Стюарди/Історія
| ←historical pages | Історія Стюардів | |
| Ця сторінка документує історію Стюардів і процес їх обрання, починаючи від їх створення у 2004 році, щоб взяти на себе частину роботи, яка раніше виконувалась системними адміністраторами Вікімедіа. Ця сторінка не була суттєво оновлювана з 2016 року. | ||
Стюарди — це користувачі, з повним доступом до інтерфейсу у всіх проектах Вікімедіа, включаючи можливість змінювати будь які права користувачів і груп. Див. Стюарди для поточного опису їх обов'язківСтосовно історії минулих стюардів, див. Stewards/Former stewards.
Історія
Березень 2004 — пропозиція
На початку 2004 року, права користувачів встановлювались в базі даних вручну, що вимагало доступу до оболонки на серверах. В пості wikipedia-l, з заголовком "розробники повинні займатися своїм ділом", Tim Starling запропонував відділити адміністрування прав користувачів від розробки програмного забезпечення.
Тім вже створив групу "розробник", яка дозволяла управляти групою користувачів. Він запропонував, щоб ця група також потурбувалася про перейменування користувачів і зміни історії статей, коли ці функції будуть запрограмовані (потім це будуть виконувати бюрократи і приховувачі).
Він запропонував назвати цих користувачів "почесними розробниками", обраних шляхом висунення кандидатур і голосуванню. Почесні розробники могли втратити доступ через більшість голосів, рішенням Арбітражного комітету або декрет Jimbo Wales.
Квітень 2004 — заснування
Першими "почесними розробниками" були обрані в квітні 2004 року: 8 кандидатів, які отримали 80% підтримки простим голосуванням, з 20 висунутих. На цих виборах не було жодних вимог до виборців
"Почесний розробник" був терміново перейменований в "стюард", назва була запропонована Daniel Mayer (іншими пропозиціями були "розробник спільноти", "Вікі-наглядач", "наглядач спільноти", "координатор", "Служивий Вікімедіа", "секретаріат" або "секретар", і "супер-бюрократ"). Початкова документація була написана; в оригінальному описі зазначено: "Стюарди — це люди, які можуть встановлювати права користувачів на будь якому Вікі-сайті Вікімедіа.
Початкова політика стюардів також була розроблена протягом цього періоду, хоча ще не була впроваджена.
Усі дії стюарда спочатку були зроблені в тестовій Вікіпедії, допоки не було запропоновано, щоб вони були перенесені до Мети після розширення технічних можливостей. Початкова роль стюардів була сильно обмежена, вони діяли лише в тих областях спільноти, в яких раніше працювали розробники, надаючи і знімаючи права бюрократа і адміністратора у користувачів на основі консенсусу спільноти. Принципи уникання конфлікту інтересів обговорювались на ранній стадії і було прийнято рішення про те, що стюарди, які також є арбітрами, не повинні використовувати свої права для забезпечення виконання рішень Арбітражного комітету.
2005 — 2006
Другі вибори стюардів відбулися в травні 2005 року. Було 10 кандидатів, і виборці просто підписувались "Так" або "Ні" для кожного. Деякі опоненти давали короткі пояснення, більшість дискусій обмежувалися сторінкою обговорення. Ці вибори показують останні принципи вимог до діяльності і конфлікту інтересів зі стюардами, діючими в проектах, де вони є членами спільноти. В цей час існувала лише Вікіпедія — принцип конфлікту інтересів змушував стюардів відмовитися від видалення привілейованого доступу у своєму мовному проекті. Із 10 кандидатів було обрано 9, причому всі вони отримали значну більшість. В грудні 2005 року також була спроба других виборів з одним кандидатом, який хотів, щоб його розглянули на цю роль. Але тоді спільнота погодилась з тим, що вибори окремих кандидатів не повинні проводитися, і були організовані другі вибори, які повинні були розпочатися пізніше в грудні того ж року.
The role of stewards further evolved in 2006, with further emphasis on the necessity of the steward role not evolving into that of a "wiki-cop", or other form of super-administrator. This was also the first year in which active participation at meta was considered to be an important factor in voting for new stewards. In the 2006 elections, there were 16 candidates — and again, the process was a straightforward vote, with very short initial comments from candidates, and short comments from opposers. The 2006 election saw a general reduction in elected candidates, with only 9 of the 16 being elected. Of those elected, most had over 95% support, with only one having 90% support and none with lower majorities than that. The most common opposition reasons for those not elected was a lack of experience, and unsuccessful requests had significantly fewer votes than those of the elected stewards. Another election was held in December 2006, with 15 candidates.
2007 — 2009
2007 sees the increasing formalization of the steward role and the elections. The 2007 elections saw a standardized header, organized translations, and sections laid out for questions, yes, no, and neutral. The questions section was not widely used during this election — in all, only 17 questions were asked for 18 candidates, and most candidates got zero questions. The talk page reveals a lot of discussion about administering the election, including on the organization and on how to increase question use during the election. This was the first year in which many serious candidates were not elected. In the past, those users with advanced permissions on individual projects who ran were typically elected; in 2007, the trend began wherein serious candidates who held advanced permissions on multiple projects were not elected, primarily due to lack of experience in steward areas.
The 2007 elections were in Nov/Dec; the next elections were in February 2009. The 2009 elections used a very formalized election process with subpages, templates, and transclusion to get as much as possible translated into as many languages as possible, and streamline the voting process for users. A separate questions page enjoyed much use: 150 questions were posed, many of them leading to protracted back-and-forth. No serious candidate was posed fewer than 4 questions. We also see in 2009 the first instance of so-called “generic” questions – supposedly asked to enlighten voters. Most of these simply ask for a rehashing of the candidate’s statement, and all were asked and answered in English (though most voters are not anglophone). These candidacy statements have been expanded considerably too – from a short introduction of a few sentences to a paragraph or two, translated into multiple languages. Because of the lack of requirements to put oneself forward as a candidate, 26 users ran in the election; at least an additional 5 candidates were disqualified. Most of the candidates lacked understanding of the steward role, and were demonstrably unfit to even run: 6 received less than 25% support. The 2009 elections also saw the institution of the #wikimedia-stewards-elections IRC channel to monitor and administer the elections, and a dedicated team of volunteers verifying the “smooth” operation of the election process. Of the 26 candidates, only 9 were elected, representing a further decrease in the number of new stewards elected compared to those who applied.
2008 — глобальні групи
There were no elections in 2008, though significant changes occurred in steward access. The CentralAuth extension was implemented during 2008, and this involved the creation of the steward global group, which granted global access to sysop and oversight rights, as well as access to the CheckUser log - this access would later be removed after an internal steward discussion in 2009. Prior to centralauth, stewards exercised rights through adding and removing themselves to local user groups through meta using the userrights-interwiki permission; for example, to delete a page, a steward would need to add themselves to the local sysop group. After 2008, this was only done for using CheckUser and oversight permissions. This was also the first year in which global accounts could be locked, preventing them from logging in. 2008 also marked the creation of additional global user groups managed by stewards, including global rollback. At the time, requests for global permissions were handled through the steward requests page for permissions.
Also implemented in 2008 was the global staff user group, for paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, trustees, and others acting in an official capacity for the Foundation. As a result of a request for comments, the global group was created and managed by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and gave global access to the wiki interface as with stewards, except with full global access to CheckUser and oversight permissions as well. While membership in this global group was initially managed by Wikimedia Foundation staff, that responsibility has since been delegated to stewards, who assign staff rights to global accounts as needed.
Appointment and removal of non-elected stewards
During the 2009 confirmation process, the interesting case of Jimmy Wales was raised. Wales had been appointed in 2006 by the Board of Trustees, who were still responsible for deciding who the stewards were, though in practice they followed the community wishes in all other cases. Wales was not confirmed during the 2009 confirmations, due to his inactivity in the steward role, and the suggestion that staff rights were more appropriate for him to hold. A compromise was reached, with Wales agreeing to have a global group created for himself. That global group would go on to have most of the active rights removed, following a request for comments regarding deletions that Wales performed on Commons in 2010.
2010 — 2011
The 2010 elections saw the most candidates out of all the previous elections, with a total of 74 candidates. Of these, 8 were elected, 21 not elected, and 45 disqualified. 2010 saw further institutionalization of the election process, with time for submissions, questions, and a three week voting period. The elected-to-qualified-candidate ratio further decreased in 2010, though a few of the candidates who did not pass in 2010 went on to become stewards in subsequent elections. During the 2010 confirmations, detailed summaries of the arguments presented for and against each steward were given on the talk page for the final steward decision; this format of decision on confirmations was discontinued from 2011-2015, when it was re-introduced during the 2016 confirmations.
There were two elections in 2011; the first saw 112 candidates; of which, 91 were disqualified, 10 were not elected, and 11 were elected. This was the last election during which CentralNotice banners advertised the nomination process to all users; starting in the 2011-2 elections, only those eligible received notification to cut down on the number of ineligible candidacies. The second 2011 elections saw 17 candidates, of which 8 were elected. There were only confirmations at the time of the first election in 2011, and these were handled in two stages, with the community providing input during the first, and the election committee evaluating consensus in the second. This method would be used until the 2016 confirmations.
Global sysops
During 2010, a very controversial proposal to create global sysops was voted on. The vote had 1802 total votes, of which 1385 were in support (76.9% support margin). This proposal created a global group to act in a specific area of steward activity - namely performing routine maintenance and counter-vandalism on small projects without active local admins. This had previously been a role of stewards, but it was felt that more help was needed in the area. The initial proposal would allow global sysops to globally block IP addresses as well; however, a substantial number of users opposed this function during the vote, so it was not added to the final group which was created. 2010 also saw the first election of new global sysops, done as-needed at Steward requests/Global permissions.