Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024

< Talk:Stewards
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Martin Urbanec in topic Final decisions (by stewards)
Learn more about this page
This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2024 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards) edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Confirmation discussions will remain open from 29 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) till 7 March 2024, 14:00 (UTC). 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.

The summaries below provide a very strict overview of the most relevant confirmation comments.

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
 AmandaNP clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 AntiCompositeNumber clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Base clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Bsadowski1 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 DerHexer clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Elton clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 HakanIST clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Hasley clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Hoo man clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Jon Kolbert clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 MarcGarver clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Martin Urbanec clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Masti consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Mykola7 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 RadiX clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Sakretsu clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Schniggendiller clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Sotiale clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Stryn clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Superpes15 clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Tegel clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Teles clear consensus to confirm
   Resigned
 Tks4Fish Did not run for reconfirmation
   Confirmed
 Vermont clear consensus to confirm
   Removed
 Vituzzu clear consensus to remove
   Confirmed
 Wim b clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 Xaosflux clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
 علاء clear consensus to confirm
Results

The confirmations are now closed. Please check the results above.

For the Election Committee, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

AmandaNP edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 129 (good coordination of the steward clerks / good actions / professionalism and responsiveness / activity / cordial and patient / no concerns / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

AntiCompositeNumber edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 104 (activity / responsiveness / quickness / professionalism / helpful / tech knowledge / no comments)
  Remove: 1 (no comments)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Base edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 87 (good activity / useful contributions / helpful / no comments)
  Remove: 2 (no comments)
  Comment: 1 (Unconvincing reconfirmation statement)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bsadowski1 edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 85 (truly committed / no issue / great job / truly committed / active / no comments)
  Remove: 1 (Replying "o_o" to an IRC report)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

DerHexer edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 125 (excellent work / great steward / resolute / helpful communicator with WMF / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elton edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments14 people in discussion

  Keep: 60 (good work / no concerns / Thanks for commitment / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

HakanIST edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 68 (increased activity / helpful for SRG backlog / no reason to remove / good steward / no comments)
  Remove: 5 (not enough activity / no comments)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hasley edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 77 (good activity / great anti-LTA work / excellent work / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hoo man edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 51 (good anti-vandalism work / more activity is needed / good contributions / little help is helpfuf / no comments)
  Weak keep: 4 (more activity would be good)
  Remove: 12 (low contributions as steward / pointless steward / too inactive to justify the flag / minimal activity / no comments)
  Weak remove: 1 (more activity needed)
  Neutral: 3 (concerns about inactivity / not direct benefit from removing / no comments)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jon Kolbert edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 70 (brilliant with proxies / good work / great at clearing backlogs / no concerns / no comments)
  Remove: 1 (no comments)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

MarcGarver edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 41 (good activity / more activity would be good / no issue / no comments)
  Weak keep: 3 (more activity would be good)
  Remove: 1 (activity has not improved in the last year)
  Neutral: 1 (concerns about inactivity)
  Comment: 1 (Unconvincing reconfirmation statement)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Martin Urbanec edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 101 (worked with many Vietnamese users / One of the best and the most well-known stewards / talented steward / excellent technical knowledge / vandal fighting skills / no reason to remove after a single incident / helpful / active in every area / good work / valuable steward / no issues / no comments)
  Remove: 2 (applying different rules to different users as ElectCom / membership in the chapter board)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Masti edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 64 (good experiences / quick on IRC / good acting steward / isolate incidents / good work at locking LTAs / helps in many areas / strong expertise with LTAs / good job / no reason for removal / no comments)
  Weak keep: 3 (good work and helpful with quick actions on IRC but lack of response is concerning / should be more responsive)
  Remove: 20 (no response / needs to be more responsive / no reply to basic accountability questions / accountability is fundamental / non-responsive / no comments)
  Neutral: 11 (productive steward / lack of responses is a bit concerning / communication skills need improvement / should be more responsive / no comments)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mykola7 edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 94 (great first year as steward / no concerns / thanks / for sure / no comments)
  Remove: 3 (concerns about scrutineering and ElectCom / no comments)
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

RadiX edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 64 (no problems / good work / no concerns / Thanks / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sakretsu edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments14 people in discussion

  Keep: 78 (overall good work / great steward / capable of handling complex issues / single incident / no comment)
  Weak keep: 2 (one incident unsufficient to remove)
  Remove: 21 (locking Gitz6666 / loss of trust / failing to avoid COI / using steward tools on homewiki / no comment)
  Neutral: 5 (questioning Sakretsu's understanding of "home wiki" provisions in the Stewards policy / no comment)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Schniggendiller edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 67 (good anti-vandalism work / no concerns / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 1 (no comments)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sotiale edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 85 (work on SRCU / helpful / no concerns / great steward / needed / thanks / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stryn edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 75 (no concerns / no issues / thanks / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Superpes15 edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 110 (often processing SR(G)P / friendly / has some humour / no comment)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 1 (unacceptable comment on SRP)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tegel edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 73 (no concerns / hope can improve on communication / diligent and consistent / thanks / no comments)
  Weak keep: 1 (no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 2 (helpful and active steward but communication really needs improving / non-responsive)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Teles edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 71 (no concerns / good work / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 1 (no comments)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vermont edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 96 (valuable / brilliant / very professional attitude / friendly / great steward / no concerns / professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking / helpful and kind / great communication / skilled / no comments)
  Remove: 1 (concerns about a meta-wiki block)
  Neutral: 0
  Comment: 2 (concerns about handling of a WMF researchers request / concerns about opening a new RfC)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vituzzu edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments14 people in discussion

  Keep: 85 (valuable steward / no loss of trust / overall great work / responsive / no comment)
  strong keep: 1 (precious asset to Wikimedia projects)
  Weak keep: 1 (no comment)
  Remove: 47 (inappropriate response to critisism / inappropriate comments at Signpost / lost of trust in judgement / no comment)
  hard remove: 1 (doxing)
  weak remove: 1 (reinforcing a later-overturned global lock)
  Neutral: 3 (no comment)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, regretfully. Vituzzu's on-wiki comments in response to the Gitz6666 case, both on enwiki and on the confirm page, are not what we expect from stewards. This sentiment was voiced by many established contributors and multiple admins/functs on the confirm page, and my perspective basically aligns with Barkeep49's comment. It's important to remember that the audience of our on-wiki messaging about stewards' cases is as much uninvolved observers as it is the person we're replying to: getting heated in responses reflects poorly on the steward who made them, and stewards as a group. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove an sufficient consensus to keep has not emerged. — xaosflux Talk 23:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove No consensus to re-confirm. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, with regret. The community has spoken. While confirmations aren't the same as elections, the level of support is not sufficient to confirm. Huge +1 to what Vermont wrote as well. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove due to lack of consensus. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, with large regret. I've thought about this for a while, and while I would have personally kept Vituzzu, this is the community's decision and we can't ignore that. So, remove, but also a   Weak keep due to Vituzzu's good work throughout the years. EPIC (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Lack of consensus to re-confirm. ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove – A significant minority of the community feels that Vituzzu's responses in the Wikipedia Signpost discussion and their confirmation discussion were unbecoming of a Steward. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove with enormous regret. It's really a single issue, and shouldn't be sufficient to out-balance the years of effective work. But the community is the community and the level of support is too low to reconfirm. Sorry. MarcGarver (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove regretfully. Thanks for all your work. --❄️Mykola❄️ 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove with sadness. Even though the issues pointed out are relevant, I believe this is a problem that could have received a better treatment. There must have a remedy that could have solved this whole situation without completely removing Vito from Stewards group. Perhaps it is too late to mention anyway. Perhaps we should be able to choose some third option between keep or remove. In all those years, Vito’s work was important across many wikis and and IMO it surpasses his mistakes. That should be taken in consideration. Community has spoken and we must attest what we can infer from the discussion and there is no consensus to keep.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 23:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove per Teles and MarcGarver. I agree that the situation could have gone differently, this didn't necessarily have to lead to removal, but there is no sufficient consensus to keep now. Thanks for your work! --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Difficult case behind all the comments, but I see no consensus to confirm the user at this time. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wim b edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments16 people in discussion

  Keep: 78 (no concerns / selfless dedication to projects / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Xaosflux edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments15 people in discussion

  Keep: 88 (working a lot behind the scenes / great first year / positively bureaucratic / activity on VRTS / no comments)
  Remove: 0
  Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

علاء edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments17 people in discussion

  Keep: 111 (kind / helpful / highly trusted / very committed / available to provide support for admins / very active / best possible representative for Arab world / thanks / great work / arwiki action was not a steward action / no comments)
  Weak keep: 1 (the arwiki issue is not enough to remove when compared to user's activity and transparency)
  Remove: 10 (suspicious activity on Arabic Wikipedia / bizarre behavior / no comments)
  Neutral: 1 (not a good impression on arwiki mass-logout script removal discussion)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

All stewards running for confirmation edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Note
Should you be decided to drop your comment here, please don't forget to add Confirm all or Remove all to your text. The discussion below applies to all stewards listed in the sections above, except the one commenting. Thanks, --Superpes15 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

* Confirm all. For the case mentioned in Sakretsu/Vituzzu's confirmations, which are the ones standing out the most, I'm not sure entirely what has happened or who is in the wrong, but I'm glad they have been responsive and overall they have been competent and active stewards. As for Masti, I am also satisfied enough with the responses to the concerns addressed too. Overall, if they have learned from their mistakes, I don't think it's worth losing active and competent stewards over this, and thus I will still be leaning to confirm all. EPIC (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

  • OK, I've taken a second look at the Vituzzu case, and I do not like what I am reading. I'm not too convinced by either side though, so for now, I will be neutral for that one. Other than that; confirm all as I do not have anything to say about the other stewards than what has already been said. EPIC (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

After some further thought I'm striking this for now as there does not appear to be a consensus to confirm all candidates. EPIC (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024&oldid=26354666"
Return to "Stewards/Confirm/2024" page.