigens: Ich sitze in der Schweiz, also kein Eszett... Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"Nicht wirklich viel Problematisches": Ortohgraphie? rechte als Admisitrator? Steitenhisorie? festsellen? Sichbarkeit? kulturlelen? --Bernd Bergmann (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
For the English-speaking Crowd: BerndBergmann asked me to look over my German statement as to orthography. --Eptalon (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
How is this even a question? Firestar464 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hattest du @Bernd Bergmanns Frage richtig verstanden? Er hat dir nahegelegt, deinen kurzen Bewerbungstext mit den deutschen Rechtschreibregeln kompatibel zu machen. Die folgenden Schreibweisen sind auch in der Schweiz falsch: Admisitrator, alemanischen, Simple English Wikpiedia, in vorliegenden Fall. Wenn du auch bei deinem angestrebten Amt als Steward so sorglos vorgehst, dann müssten wir dir einen Mentor zur Seite stellen.
In simple English: this user is not even able to use her mother tongue correctly. If she is elected for steward she will need supervision. Wolfdietmann (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Wenn du kannst Eptalon verstehen ist es sehr wichtig? Ich glaube, dass das Problem Tippfehler ist. Ich denke nicht, dass das Problem mit das Verständnis der Sprache ist. zB, mein Deutsch hier wird nicht perfekt sein, aber du kannst mich wahrscheinlich verstehen. Meiner Meinung nach sind Mentoren nicht notwendig. Grüße, --Ferien (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
(en) If you can understand Eptalon, is it very important? I believe that the problem is with typos, I don't think that the problem is with understanding of the language. e.g. My German here will not be perfect, but you can probably understand me. In my opinion, mentors are not necessary. --Ferien (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It is your opinion and you are free to write it. But I am not sure if you unterstood the problem.
It is not the question of comprehensibility. At a first glance it is with typos. I agree most German-reading people will be able to intepreet waht the auhtor indended to ixpress.
It is, however, the question of carefulness. This candidate is not willing to work carefully, not even in her self-presentation. So, how will she do her work as a steward? Wolfdietmann (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand your concerns. I just thought I'd note about my personal experience with languages and how some people may see sending messages on Wikipedia similarly. Regards, --Ferien (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hallo Wolfdietmann, ja, ich habe den Text verstanden; aber schau dir mal die Ratings an: Über 100 Oppose-, ca. 25 neutrale, und etwa 20 Supportvotes. Mit so einem Votuum gewinnt man keine Blumentöpfe. Die Community hat alles genommen, was sie in den 10 Jahren gefunden hat, die ich nicht Steward bin, und mich dafür verantwortlich gemacht. Ich denke nicht, dass sich das in der letzten Woche noch gross ändert, selbst wenn ich die paar verbleibenden Fehler noch korrigiere. Vielen Dank für das Verständnis.
(English translationm): I point out that the community has made me responsible for all the things I did in the 10 years that I am not a steward. While I expect that more people will vote, I don't expect the relation of the support-oppose-neutral votes to change much any more. Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hallo Wolfdietmann; wie bewreits ausgeführt, habe ich meine Kandidatur ca. 2. Stunden vor Ablauf der Frist aus demBodden gestampft. Nach Möglichkeit, versuche ich, korrekt zu schreiben. Wie du selbst sieht, wurden ziemlich alle meine Aktionen der letzten zehn Jahre zerpfückt, und Stand soeben stehe ich mit 95-100 Oppose, ca. 25 Neutral und etwa 15 Supportvotes da, was meine Kandidatur logischerweise ziemlich aussichtlos macht. Egal was ich jetzt mache, ich denke, ich werde dieses Jahr nicht mehr zum Steward gewählt. Schöne Grüsse
English Version: Wolfdietmann points out a few more errors, and I replied that i possible, I try using correct spelling, but that given my current score (95-100 oppose, about 25 neutral, 15-or-so support votes), spending more time on this is probably pointless. All my actions of the last decade have been criticized. Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)