Latest comment: 4 years ago by RadiX in topic Final decisions (by stewards)
Main page Stewards (2019 confirmation) talk page

This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2019 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards) Edit

Confirmation discussions will remain open till 7 March. This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).

This page is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward.

Stewards: Please leave your comments right below the boxes after reviewing the actual confirmation comments and your understanding of relevant policies. You may summarize the confirmation discussions in individual comments, but no overall summary is given.

Status Candidate Notes
-revi clear consensus to confirm
Ajraddatz clear consensus to confirm
Bsadowski1 clear consensus to confirm
Defender clear consensus to confirm
DerHexer clear consensus to confirm
Green Giant clear consensus to confirm
HakanIST clear consensus to confirm
Hoo man clear consensus to confirm
Jyothis clear consensus to confirm
Linedwell clear consensus to confirm
MBisanz did not run for confirmation
MF-Warburg did not run for confirmation
MarcoAurelio clear consensus to confirm
Mardetanha clear consensus to confirm
Masti clear consensus to confirm
Matanya clear consensus to confirm
Matiia clear consensus to confirm
Melos clear consensus to confirm
Mentifisto no consensus to confirm
NahidSultan clear consensus to confirm
Pmlineditor clear consensus to confirm
QuiteUnusual clear consensus to confirm
RadiX clear consensus to confirm
Ruslik0 clear consensus to confirm
Rxy clear consensus to confirm
Shanmugamp7 clear consensus to confirm
Sjoerddebruin clear consensus to confirm
Stryn clear consensus to confirm
Tegel clear consensus to confirm
Teles clear consensus to confirm
There'sNoTime clear consensus to confirm
Trijnstel clear consensus to confirm
Vituzzu clear consensus to confirm
علاء clear consensus to confirm

Regards, RadiX 00:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-revi Edit

Ajraddatz Edit

Bsadowski1 Edit

Defender Edit

DerHexer Edit

Green Giant Edit

HakanIST Edit

Hoo man Edit

Jyothis Edit

Linedwell Edit

MarcoAurelio Edit

Mardetanha Edit

Masti Edit

Matanya Edit

Matiia Edit

Melos Edit

Mentifisto Edit

May I please state something here? Not sure how 'conventional' it is to have some sort of sub-statement here again post-reconfirmations, but I think in this case and specific context it may be appropriate (hope no one minds the placement of this, either, but I suppose it would be more awkward below making it seem like I'm opining on my own section). I'm assuming most below already know of this due to a thread on the mailing list, despite being responded to by only an individual (and another on another medium), but I think for the sake of transparency and basic consistency with a consensus on most wikis' guidelines when it comes to community processes, this I think needs to be public, although at minimal detail, since I do not wish to possibly infringe upon privacy or continue this 'drama' unnecessarily further (I certainly did not desire for it to end up at this point, I merely wanted to inquire upon the logic, as I did on the main page itself, to further my understanding and implement such in the future).

Well, first of all I do accept this outcome, it's clearly the majority opinion, and I will, as mentioned, rectify concerns by simply being evidently active, more so than before, although for other issues (like whether to lock spambots with no edits) I hope there can be discussions at large, as, surely, it should be agreed upon by a majority and the result implemented by all then, whichever that may be (surely it would make no sense for only an individual to do this). But, there was one other problem in the background that so far had remained in the shadows... as mentioned, I merely wish to give this some air, not worsen any situation, although I do think, as most wikis have had established guidelines when it comes to community processes, as mentioned, this goes beyond 'canvassing' it seems to me, although as initially stated I do not suppose this affected the overall outcome that much, and as such the process is still valid, but...

It seemed to me what happened was more like a different kind of 'canvassing' (and, it was stated, only when it concerned a single individual, although that inherently cannot be verified, but I haven't noticed otherwise)... so, for some reason an individual who I had chatted with (to understand their logic as stated before, just as with my many replies on the primary page, as otherwise I cannot hope to rectify any concerns if I happen to misunderstand)... went to a different individual with an opposite opinion of their own, and, ultimately, convinced them to withdraw it (or, coerced, but I really do not know what the mechanism of such was, please do not misinterpret anything here as a statement of absolute certainty, except when it concerns this exchange and 'canvassing', which the initial individual admitted to with at least two other stewards) by using something hypothetical which later they seemed to not want to use as a reason. Nevertheless, this was effective.

This, as mentioned, in all likelihood did not change the outcome at all, but I think it is fundamentally unfair that someone can opine, but another convinced not to. I did admit to issues concerning inactivity (which I hope I am and will rectify as previously stated), but am not sure why someone would go to such lengths to convince someone of an opposite opinion to not opine. I think it is only fair if everyone, whatever their opinion, gets to share it.

So, in conclusion, I hope, going forward, community processes are done fairly especially when it concerns opposing opinions. I think people can communicate with each other, but not seemingly 'coerce' them to withdraw different 'votes' (or 'rationales'). Otherwise, community processes may appear to be 'compromised', however many people are affected. -- Mentifisto 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Remove - I appreciate that most of the work you've done during the confirmations has been positive, but there is consensus to remove here for long-term inactivity and the consequences of that. My primary concern is the quantity and quality of your responses on the confirmation page. You've been on Wikimedia for a decade; you should know how inappropriate it is to respond to more than one or two comments expressing the same concerns on your own confirmation. Responding with textwalls under the guise of clarifying or asking questions, especially when you apparently ignore the core points being made by the commenters, only serves to bludgeon the discussion and likely drew far more opposition to your confirmation than inactivity alone would have. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove, saldy. Too much concerns about both the activity and the behavior shown on the confirmation process. Matiia (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove, clear consensus + diva behaviour during the present confirmation. Linedwell [talk] 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove. No consensus to confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove Failed to retain the confidence of the community due to numerous outstanding concerns. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove, with regret. There is clear community consensus to remove on the basis of severe lack of activity during many years, consequences related to such lack of activity and the behavior manifested on the present confirmation process. With that being said, I do appreciate the positive work they have done so far and would surely support them in a future SE, should they remain active and reapply for stewardship. Defender (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove due to (1) Mentifisto's heavily responses on the confirmation page (2) long-term inactivity, but also   weak keep due to Mentifisto's good work during the confirmations --Alaa :)..! 13:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove, einsbor talk 13:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove, as the clear judgement of the community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Largely per علاء,   Remove. Make sure to come back. --Base (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove Unfortunately, the consensus from the community is clear, and the concerns raised are valid. The reaction during the confirmation was also very concerning for me. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove with a regret. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove with regret but no prejudice to returning in the future. Thank you for your past contributions. Green Giant (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sadly   Remove, this is the community request. Matanya (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove No consensus for confirmation.--HakanIST (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Remove No clear consensus. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NahidSultan Edit

Pmlineditor Edit

QuiteUnusual Edit

RadiX Edit

Ruslik0 Edit

Rxy Edit

Shanmugamp7 Edit

Sjoerddebruin Edit