Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2015

Statement creation

Stewards should create the statements. To aid them in this matter, feel free to use the preload below:

A question for all current stewards

• Rather than asking repeatedly in each steward's section, I feel this is a good opportunity to ask a question that affects stewardry and I have already posted the same question for all the candidates. We have two types of global bans of which the WMF type is mean't to supplement the community type. Recently, there has been an upsurge of WMF bans, with six carried out since December 2014, at least some of which have caused concern and heated debate in certain corners of the Wikiverse. In comparison, the WMF banned one person before December 2014 (in March 2012) and the community process has also banned one person ever, as well as three unsuccesful proposals. The community-banned person has also been banned again by the WMF, which seems quite odd. Bearing in mind that there have also been other "tensions" between the WMF and the wikis over the previous year, including the "super-protect" issue, my question to you all is as follows:

• If re-confirmed, would you support greater transparency in the global banning process, and in particular would you support greater involvement of stewards, as trusted community representatives, in future global bans by the WMF? Green Giant (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly do you mean by greater involvement? Should stewards be "officially consulted" by the Foundation before someone is banned? --MF-W 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• This is potentially, I think, a community issue... the WMF doesn't usually consult anyone except its legal department (for the couple I've seen, at least)... and so, just like with the recent conflict with dewiki, I think the community generally should really discuss this... -- Mentifisto 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• While always welcoming consultation where it is possible, I don't believe that the WMF will agree to any further consultation. I'm also not sure how much would be achieved if your proposal was accepted by the WMF. Sure they could consult with the Stewards, but then the Stewards couldn't inform the communities about what had happened or why. So all that would change would be we'd be telling you it was "for a good reason" instead of the WMF saying it. I'm not sure that's an improvement and could place the Stewards in conflict with the communities which isn't our role. For small communities that may struggle to be heard then I'm more than happy to share those concerns with the WMF although a Meta RFC is probably just as effective and certainly more transparent. I single out the smaller projects because the bigger projects - en.wiki, de.wiki, Commons, etc. - already have an on-going active discussion with the WMF team. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've expressed my opinion on the list, and I can repeat it here that I support transparency, as well as some form of community control over WMF bans. This control could be exerted by stewards, but also by the community representatives in the Board. I definitely understand that the need for transparency cannot mean that in all cases the reasons are publicly revealed, but I think there should be control from trusted users, such as the Board members and the stewards (and I believe that it should be ok if they confirm the "good reasons" from the WMF, I somewhat disagree with QuiteUnusual in this respect). Pundit (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Pundit that a community-elected group could double-check such actions but as they would have to sign NDA's for that purpose, I doubt that this would increase transparency much. We might trust such volunteers more than some of us do with the WMF (due to the superprotect fiasco and similar events) but that would not solve the problem in the end. I've talked to WMF staff members in this regard and they promised me to increase transparency for WMF global bans as much as possible without doing harm to the projects, the WMF, or the banned people themselves. And I still do hope that they are going to stick by the word. Stewards at least are not involved in the decision-making or review process of WMF global bans and I don't think that they should be as this would be more adequate to a global ArbCom-like body and not to a technical-related user group whose aim it is to implement community consensus. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. Given the controversy the recent bans have generated, I could only see one way through and that would be for greater community involvement in bans. My first inclination was that stewards are a possibility based on the level of trust and access as well as identification. However, I am convinced by the suggestion that this should be handled by a separate body. Just to be clear, I'm not looking for public disclosures of sensitive information - just that it would be more reassuring if there were community representatives involved in the process. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ombudspersons

I must say I'm a bit surprised by those votes against Ombudsman commission members: I don't know how to react. It's sad that some community members feel this is their only chance to express their opinions on the operation of the OC. IMHO, at a minimum the stewards in question should be allowed (if they want) to temporarily resign/suspend their steward flag and get it back whenever they want/they stop being ombuds. --Nemo 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's been practice until the WMF changed the rules and allowed stewards to become OC members without resigning their steward role. Vogone (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a problem with rules/WMF rather then stewards involved. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is the steward's own decision to seek confirmation while being on the OC. Vogone (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, stewards who become OC members should still be able to handle this situation like it was done before the Foundation changed the rule, i.e. get confirmed and then nevertheless cease to be a steward while an OC member for a year, then regain steward rights without a further confirmation, as you were confirmed in the year before (based on your actions as a steward when you could still make them). Sadly, noone has ever tried this, though I see no rason why it shouldn't be possible anymore. --MF-W 23:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nemo, I totally agree with you that expressing views on general procedures/rules should be separated from particular personal votes. As a former ombudsperson, I don't have a strong opinion on combining it with stewardship (I don't think it is a practical problem of any sort, as in the rare cases when stewards would be under investigation, a given person can exclude themselves). Suspension of a flag is also a reasonable solution. All in all, I would not vote against anyone just to express the dissatisfaction with the current solution, introduced by WMF. Pundit (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An OC member will always have to step back from a case when there is any kind of reason that may harm their neutral judgement. That may happen to non-stewards and non-checkusers too. Being a steward when a steward is being investigated is just one of these reasons.
We should take into consideration the benefit of having a steward on the group.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason a single user shouldn't hold multiple advanced permissions as long as they demonstrate they can recuse themselves in any situation where they are involved. It wouldn't be difficult to get caught out if someone did the opposite. I think some people think of separation of powers but that does not necessarily translate to an online community. In fact, I think there is a strong case for more people to apply for advanced permissions, so that we avoid the impression of cabalism. Green Giant (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about some random advanced permission, but about a seat in an investigative WMF committee. If I had a complaint about a current commissioner who still has an active steward/CU/OS role, I would feel extremely uncomfortable submitting such a complaint to a committee where the user I complain about still has a seat … Vogone (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Advanced permissions aren't really random, allocated as they are by at least a portion of the community. I don't see much difference between a steward-ombudsperson and some of the current ombudspeople who are also CU on other projects e.g. Alhen (ES-WP), Avraham (EN-WP but also a steward), Barras (Simple and Meta but also a steward) and PhilKnight (EN-WP). Not that I'm implying they have done so, but what happens if one of them is accused of violating the privacy policy as a CU particular wiki? Obviously they are going to step back to avoid influencing the subsequent investigation and I would expect the same would happen for steward-ombudspeople. Green Giant (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no difference, and that is why I would not support a CU/OS on my homewikis if they applied during their OC terms. Also local CU/OS rights were prohibited by the WMF until 2 (3?) years ago. Vogone (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmations - closing discussion for stewards

This section is for Steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a Steward. Other community members, please discuss in a separate section.

After considering the comments and discussions, the Election Committee has come up with the following results on the annual re-confirmation of existing Stewards. All Stewards are welcome to comment on the proposed results below.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Mathonius (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User	Confirmed?	Tally	Notes
Ajraddatz	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
Avraham	yes	3/0/2/0	Concerns about dual Ombudsman-Steward role and low level of (visible) activity, but no consensus to remove
Barras	yes	4/0/1/0	Concerns about dual Ombudsman-Steward role and an issue relating to global renamers, but no consensus to remove
Bencmq	resigned		Resigned
Bennylin	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
billinghurst	yes	4/0/1/0	A few concerns, but no apparent policy breach and arguments have been countered by supporters, consensus to confirm
Bsadowski1	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
DerHexer	yes	3/0/0/2	Nihil obstat
Elfix	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Hoo man	yes	4/0/0/1	Clear consensus to confirm, no concerns related to Steward's work
Jyothis	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
M7	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm, no concerns related to Steward's work
Mardetanha	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
matanya	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Mathonius	yes	4/0/0/1	Nihil obstat
MBisanz	yes	5/0/0/0	A few concerns about level of activity in areas other than global renaming, but a clear consensus to confirm
Melos	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
Mentifisto	yes	5/0/0/0	Concerns about low level of activity, but no consensus to remove
MF-Warburg	yes	4/0/0/1	Nihil obstat
Pundit	yes	4/0/0/1	A few concerns about low level of (visible) activity, but a clear consensus to confirm
Quentinv57	resigned		Resigned
QuiteUnusual	yes	4/0/0/1	Nihil obstat
Rschen7754	resigned		Resigned
Ruslik0	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Savh	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Shanmugamp7	yes	5/0/0/0	Concerns about Steward's role in the removal of someone's sysop rights, but a clear consensus to confirm
Shizhao	no	0/5/0/0	Consensus to remove, because of low levels of activity, home wiki issues relating to Steward's work and the temporary lack of a confirmation statement; clearly canvassed comments were discounted
Snowolf	yes	2/1/1/1	Concerns about involvement in last year's ElectCom, an issue relating to global renamers and communication issues, but no consensus to remove
SPQRobin	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Tegel	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
Teles	yes	5/0/0/0	Nihil obstat
Trijnstel	yes	5/0/0/0	Clear consensus to confirm
Vituzzu	yes	5/0/0/0	Consensus to confirm
Wikitanvir	affected by inactivity policy before the proposed outcome was made		Steward permissions removed on 3 March 2015 following inactivity clause of Stewards policy

Comments

Stewards (including those who are newly-elected) may express their questions, concerns or agreement to the results below.

• I support this outcome. Matanya (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support and special thanks to the ElectCom members for their time. Elfix 08:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree the results. --Stryn (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ok for me. My I add a "thank you" to those who go, a "keep up" to fellow stewards and a warm "welcome" to those new or somewhat new! --M/ (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that the results reflect community consensus. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support einsbor _talk 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support kudos for performing this ungrateful task. Pundit (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support, and thanks to those whose term as a Steward has ended for their work over many years. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the results. Taketa (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the results provided here, however, I wish note a few things anyway. Firstly, while I agree with the general outcome, I do not actually understand the provided tally for all stewards. Secondly, Wikitanvir is listed as not confirmed but removed due to policy issues (inactivity). In my view, it's a huge difference whether a steward is removed for an inactivity policy we have or because of the community's consensus of the confirmation process. I think that should be clarified in this case. Furthermore, I've to say, that I've the feeling that this whole confirmation process is totally broken. I would like to see a discussion to change the process, which is really needed in my opinion. Last but not least, I'd like to thank all stewards and especially those who volunteered this time to do the rather unthankfully work of the ElectCom. Best, -Barras talk 11:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. Is your first comment related to the general composition of the tally (which is keep/remove/neutral/recuse, just to clarify) or its specific content (for example, why did one ElectCom member recuse himself somewhere)? With regard to your second comment, do you think leaving the result section blank by putting "result=" instead of "result=no" would deal with this matter sufficiently? Mathonius (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • My first comment is of specific nature which may does not need wider public discussion as the outcome in general looks justified (which doesn't related to ElectCom members to recuse from themselves). As for the second part, that might work. I don't know what the best solution might be, but I feel that the current statement, which suggests he failed the confirmation is not accurate there is a difference between failing the confirmation and being removed per policy as inactive. Whatever works best to actually reflect the situation is ok for me. -Barras talk 12:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • FYI, last year, in case of Wpedzich who resigned after SE but before results were published, he just was marked as "result=yes". Vogone (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I added something wordy there which now makes the table look bad. --MF-W 19:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Well done. The look isn't as important as the info, imo. -Barras talk 11:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposed outcome, however I also share Barras' concerns over this confirmation process and will support a discussion as to change it for future elections. I would also like to thank all ElectCom members for all the huge job, often thankless, they've done to get this elections and confirmations run, and wish all the resigning and removed stewards the best of luck in their futures. Best regards. -- M\A 12:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Fine by me. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Nicely done ElectCom. I agree with the results. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposed outcome (with my thanks to the ElectCom). Furthermore, I would also support a different confirmation process (with the appropriate talks of course, so per Barras and MarcoAurelio). Trijnstel_talk 16:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposed outcome as well. Many thanks to all those who participated in ensuring that this year's elections and confirmations ran smoothly and efficiently. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the results. -- Tegel _(Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wikitanvir's listing as "not confirmed". --Vituzzu (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --MF-W 19:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. I think this outcome is fair enough and reflects community consensus. Congrats to the ElectCom. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I believe the results reflect community consensus. --Rschen7754 05:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the results --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 07:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with the conclusions and support the recommendations. Thanks to the ElectCom for their efforts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with the proposed results. Disagree with the tally, which I do not find appropiately representative. The confirmation process certainly requires improvement. With regard to this confirmation, I believe the results reflect the consensus of the community. Thank you, however, dear ElectCom for bringing this together. Savh^ñ 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response, Savh. Do you mean that the tally isn't appropriately representative of the community consensus? If that's the case, then I agree. In my opinion, it's supposed to just represent the various ideas of the ElectCom members regarding the community consensus, which might be different from the actual consensus. Mathonius (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I believe the electcom distribution to be irrelevant as long as the proposed outcome is consensuated, as it isn't the call of the electcom but only a proposal for outcome. I don't believe it has any added value in its current form, as a secretive number with no meaning at all. Noting that in the first confirmations done through this system, this tally wasn't included. Surprisingly, it has been included ever since. I also believe that the provision of this tally contributed to the confusion last year. Savh^ñ 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support with sadness to see Shizhao removed, but hopefully he will reconsider how he behaves on Chinese Wikipedia.--Jusjih (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support and thanks to the ElectCom. MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Sad for Tanvir's removal, but I agree with the outcome.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Done The proposals were accepted and will be implemented. Thanks to everyone for giving opinions and comments. --MF-W 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)