Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago by RadiX in topic Final decisions (by stewards)
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
   Confirmed
-revi clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Ajraddatz clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Bsadowski1 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Defender clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
DerHexer clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Green Giant clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
HakanIST clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Hoo man clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Jyothis clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Linedwell clear consensus to confirm
   Resigned
MBisanz did not run for confirmation
   Resigned
MF-Warburg did not run for confirmation
   Confirmed
MarcoAurelio clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Mardetanha clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Masti clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Matanya clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Matiia clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Melos clear consensus to confirm
   Removed
Mentifisto no consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
NahidSultan clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Pmlineditor clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
QuiteUnusual clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
RadiX clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Ruslik0 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Rxy clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Shanmugamp7 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Sjoerddebruin clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Stryn clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Tegel clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Teles clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
There'sNoTime clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Trijnstel clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Vituzzu clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
علاء clear consensus to confirm

Regards, RadiX 00:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)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

NahidSultan edit

Pmlineditor edit

QuiteUnusual edit

RadiX edit

Ruslik0 edit

Rxy edit

Shanmugamp7 edit

Sjoerddebruin edit

Stryn edit