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).

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

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:

You were expecting good arguments? :)

On meta elections? Not me.

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.

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

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

I would say the likelihood of him being the target of the Iranian govt is the same as him being kidnapped by some terror group and tortured for his access, which could happen in any country...

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Mido mido.architect@gmail.com wrote:

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

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.

And how this relate to the status of stewarship? Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew? or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e. not acceptable. Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any user using these should be blocked.

Yann

Hoi, There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in the American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal with this ?

The mistrust of Iran is as valid as the mistrust of the United States of America. How are we going to deal with this? Is it acceptable to allow for this kind of hostile notions? If it is acceptable, should we not deal with such arguments consistently and assess each country in the same way ? Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/12 geni geniice@gmail.com

2009/2/12 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:

...

And how this relate to the status of stewarship? Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew? or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e. not acceptable.

I wasn't aware that any of those were nation states

...

Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any user using these should be blocked.

Allegations? Allegations that the Iranian government is less likely to play nice than say the japanese one? Allegations that are candidates are human beings and therefore not entirely resistant to the kind of techniques the likes of the Iranian government can deploy.

-- geni

---

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

Hoi, When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus, this means that it is not only about simple majorities, Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru

...

Hoi, There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in the American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal with this ?

The mistrust of Iran is as valid as the mistrust of the United States of America. How are we going to deal with this? Is it acceptable to allow

for

...

this kind of hostile notions? If it is acceptable, should we not deal

with

...

such arguments consistently and assess each country in the same way ? Thanks, GerardM

Actually, I do not think this issue has any solution. Though I perfectly agree that the sentiment is unreasonable, the same users could just cast no-votes without motivating them, and get out just fine. It has of course more impact if one not just votes but also motivates his/her vote, but I am not sure in this case the motivations really played any role, it looks like users have already made up their minds.

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

Hoi, There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through consequences and accepting responisibility.

When people are brave enough to vote, it can be expected that they can argue their case as well. When they cannot, it is easy to argue that they do not get the intricacies of a situation. When only the position of people is known, the reason for such a position can be dramatically different. One reason to vote against is that the argument is not taken far enough an other reason is because the argument is taken too far.

Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru

...

Hoi, When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus, this means that it is not only about simple majorities, Thanks, GerardM

Hoi Gerrit,

I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions but are too shy of their English to express them.

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:

As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia pages should look like. Not when it is applied to rules that ensure that people in positions of responsibility, like Steward, have the trust of the populace.

Or as another way to look at it: Ignore All Rules has the important additional phrase to it, for example on the English Wikipedia (the original form) it says:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Before invoking IAR, one should look at the consequences. Is it in the good of the projects and the foundation to break the rule? I don't think that in this case it is. Yes, we might lose a potential good Steward because of it, but in my opinion the risk of losing people's trust in the Steward selection process weighs heavier.

I apologize for the typo in your name, I am apparently still asleep.

Cheers Yaroslav

...

Hoi, When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus, this means that it is not only about simple majorities, Thanks, GerardM

Hoi Gerrit,

I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions but are too shy of their English to express them.

Cheers Yaroslav

---

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

Hoi, There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However, when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable position is yours. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

...

...

Hoi, When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on

consensus,

...

...

this means that it is not only about simple majorities, Thanks, GerardM

I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions but are too shy of their English to express them.

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.

The most important points can often be made with very few words. That has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are seldom at a loss for words.

Ec

---

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

Hoi, It is easy to prevent such a perception. It is just by referring to the vote of someone else who provides the motivation you agree with. In this way you prevent an unfortunate perception and you are not being tediously repetitive.

The bottom line is that it is in your interest to guard your reputation by preventing your association with positions that are not acceptable.. to you. At the same time when unacceptable arguments are used, the person evaluating the vote and the arguments has to have a clue as to your intentions. When your motivation is valid but unknowable, you run the risk that your vote is ignored. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

...

Hoi, There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However, when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak

and

...

motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable position is yours. Thanks, GerardM

My comments were directed to both sides of the issue. I agree that the misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the tendency for being tediously repetitive.

Ec

...

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge

...

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

...

...

Hoi, When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on

consensus,

...

...

this means that it is not only about simple majorities, Thanks, GerardM

I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions but are too shy of their English to express them.

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.

The most important points can often be made with very few words. That has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are seldom at a loss for words.

Ec

---

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

Hoi, The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions everywhere.

It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects. Thanks, Gerard

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com

Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense to just hold such an opinion.

Mark

skype: node.ue

2009/2/12 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:

...

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.

And how this relate to the status of stewarship? Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew? or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e. not acceptable. Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any user using these should be blocked.

Yann

http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

---

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

Hoi, If people want to express themselves in a discriminatory way, they can do soelsewhere. When people vote against someone with the motivation that the person is black, then indeed we are better off without him. I am all in favour of freedom of expression, but this is not a debating club. Discriminatory opinions and practices are not acceptable and consequently votes expressing such opinions and practices are not acceptable either. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com

So we don't believe in freedom of expression?

When somebody in a position of authority abuses that power and discriminates, yes, their power should be removed and possibly they should be blocked. But in the case of someone saying "I vote no because this person is black", their vote should just be discounted. They are entitled to their opinion. skype: node.ue

2009/2/13 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:

...

Hoi, The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions everywhere.

It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects. Thanks, Gerard

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com

...

Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense to just hold such an opinion.

Mark

skype: node.ue

2009/2/12 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:

...

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.

And how this relate to the status of stewarship? Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew? or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e. not acceptable. Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and

any

...

...

...

user using these should be blocked.

Yann

http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

---

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

---

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

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.

...

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

sorry this was ting not geni i quoted...

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM, oscar van dillen oscar.wiki@gmail.comwrote:

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.

---

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.

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).