Mailing List Archive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a summary of the steward elections and confirmations so far. The
> elections are open February 1 to 22, at <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009> and <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm> respectively.
> 902 unique users have participated in the elections and 149 in the
> confirmations, already almost double last year's total participation of
> roughly 575 users. The current tendency is to remove 14 current stewards
> and elect 7 to 9 new ones.
I would suggest that the "current tendency to remove 14 current
stewards" is inaccurate--firstly, the retention requirement should not
be the same as to pass initially, and this chart uses a 78% percentage
to pass in both cases, whereas a 50% tendency should be sufficient for
steward reconfirmation.

Cary
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJkHzcyQg4JSymDYkRAtJRAKDRv5DzU7ZiR+Xre9r4eSXXtp0SdwCgsVro
TRO14+J+UCzKSsHGhbSPtjQ=
=J+SB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

rarohde at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 11:29 AM

Post #3 of 46 (3388 views)

Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that
Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from
people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in
Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest and
torture him for his access, or that he might otherwise feel compelled
to co-operate with them.

Similar concerns were also voiced about a Chinese candidate, but that
candidate already has significant opposition for other reasons, and so
the political comments do not seem to be a major factor.

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mardetanha

-Robert Rohde

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a summary of the steward elections and confirmations so far. The
> elections are open February 1 to 22, at <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009> and <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm> respectively.
> 902 unique users have participated in the elections and 149 in the
> confirmations, already almost double last year's total participation of
> roughly 575 users. The current tendency is to remove 14 current stewards
> and elect 7 to 9 new ones.
>
> If your email client has HTML enabled, a summary of each discussion is shown
> below; if not, visit <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/Statistics > for the
> latest summaries.
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
>
> Elections
>
> Unique participants: 902.
> candidate support ratio oppose reasons
> Kylu<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Kylu>
> 97.2%
> (173/178) — Meno25<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Meno25>
> 97%
> (128/132) — Laaknor<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Laaknor>
> 96%
> (97/101) — Erwin<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Erwin>
> 95.7%
> (154/161) — Mike.lifeguard<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mike.lifeguard>
> 91.9%
> (227/247) — Leinad<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Leinad>
> 87.4%
> (118/135) inexperience.
> Dorgan<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Dorgan>
> 84.4%
> (114/135) inexperience.
> Alexanderps<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Alexanderps>
> 81.7%
> (98/120) too much access.
> putnik<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/putnik>
> 78.9%
> (120/152) inexperience, unanswered questions, dispute on ruwiki.
> Mardetanha<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mardetanha>
> 78.7%
> (159/202) disputes on fawiki, fear that Iranian government will gain his
> access under torture.
> Fabexplosive<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Fabexplosive>
> 77.7%
> (87/112) unanswered questions, dispute on
> lmowiki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Analysis_of_the_Fabexplosive.27s_election>,
> allegedly executes tasks without understanding them.
> Jredmond<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Jredmond>
> 77.6%
> (52/67) inexperience, too much access, unanswered questions (later
> answered). Avraham<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Avraham>
> 74.5%
> (102/137) inexperience, limited language skills.
> SpeedyGonsales<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/SpeedyGonsales>
> 70%
> (70/100) inexperience, misunderstanding of steward role, disputes on
> hrwiki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Croatian_Wikipedia_-_User:Dalibor_Bosits_case>
> . Mywood<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mywood>
> 65.6%
> (42/64) inexperience, copyright issues with uploads.
> PhiLiP<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/PhiLiP>
> 64.9%
> (48/74) inexperience, copyright issues with uploads, fear that Chinese
> government will gain his access under torture.
> EVula<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/EVula>
> 54.6%
> (65/119) inexperience, too much access, limited language skills, appearance
> of incivility, dispute on simplewikiquote.
> avjoska<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/avjoska>
> 37.7%
> (29/77) inexperience, intent of inactivity as a steward.
> Fadesga<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Fadesga>
> 27.6%
> (16/58) inexperience, no steward goals, unanswered questions. Al
> Lemos<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Al_Lemos>
> 24.3%
> (27/111) inexperience, misunderstanding of steward role.
> Pasquale<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Pasquale>
> 15.7%
> (8/51) inexperience, misunderstanding of steward role, unanswered questions,
> little activity.
> Apteva<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Apteva>
> 2%
> (2/99) inexperience, prior block, lack of steward goals, misunderstanding of
> steward role, little activity.
> Loco085<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Loco085>
> 64.6%
> (42/65) *withdrawn*; inexperience, unanswered questions.
> Cometstyles<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Cometstyles>
> 59.8%
> (76/127) *withdrawn*; alleged abuse of OTRS access, checkuser requests with
> insufficient reason.
> Orderinchaos<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Orderinchaos>
> 26.5%
> (13/49) *withdrawn*; inexperience, limited language skills. Chase me
> ladies, I'm the
> Cavalry<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Chase_me_ladies,_I%27m_the_Cavalry>
> — *disqualified*; not identified.
> Drakesketchit<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Drakesketchit>
> — *disqualified*; not identified.
> Fipplet<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Fipplet>
> — *disqualified*; not identified.
> Jagwar<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Jagwar>
> — *disqualified*; not identified.
> Wykypydya<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Wykypydya>
> — *disqualified*; not identified, not linked to an account meeting account
> requirements<http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?event=3&wiki=metawiki_p&user=Wykypydya>
> .
>
>
> Confirmation
>
> Unique participants: 149.
> This table only shows overall tendency. The final results are determined by
> discussing the arguments, not counting votes.
> steward support ratio
> (approximate) oppose reasons
> Spacebirdy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Spacebirdy>
> 100%
> (50/50) — DerHexer<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/DerHexer>
> 100%
> (41/41) — Lar <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Lar> 100%
> (40/40) — Drini<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Drini>
> 100%
> (38/38) — Pathoschild<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Pathoschild>
> 100%
> (35/35) — Bastique<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Bastique>
> 100%
> (33/33) — guillom<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/guillom>
> 100%
> (31/31) — Darkoneko<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Darkoneko>
> 100%
> (30/30) — Jon Harald
> Søby<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by>
> 100%
> (27/27) — M7 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/M7> 100%
> (27/27) — Shanel<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Shanel>
> 100%
> (26/26) — Angela<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Angela>
> 100%
> (22/22) — Effeietsanders<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Effeietsanders>
> 100%
> (19/19) — Thogo<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Thogo>
> 97.4%
> (38/39) — Dungodung<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Dungodung>
> 96.9%
> (31/32) — Nick1915<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Nick1915>
> 95.2%
> (20/21) — Andre
> Engels<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Andre_Engels>
> 95%
> (19/20) no statement.
> Anthere<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Anthere>
> 95%
> (19/20) inactivity.
> Wpedzich<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Wpedzich>
> 94.1%
> (16/17) usurped account on
> kowiki<http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%8A%B9%EC%88%98%EA%B8%B0%EB%8A%A5:%EA%B8%B0%EB%A1%9D?type=renameuser&user=wpedzich>
> . Millosh <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Millosh> 92.9%
> (13/14) exclusion of en-Wikipedians from Global sysop proposal
> vote<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_sysops/3rd_proposal&diff=1046720>
> . Rdsmith4 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Rdsmith4>
> 89.5%
> (17/19) — Mav <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Mav> 77.8%
> (14/18) inactivity.
> Oscar<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Oscar>
> 68.4%
> (13/19) inactivity.
> Walter<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Walter>
> 63.2%
> (12/19) inactivity.
> Yann<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Yann> 62.5%
> (10/16) inactivity, frwiki dispute, no statement (later added).
> Redux<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Redux>
> 54.5%
> (6/11) inactivity.
> Jusjih<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Jusjih>
> 50%
> (8/16) inactivity, violation of steward
> policies<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies>,
> too much access.
> Zirland<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Zirland>
> 50%
> (8/16) inactivity. Jimbo
> Wales<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Jimbo_Wales>
> 42.5%
> (17/40) inactivity, should have
> 'staff<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsers/Staff>'
> flag instead. Cspurrier<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Cspurrier>
> 21.4%
> (3/14) inactivity.
> Dbl2010<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Dbl2010>
> 8.3%
> (1/12) inactivity.
> Sj<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Sj> 7.1%
> (1/14) inactivity, no statement.
> .anaconda<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/.anaconda>
> 0%
> (0/9) *resigned*; inactivity, no statement.
> Paginazero<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Paginazero>
> 12.5%
> (1/8) *resigned*; inactivity.
> Shizhao<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Shizhao>
> 0%
> (0/2) *removed* (was appointed as
> ombudsman<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission>);
> violation of steward policies<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies>
> .
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 12:04 PM

Post #4 of 46 (3382 views)

majorly.wiki at googlemail

Robert Rohde wrote:
> Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that
> Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from
> people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in
> Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest and
> torture him for his access, or that he might otherwise feel compelled
> to co-operate with them.
>
> Similar concerns were also voiced about a Chinese candidate, but that
> candidate already has significant opposition for other reasons, and so
> the political comments do not seem to be a major factor.
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mardetanha
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 12:06 PM

Post #5 of 46 (3367 views)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:

> I dislike this argument very much...

You were expecting good arguments? :)

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

nawrich at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 12:10 PM

Post #6 of 46 (3376 views)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki@googlemail.com>wrote:

>
> You were expecting good arguments? :)
>
> -

On meta elections? Not me.

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 12:20 PM

Post #7 of 46 (3372 views)

2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.

True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.

> So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
> to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
> principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.

Good faith is one thing but we also assume the person we are dealing
with is human. Realistically the Iranian government is able to put
enough ah pressure on it's citizens to arrange for them to cooperate
(this is true for most governments). It is also the case that the
Iranian government is more likely to do so in a problematical manner
than western governments.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

thomas.dalton at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 12:58 PM

Post #8 of 46 (3373 views)

2009/2/9 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>
> True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.
>
>> So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
>> to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
>> principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.
>
> Good faith is one thing but we also assume the person we are dealing
> with is human. Realistically the Iranian government is able to put
> enough ah pressure on it's citizens to arrange for them to cooperate
> (this is true for most governments). It is also the case that the
> Iranian government is more likely to do so in a problematical manner
> than western governments.

I agree, but it's pretty unlikely. And even if they do, stewards
aren't *that* powerful. I'm not really sure what they would do. A
vandal getting steward access could cause a hell of a mess, but why
would Iran want to do that? They can't shut us down or censor us with
just a steward account.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

zvandijk at googlemail

Feb 9, 2009, 1:06 PM

Post #9 of 46 (3365 views)

If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
Ziko

2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> Robert Rohde wrote:
> > Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that
> > Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from
> > people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in
> > Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest and
> > torture him for his access, or that he might otherwise feel compelled
> > to co-operate with them.
> >
> > Similar concerns were also voiced about a Chinese candidate, but that
> > candidate already has significant opposition for other reasons, and so
> > the political comments do not seem to be a major factor.
> >
> > [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Mardetanha
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> >
> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
> So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
> to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
> principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 1:13 PM

Post #10 of 46 (3369 views)

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 1:18 PM

Post #11 of 46 (3371 views)

geni schrieb:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>
>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>>
>
> True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.
>
>
>> So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
>> to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
>> principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.
>>
>
> Good faith is one thing but we also assume the person we are dealing
> with is human. Realistically the Iranian government is able to put
> enough ah pressure on it's citizens to arrange for them to cooperate
> (this is true for most governments). It is also the case that the
> Iranian government is more likely to do so in a problematical manner
> than western governments.
>
>
Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 1:19 PM

Post #12 of 46 (3367 views)

geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>:
>
>> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
>> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
>> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
>> Ziko
>>
>
> Thats the danger for a western government. In the case of the Iranian
> one I doubt it would be too worried.
>
>
>

If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

polimerek at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 1:23 PM

Post #13 of 46 (3370 views)

2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>:
> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.

The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
and secret services of democratic countries also use to force their
citizens (and other countries citizens as well) to reveal various
information, so we can use this argument against almost any country.
Maybe global checkuser function should be given to Wikimedia Office?
(Like Wikimedia Office actions function?)

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

zvandijk at googlemail

Feb 9, 2009, 1:35 PM

Post #14 of 46 (3375 views)

>
> > 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>:
> >
> >> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
> >> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward
> to do
> >> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
> >> Ziko
>
> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.
>
> Ting
>

I see now that my statement can be misunderstood. Yes, Ting, that's what I
mean, it would not be a good idea of a dictatorship to try to have influence
on Wikipedia this way. Therefore I don't see a problem to have a steward
from such a country, unless they are all from the same.
Kind regards
Ziko

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 1:41 PM

Post #15 of 46 (3373 views)

2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>
> Ting

Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
assassination the citizen of another country for example).

The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

pathoschild at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 1:44 PM

Post #16 of 46 (3371 views)

Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I would suggest that the "current tendency to remove 14 current
> stewards" is inaccurate--firstly, the retention requirement should not
> be the same as to pass initially, and this chart uses a 78% percentage
> to pass in both cases, whereas a 50% tendency should be sufficient for
> steward reconfirmation.

Hello Cary,

The confirmations are not decided by support ratio at all, but by the
steward community as a whole considering the arguments. What I meant
by "the current tendency" is the overall opinion of voters, not the
likely result. This wasn't very clear, as someone else already pointed
out; I'll reword it in the second-week summary.

The chart colours are accurate for the elections, but only indicative
for the confirmations (this is explicitly mentioned above the
confirmation table).

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 9, 2009, 1:46 PM

Post #17 of 46 (3361 views)

2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek@gmail.com>:
> The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
> they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
> police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
> and secret services of democratic countries also use to force their
> citizens (and other countries citizens as well) to reveal various
> information, so we can use this argument against almost any country.
> Maybe global checkuser function should be given to Wikimedia Office?
> (Like Wikimedia Office actions function?)

For a western government the cost of the PR mess is unlikely to
outweigh any benefits. There are also various other issues that mean
that such interference is unlikely (the CIA legally can't touch
wikipedia since it is US based and I doubt any other intelligence
agency wants to annoy the US).

So any attack from western countries is going to have to come through
fairly open legal means. Court orders and the like. Court orders tend
to be public which gives us a chance to react before the problem
rather than after.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

oscar.wiki at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 2:28 PM

Post #18 of 46 (3379 views)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:

> geni wrote:
>
>
> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.
>
>
yes indeed.
if i remember correctly it was in 2005 that i removed as a steward someone's
adminbit because it was being 'marketed' (and he was possibly waiting for
the highest bid or it would have been sold already?), but this luckily
became known very soon and before any harm had occurred.

oscar

--
*edito ergo sum*

www.oscarvandillen.com

******************
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
******************
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

oscar.wiki at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 2:29 PM

Post #19 of 46 (3371 views)

sorry this was ting not geni i quoted...

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM, oscar van dillen <oscar.wiki@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
>> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.
>>
>>
> yes indeed.
> if i remember correctly it was in 2005 that i removed as a steward
> someone's adminbit because it was being 'marketed' (and he was possibly
> waiting for the highest bid or it would have been sold already?), but this
> luckily became known very soon and before any harm had occurred.
>
> oscar
>
> --
> *edito ergo sum*
>
> www.oscarvandillen.com
>
> ******************
> The information contained in this message is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If
> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> ******************
>

--
*edito ergo sum*

www.oscarvandillen.com

******************
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
******************
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

jayvdb at gmail

Feb 9, 2009, 3:42 PM

Post #20 of 46 (3361 views)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/9 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
>> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>>
>> True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.
>>
>>> So long as the person doesn't handle against the rule there is no reason
>>> to assume that he would do that. Keep a good faith is one of the
>>> principles of how Wikimedians should meet each other.
>>
>> Good faith is one thing but we also assume the person we are dealing
>> with is human. Realistically the Iranian government is able to put
>> enough ah pressure on it's citizens to arrange for them to cooperate
>> (this is true for most governments). It is also the case that the
>> Iranian government is more likely to do so in a problematical manner
>> than western governments.
>
> I agree, but it's pretty unlikely. And even if they do, stewards
> aren't *that* powerful. I'm not really sure what they would do. A
> vandal getting steward access could cause a hell of a mess, but why
> would Iran want to do that? They can't shut us down or censor us with
> just a steward account.

It is also not useful for Iran, as Mardetanha has declared that they
will not use the tools in any situation that Iran is likely to be
interested in.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mardetanha/recusal

The candidate has *asked* that the steward flag be removed if the
account breaks those simple rules. In most of these rules, breaking
the rules will be immediately spotted before any CU could be run.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

Feb 10, 2009, 12:20 AM

Post #21 of 46 (3361 views)

geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>
>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>
> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
>
> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
>
>
That's not the point we are talking about here. There are absolutely no
data to rectify that the Iranian gouvenment would force a Wikimedia
Steward to leak personal privacies of other Wikimedians. That's the point.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

putevod at mccme

Feb 10, 2009, 12:20 AM

Post #22 of 46 (3356 views)

> For a western government the cost of the PR mess is unlikely to
> outweigh any benefits. There are also various other issues that mean
> that such interference is unlikely (the CIA legally can't touch
> wikipedia since it is US based and I doubt any other intelligence
> agency wants to annoy the US).
>
> So any attack from western countries is going to have to come through
> fairly open legal means. Court orders and the like. Court orders tend
> to be public which gives us a chance to react before the problem
> rather than after.
>

Actually, I am not sure how this interference could look like. Removing
unsourced material? Well, everybody can remove unsourced material, I am
doing it on a daily basis. Removing sourced material? This will be
reverted within minutes. I only see access to confidential information and
subsequenct publication of this information as a potential threat. But
then I guess there alre already checkusers on fa.wp?

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

millosh at gmail

Feb 10, 2009, 12:30 AM

Post #23 of 46 (3357 views)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
> But then I guess there alre already checkusers on fa.wp?

Nope. Candidates were not able to get enough support; which has much
more with the situation in the community than with anything else. At
fa.wp candidates very rarely pass RfAs and RfBs. They have just 8
admins (with more than 100.000 registered users and with more than
1200 active users) and two bureaucrats. Comparably similar Norwegian
Wikipedia (more than 100.000 registered users and more than 2500
active users) have 66 admins.

But, as John mentioned already, Mardetanha declared that he won't do
CU at projects which have significant number of contributors from Iran
(Persian, Azerbaijani, Kurdish and some smaller projects in Iranian
languages).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

mido.architect at gmail

Feb 10, 2009, 12:44 AM

Post #24 of 46 (3357 views)

it doesn't make any sense that one could think of such a reason to oppose.if
you trust his abilities and good reasoning, give him the extra tools to help
as he's willing to do so.
Also, he promised he won't do checkuser in Iranian projects which is the
most critical power to misuse.
this is a global project, you can't justify everything from only your
perspective.

Mido

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:20, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:

> geni wrote:
> > 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
> >
> >> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
> >> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
> >> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
> >>
> >> Ting
> >>
> >
> > Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> > record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> > assassination the citizen of another country for example).
> >
> > The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> > threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> > annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
> >
> >
> That's not the point we are talking about here. There are absolutely no
> data to rectify that the Iranian gouvenment would force a Wikimedia
> Steward to leak personal privacies of other Wikimedians. That's the point.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
- Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/ "Share your knowledge"
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one [ In reply to ]

shipmaster at gmail

Feb 10, 2009, 2:26 AM

Post #25 of 46 (3341 views)