(Redirected from Talk:Stewards/confirm/2009/en)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Redux in topic Final decisions (by stewards)

Steward consideration edit

At the end of the elections, the current and newly elected stewards will consider complaints left on this page, and choose to remove stewardship as necessary

When? Where? How? --Snowdog 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the pagehistory this definition was given by Anthere. Maybe she can help?
The most simple interpretation would be that "the current and newly elected stewards" that have given their opinion in problematic cases are the decicive votes.
A second way could be to ask all stewards explicitly to give their vote (again) for difficult cases. (But they should have already given their opinion, is a second vote just overhead or necessary?)
I look forward to hear Antheres opinion on this. See you :-) Fantasy 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS: Or maybe the board should decide?

Fundraising is currently drawing the board's attention, probably the page will be wrapped-up after it. --Paginazero - Ø 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The page states the stewards should decide. Maybe give it a swing on the list? Effeietsanders 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The only people who got votes against are me (3 oppositions), Shizao (1), Snowdog (9 - Siri68 had not yet achieved at the time of the vote 3 months' participation in any project, her vote against is not valid, though it's not been striked out) and Suisui (1). None of the opposition votes came from other stewards.
We could either open a vote restricted to the stewards' group about these four people or allow the stewards a given time (one week?) to voice thier opinion in a more informal way. --Paginazero - Ø 09:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take also into account the Wikipedia-en-signpost:

Stewards appointed
Following the conclusion of the steward elections last week,...
...As of press time, it was not immediately clear if any current stewards would lose their status. Although most stewards had no opposition or negative comments, several stewards did have users opposing their status at the confirmation page. The process of confirmation was detailed as having "the current and newly elected stewards... consider complaints left on this page, and choose to remove stewardship as necessary taking into account both the comments left by community and their own perspective and understanding of the job." Van Dillen, when asked about the issue, commented that the re-confirmation was "a matter for the stewards/community to decide, and not [an issue] for the board."

At least we got an answer from someone about the board-question ;-) Fantasy 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS: Btw, Paginazero, I am a little bit sad that you don't seem to include me as italian Steward (your last comment) :-( ...ok, non sono madrelingua, ma sono italiano. E mi piacerebbe aiutare...

Ooops. Ho fatto una gaffe. Ti chiedo di scusarmi e correggo al volo. --Paginazero - Ø 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry, I am not soo active on the italian Wikipedia (mainly because of all the errors I make in italian ;-) so I can understand that someone forgets that I am actually an italian. But thanks for the correction nevertheless :-) Fantasy 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

2007 Confirmations edit

The page has been set up for several days and many stewards have put their statements in. However some stewards have not yet done so. (full marks to Walter for a funny one!)... I will leave those stewards that have not a reminder/notice that they can if they wish. Any steward that wants to not be reconfirmed can just say so and we can remove their entry before the process starts, I would think. Some stewards were felt to be exempt from the requirement, that has been noted Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29 If no one objects I will add a note to that effect to the Stewards/confirm#Current_Steward_List section. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask why not divide supporters, opponents and neutral users here. Not dividing them makes reading others' comments so hard as I think.--Jusjih 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
When I and a few others set this year's pages up, we modeled after last years which was not split out that way. Unlike the new stewards elections, it's not a vote, it is a request for comments. Some comments are nuanced and are not in the form of yes/no/maybe but are more complex, giving information and conditionals, etc... the process is that at the end of collecting comments, the old and new stewards evaluate them and decide what to do about each steward. That's my view anyway but if everyone wants it changed it certainly could be. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree, thought-out comments are much more meaningful than the "  Support ~~~~" and "  Oppose ~~~~" lines we'd get if we split into voting subsections. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Aye. Encourage people to read what others have said. Hillgentleman 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deadline edit

On this Side never was a Deadline given. So my my Comments have to be counted. Marcus Cyron 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It said "During the 2007 elections, please mention if you are unhappy with one of the persons listed below and why." ... that sort of implies that once the elections themselves are over (that is, the time is no longer "During" but is instead "after") the comment period is over as well. I do think I messed up when I cribbed some of the text by not making the time period explicit. And while I can't expect that the stewards aren't going to take your views into account at all, there does need to be some cut off period. Next reconfirmation, perhaps the period should be longer than the election and the dates given precisely? You can blame me for the mishap if you like. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
At the End, not one of the Stewarts would get or lost his Job with or without my Voice. So this isn't so important. But I would like, that they can read, what I have written. Because I think, we don't need inactive Stewarts. This should be a "Wake-up-Call" for them. Next time, they could loose the Job, I think. But as I see, nearly no one has said something about that. My votes musn't be counted - but I think, it's enough to strike them. Deleting is for me like censoring. Marcus Cyron 11:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, or should we need to revert the page to the revision of 19:06, 16 December 2007? Since the voting period ended at that day, all votes or voices which came on December 17 or later would be invalid. --Aphaia 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. (cur) (last) 00:09, 17 December 2007 Anonymous000 (Talk | contribs | block) (123,458 bytes) (→Comments about guillom - sorry oppose) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 19:06, 16 December 2007 VasilievVV (Talk | contribs | block) (121,607 bytes) (→Comments about Paginazero) (undo)

I agree, Aphaia... For consistency, we should, yes. It is not fair to let this one stand if we don't let Marcus's stand, they are both "after". I leave it to someone else to do though. Marcus, I promise you that if the board does end up confirming me, as I hope it will, I am going to keep the notion of inactivity in mind in evaluating the current stewards. I'll be only one small voice but I will be a voice, and I don't feel quite the same way you do, but it's not unimportant. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dev stewards edit

They would no longer require steward right (which is supposed to be a community given right), so now would be a perfect time to suggest either a) They gracefully remove it from themselves (as it is redundant to any developer "flag" could be) or b) We vote on it.

I hope the first option, but we'll see. Majorly talk 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removing it from themselves would be nice. If they don't, however, I don't see why a vote would even be needed. This was the whole point of creating the relevant global groups - and indeed, they have said on numerous occasions that they simply don't need these permissions any longer.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Subpages edit

This page is so huge, and that's without the comments from people. It's also mess as well in edit mode, with all the translations. Could a kind person with a lot of time please split everyone off into subpages (including 2009 in the title to distinguish from future discussions). Anyone who does gets a pat on the back from me! :D Majorly talk 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply


Je suis monsieur NONKANI JEAN AIME,je suis connecter à wkipedia dépuis un certain temps,et je réside au BURKINA FASO.J'ai vu l'annonce sur wikinews concernant l'élection 2009 des stewards,et je viens par cet écrit vous signifier ma bonne volonté et disponibilité à déposer ma candidature pour l'élection 2009 des stéwards.Tout en comptant sur votre bonne volonté à accepter ma candidature,je vous prie de bien vouloir accepter mes salutations les plus distinguées. unsigned by Nonkani jean aimé on 17:12, 21 January 2009.

Bonjour Nonkani Jean Aime. Voir les instructions pour les candidats potentiels. —Pathoschild 22:00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disclosing COI edit

Mav has been tagging his comments with COI, reminding folk that he's up for confirmation too. Most of the rest of the stewards have not done so... as I commented here [1] I would do so if there's a feeling it's needed, but my own feeling is that it's redundant. What do other folk think? ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I dunno - I do it myself b/c I'd personally feel weird otherwise (an "In" group confirming itself, yada, yada). But the fact that so many other people are commenting tends to negate that effect. So it may not be important unless non-stewards think it might be useful. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry, but I don't feel being in a group, please don't take this personal, but I refuse any group thinking and just left my comments as an evaluation of the things I observed from the users, I don't see a conflict of interest here. Also where to stop, are we then not allowed to vote in the steward election either? I am voting there as a normal user who is giving his oppinion about the candidates...
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how I could take that personal b/c I feel the same way about groups and reject groupthink. :) The odd feeling I get is a bit of fear that others may see some shenanigans in not stating a COI. But I tend to be extra cautious about that - I don't expect others to follow my lead (see above about groupthink ;) . --Daniel Mayer (mav)

Okay, for non english native, since I had to search for the meaning.... : COI : conflict of interest. DarkoNeko 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that... en:wp has some info on it at w:WP:COI... good reading, for reference although not policy HERE, this not being en:wp :)... I see the net here as it's not necessary to tag but not harmful if you choose to, so all set. Props to mav for wanting to do the right thing. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
:) Being a member of the English Wikipedia ArbCom for a couple years got me into the habit of disclosing what even might be considered by others to be a COI as a COI. It was also a great way to get out of having to hear a particular case. ;) --Daniel Mayer (mav)

Anonymous comments edit

Hello, I propose adding the following sentence to the introduction:

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2009.

This is to prevent stacking apparent consensus by logging out and voting multiple times, and better enforce civility by tying comments to one's wiki identity, or at least one of them. (And woe to us if someone slashdots about comments being welcome from people who have never even edited!) It's a very open requirement, allowing comment from essentially every wiki contributor. —Pathoschild 02:06:58, 07 February 2009 (UTC)

Unconditional agreement, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is already in the requirements "either have an account on Meta with userpage linked to your homewiki, and a link to your meta account from your homewiki userpage or have a linked SUL account;" Prodego talk 02:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The requirements for voting in the elections are not the same as those for commenting in the confirmations (currently there are none). —Pathoschild 02:32:03, 07 February 2009 (UTC)
I am working on several wiki's, and that's why I commented. I will put my comments back. To see if i am elegible please check my userpage here. I agree that the guidelines for this confirmation lack clarity. regards, 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hello, the problem is, that IPs don't really have an userpage, it is not linked from the signature, it is not linked from the contributions page, so this is rather uncomfortable to find, please can You consider to log in and sign logged in (if You link to Your account anyway I don't see the problem here), You can log out afterwards and edit as IP if You prefer that, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why so complicated? It would be possible too to sign with nl:gebruiker:Tjako for example, and then there is no need for complicated extra logins here. Regards, Tjako aka 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are making it complicated, I just explained why it is easier to just log in, again: the IP-userpage is not linked from the singature, not linked from the contributions-page and for those checking the diffs they don't see it therefore, also an IP can change and therefore it should not have any userpage at all (which is why they are not linked), I don't see why just logging in would be so difficult or complicated, checking diffs in the current elections is taking up much time as You can assume and it is really not nice to make it more complicated, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is probably best to require at least logging in, I think.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done. —Pathoschild 08:56:34, 08 February 2009 (UTC)
  Done too. Regards, Tjako 16:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC) (also known as User:

Activity edit

I think that a steward can keep his position even if he/she is not very active. The only real reason for removing his rights should be misuse of steward tools. Yann 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final decisions (by stewards) edit

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

Summary edit

status candidate notes
.anaconda resigned during the elections.
   nihil obstat
Andre Engels
   nihil obstat
   nihil obstat
   nihil obstat
   nihil obstat
Jimbo Wales By Jimbo's request, the Board requested he be moved into "Founder" group.
   nihil obstat
Jon Harald Søby
   nihil obstat
Paginazero resigned during the elections.
Shizhao was appointed as ombudsman.
   nihil obstat

Anthere edit

  • Not very active; "blatant inactivity"

The following discussion is closed: Anthere has been reconfirmed

Bastique edit

  • Slip in certifying procedure?
  • Silly, paranoid attitude
  • Too embedded in power structure

The following discussion is closed: Bastique has been reconfirmed

Cspurrier edit

  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Cspurrier has been reconfirmed

Result justification: Close-call decision. "Judgement call". Arguments in favor of reconfirming: qualified user. Trusted. Should have opportunity to return. Provided statement: explaining reasons for current inactivity; providing estimate of return. Present inactivity, if resulting from time constraints from a localized, temporary off-wiki activity should not result in immediate removal. Arguments in favor of removal: Inactivity; inactivity specifically regarding SUL-related work. Conclusion: In a very close call decision, we are opting for the outcome that can be more beneficial for the projects, providing Cspurrier returns to work as he stated he will. Also in perspective that in the Steward discussion there was a very slight majority (by 1) in favor of retaining Cspurrier. Argument regarding complete inactivity in SUL-related work is valid and fully acknowledged. However, it is tempered by the fact that under current policies it is not valid to require the removal of a Steward solely because of lack of actions in one specific field of Steward attributions. Caveat: The Steward will be expected to return to work in a reasonable period of time. Should inactivity prolong itself, this decision may be reviewed at a future time. Redux 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Daniel Mayer (mav) edit

  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Daniel Mayer has been reconfirmed

Darkoneko edit

  • Use of steward tools on home wiki
  • Personality??? (please check the french)
  • Supporting wikiwix

The following discussion is closed: Darkoneko has been reconfirmed

Dbl2010 edit

  • No statement
  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Dbl2010 has lost Steward access

Drini edit

  • "Abuse" of sysop priviliges on enwiki
  • Refusal to mediate

The following discussion is closed: Drini has been reconfirmed

Dungodung edit

  • Calling people major troll
  • Bad Checkuser action/result in specific case

The following discussion is closed: Dungodung has been reconfirmed

Jimbo Wales edit

  • Inactivity (as a steward)
  • Wrong user group
The following discussion is closed: Jimbo was moved to a founder group [2].
Well, a "founder" group is an idea. The goal is anyway just to furtherly prevent you from the annual confirmation processes, which is very difficult in the steward group since this group is a volunteer group based on community elections. If they decide to create it (that should be decided by yourself or by the board I think), would you maybe agree to abandon the local founder group on enwiki then? It would be blatantly redundant then - and it would anyway be a good idea to remove userrights via Meta rather than locally, for the sake of traceability. Best regards, --Thogo (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Comment I like the idea of replacing the Steward flag with a Founder flag for Jimmy, with all the same access but no expectation of using that access. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • actually I always thought that certain people would be exempted of confirmations and Jimbo would be one of them, but that aside I do not care if Jimbo stays in the steward usergroup or if a new one is created with the same userrights, all seems very bureaucratic, unecessary timewasting discussions IMHO, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    My thoughts exactly. And personally, I can't fathom the reason why Jimbo keeps getting included in the annual reconfirmation, especially when we consider that, as the Steward page states, there are three system administrators who also hold the flag for technical reasons, and they don't get included — rightfully so. "Reconfirming" the founder of Wikimedia is blind bureaucracy and a waste of time for all involved, in my humble opinion. Redux 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jusjih edit

  • Doesn't understand the job
  • Inactivity
  • Stewarding on home wiki

The following discussion is closed: Jusjih has been reconfirmed
  • Remove per arguments raised above, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep, active enough, I only see one home project steward activity, which was a mistake (one I made too), but well, nobody is perfect. --Thogo (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep per Thogo. --Millosh 16:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Remove, per policy, stewarding on home wiki, sorry--Nick1915 - all you want 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep per Thogo and my comment on the confirmation page about the need to keep stewards with Asian languages ability. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Remove, I am very sorry about this, I appreciate Jusjihs contributions across the projects very much, however I share the concerns about his attitude as steward raised in the confirmation. Also I really have troubles to understand his results in checkuser requests, they are mostly saying neither this or that and one knows as much as before the check, if something is inconclusive it should be said so, if not it should be made more clear what the outcome is, like confirmed, likely etc. and iirc there had been some requests I would probably have declined to fulfill or asked for more information. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • I would like to know how you are concerned of my attitude as steward raised in the confirmation. I, as an American user using this American-based website, have the right to make reasonable defense, as some users do not even assume good faith at all. For checkuser results, I dare not to disclose IPs of users in any publicly visible pages in violation of privacy policy. I would like to wish that you do not make this so personally. Thanks.--Jusjih 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • I do not make this personally, not even close, so please don't take it personally. I did not like the hick hack between You and Mike, and how that appeared to me (he gave You an "remove" and got an "oppose" for that...) and the comments to Majorly and I do not think such fits a steward, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • I struck my "vote" because it should not be one, my points remain valid though, and I really hope that this would change (or rather that it would not have happened at all, because I had been supporting but then I figured that hick hack afterwards and was very disappointed) and looking at the community voice there are concerns about activity, which seem to have changed lately, so I leave the decicion here to others, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I would like to see Jusjih change approach somewhat, to be more in accordance with common practice. But losing 50% of our chinese speaking stewards seems suboptimal. Keep, with an admonishment to get more involved with your fellow stewards. Clearly there is a significant fraction of the community that would like you to change, and you should consider heeding their counsel. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  Comment: Thank you very much for your comment, but I would like to know what exactly to adjust so I am well oriented. I am willing to take reasonable counsel and adjustment, and to forgive others such as two users writing "Remove" in the confirmation without any word of reasons. I consider solely or predominantly biting comments not working to have good relationship among us.--Jusjih 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, since you asked (and please remember I am saying Keep)... here are concerns I saw that I think are worth mulling over. 1) The concern about CU results and how you present them. There is merit in saying as little as possible but if there's a decisive outcome it's worth articulating that. 2) The back and forth with several users may have went farther than it should... you and Mike.lifeguard, who is going to be your colleague as a fellow steward, have to figure out how to work together. Ditto your back and forth with Majorly. Try not to let those who honestly disagree with you like Mike or Majorly, or those who are your detractors get to you, if you can. I have much more serious detractors than you, people who apparently actively wish me ill and are willing to do all sorts of things (sock, distort facts, start whisper campaigns, harass other users, lie, blackmail, etc.) to try to prevail, and I think I've done fairy well at not letting them get a rise out of me. 3) More participation on the mailing list and in discussions. On Commons, when you speak up as a 'crat, it's very helpful and sound, but you have to be encouraged to do so. Don't be shy, do speak up. I hope that helps. With respect. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result justification: Level of activity still deemed sufficient, not characterizing technical inactivity. Isolated mistake not sufficient to configure abusive behavior warranting removal. Secondarily, logistical advantage to keeping a Steward proficient in a certain linguistic group. Caveat: The Steward is expected to tweak his demeanor, taking to heart the constructive criticism received regarding behavior during the 2009 election, which should not be repeated. Redux 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lar edit

  • Inappropriate behaviour
  • Treated a specific person unfairly

The following discussion is closed: Lar has been reconfirmed

Millosh edit

  • Attitude by dismissing opinion of a wiki community
  • View on privacy
  • Collecting "votes"
  • Arrogance

The following discussion is closed: Millosh has been reconfirmed

Nick1915 edit

  • Issue on Lombard Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: Nick1915 has been reconfirmed

Oscar edit

  • Inactivity
  • Too many functions
  • Doesn't seem to know what he is doing

The following discussion is closed: Oscar has been reconfirmed
  • Remove per arguments raised above, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Remove per policy. --Thogo (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep I would give one more year to Oscar for improving activity. --16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Comment added by Millosh
  •   Remove, inactivity, sorry--Nick1915 - all you want 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Neutral I voted keep just before but then noticed that Oscar's activity meets the policy definition of inactivity. My hope when voting to keep on the confirmation page was that Oscar would become active again. Sadly, that did not happen. Oscar - please do not take this personally. :( --Daniel Mayer (mav) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • fyi performing some stewardactions now felt to me rather hypocrite, so i actually restrained myself these days (note i was fast in writing the statement and then decided to politely wait)... oscar 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • about "inactivity": please see my statement and check my global contributions, and you will find that i have been rather active, but mostly elsewhere this year as one user remarked with the comments. oscar 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) and just ftr any outcome will not be taken personally of course ;-) Reply
  • I reviewed what I said before and I still agree with myself. Oscar, please become more active, so this doesn't come up again. But having former board members in the ranks of stewards is goodness. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep but please be more active. bastique demandez! 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep Yann 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep while I give moral support. Having 8 administrator flags including 5 bureaucrat flags is never too many in my opinion. However, whenever you log in with your global account, please try to come to read Steward requests and you will usually find at least a user right change to make in compliance of our steward policy. Good luck.--Jusjih 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep Because I was convinced by his argument in his statement. This is nothing like Dbl2010's situation. We have a highly trusted user who has gone on the record to state that he is willing to stay on and work when required. If there's ever an overwhelming feeling that he would not be willing to follow through with that promess, then we can remove automatically per policy. As Lar said in another thread, we need to tread lightly (no pun intended) with respect to enforcing "deadlines" for activity. This is not meant to be a bureaucracy. Redux 01:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  •   Keep, per statement and historical care taken. -- sj | help translate |+ 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The community has expressed clear concerns regarding Oscar's activity levels. I don't think there is continued support for Oscar as a steward among the community; his tools should be removed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Has Oscar done anything in contravention to steward policy? Is there any compelling reason, other than inactivity to remove him? He is a good steward and his counsel is sage, and he has shared experience that will be difficult to replace. Don't just parrot back what you think the community says. You are not an empty vessel, an echo chamber. You were elected because you are believed to have a head on your shoulders. Use it. Tell us what YOU think. The community has concerns. We get that. Do YOU think they are valid? ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    But you already know what I think.
    However, to answer your questions: Yes, he has been inactive. No, inactivity is sufficient to remove him. Yes, I think the community's concerns are entirely valid.
    These opinions should not be surprising to those who know me and my views on these matters generally.
    As to being a simple "echo chamber" I cannot agree with the assumptions which underly that. I have already made my opinion known, and it falls to me (only) to interpret community consensus. That is why, on several of these, I have stated "I disagree with the decision, but the community has decided X". We have our marching orders & am not about to dismiss them with contempt if I disagree with them (which in this case I do not).
     — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    "With contempt?" What do you mean by that? I do not see any dismissal with contempt anywhere in these discussions. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    But then again, the purpose of the reconfirmation is not to gather consensus to "keep" or "remove" a Steward and then have us enforce that consensus automatically. If it were, that would make it an election. Normally, we do work with election results when it comes to user rights, but that is just not the case here. The purpose here is for the community to raise potential issues that we will later revise and, if sufficiently serious, the Steward will lose his or her access. Yes, the community has voiced concern with the fact that Oscar has been inactive — but again, this was not the case of voting him in (staying on) or out. And inactivity is sufficient to remove a Steward, that much is not even a matter of opinion, it is in the policy. But here there's a line I really like to quote: There can be no justice when the law is absolute — obviously, that doesn't apply to everything. There are certain situations where there is no wiggle room (example: abusing the tools), but inactivity is certainly not one of them. Inactivity is not a violation, it is not a transgression. It is more of a contingency, really. Redux 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Sure there is wiggle room; I simply don't understand why it should be exercised in this case.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    So, you are not swayed by the arguments and don't think that our discretion to waive the requirement should be used? That's a much better answer than what you said above. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, Oscar is experienced, and his trustworthyness is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Yes, he has been inactive, but he did not ignore the reconfirmation. He acknowledges that he does what he can. Then comes the wiggle room we seem to agree exists. Personally, I really bought his rationale in his reconfirmation statement, but I recognize that this is just my opinion and the rest of what I mentioned could be touch-and-go, but here is the real kicker: consistency. Namely in relation to Anthere. She and Oscar are in the same situation, and their general background is mostly the same (member of Board, highly trusted in the community and as Steward, etc.). The only difference is that Anthere is perhaps more visible because she was Chair of the Board. But this is not an election and certainly not a popularity contest. I stand by the decision to reconfirm Anthere, it really was the right thing to do. And so it is the case here as well. It would be very unbecoming to remove Oscar when he is in the exact same context, but with a little less visibility, or whatever you want to call it. Redux 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result justification: A not completely clear cut decision, but in the end, a reconfirmation. Judgement is required to evaluate the arguments against by the community (which question some of the activities, and claim insufficient recent activity) and by fellow stewards (which focus on the inactivity issue). The trend in this ran towards confirmation. Several stewards including myself pointed out that Oscar has a lot of wisdom, institutional memory, and Board experience to bring to stewards.

Further, Oscar has made a strong commitment, both publicly and privately, not to keep that wisdom to himself, but rather to become more active, not just in the routine, easily measurable ways like flipping bits and globally hiding accounts, but in the more difficult community growth areas such as moving a small wiki from incubator to fledgling to first administrator selected, or in deciding how best to use new tools (in the spirit of the WMF and in compliance with board policies) where Oscar's experience is invaluable. A clear majority of stewards are in favor of reconfirmation, but more importantly, I adjudge that a consensus now exists.

Therefore, Oscar is reconfirmed. Caveat: Should Oscar not keep his commitment to us, he will be removed before the next reconfirmation commences. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pathoschild edit

  • Issue around oppose-template

The following discussion is closed: Pathoschild has been reconfirmed

Rdsmith4 edit

  • Stewarding on home wiki
  • Inactivity
  • Using bit while local community could solve it

The following discussion is closed: Rdsmith4 (Dan) has been reconfirmed

Redux edit

  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Redux has been reconfirmed

Result justification: Redux was actually only inactive for a shortish period. There is no issue with the activity levels, mathematically. (but there is a sense among some that perhaps the mathematical cutoffs are lower than some might like) What was questioned was whether Redux was being 'stewardly' enough. Behind the scenes all along, and in the last few weeks, on Redux's return, I think it is pretty clear that Redux is in the forefront of acting 'stewardly', as he has been helping shape several of these discussions. I believe a consensus in this case is clear. Redux is reconfirmed. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shanel edit

  • Issue around oppose-template

The following discussion is closed: Shanel has been reconfirmed

Sj edit

  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Sj has been reconfirmed
Comment: I would certainly like to continue contributing as a steward. My availability comes in waves, but I am usually online in case of something urgent. I will have significantly more time for meta-work starting in two weeks.
When I came to leave a statement, people were already leaving rather negative comments about long-time trusted stewards based purely on recent activity, and not on their language skills, availability, or the care taken when engaging others, so I held off. As I wrote on the mailing list last month, I would like to help amplify the idea of stewardship as a community process that many people can help with. -- sj | help translate |+ 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then it is my opinion that Sj should, at the very least, have the opportunity to come back and start working again. It serves no purpose to the project, and it benefits no one, to remove him now, especially considering that his trustworthyness and quality of work were not questioned during the reconfirmation. It would be one thing if he never even showed up or didn't say that he will come back. Since he has, and he says he will come back, let him come back. If in the future he is unable to continue, we can take it from there. As I, M7, Mav and Lar have said before, inactivity issues do not depend on the reconfirmation to be looked into. There is nothing to lose by giving a trusted Steward the chance to come back, only to gain. Redux 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The community has voiced clear support for removing Sj's steward tools.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    The community has voiced concern regarding Sj's inactivity. That is what we have to work with in this discussion. Not abuse of the tools, not inappropriate behavior. Then we have Sj on the record stating that he intends to come back to activities and be more involved. Assuming that he follows through with that, what purpose does it serve to remove him? Whom are we serving by enforcing an arbitrary deadline? And one that exists only to provide that people who have abandoned Steward acitivies and show no sign of returning don't retain the status indefinitely, when we have the user concerned showing full intent to get back to work and, provided he does that, thus completely addressing the only concern raised regarding his Stewardship. And precisely because inactivity does not require a reconfirmation, or any bureaucratic procedure to cause the Steward to lose his or her access, we retain the possibility to remove him at a later point in time should he not follow through with his promess to return to normal activities. I believe that a trusted user who has gone on the record to address the concern should be afforded the opportunity to return to work. And again, this is, of course, by no means a get out of jail free card. If he doesn't return to work, he will lose his Stewardship just the same, just not right now. Redux 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    It's not my place to dismiss the community's input. If the community is convinced by Sj's proclamations then that's one thing... but I don't see that in their comments and even if I were convinced, I'm not about to force my own personal opinion on them (& nor should you or any other steward). Frankly, the community's voice is so obviously clear in this case, I seriously cannot understand why this is still under discussion.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I did not dismiss any input. I took the commmunity input on board. I thought about it. I evaluated it. I evaluated Sj. Then I drew my own conclusion. You are not a machine with no view of your own. Tell us your view. This is for us to decide. Be a steward. Not an echo. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    It is under discussion because it is not an election. The reconfirmation is a two-phase procedure, really. First, the community brings up potential issues regarding the Stewards. Next, we discuss the issues brought to bear and make decisions based on them. That's what we are doing here. Yes, Sj could even have been removed already due to inactivity. But as a matter of fact, he wasn't, and now we are taking the opportunity to discuss the convenience of removing solely per inactivity when the Steward concerned has been on the record saying that he will return — a situation completely unlike Dbl2010's, for instance. I don't interpret the concerns raised as loss of trust in Sj, but merely that he has been inactive, and that, in itself, warrants removal. But if we remove on the basis exclusively that a deadline has been met, and ignoring completely that the user, most certainly taking the criticism received, has vowed to resume activities, then what we would be doing is just enforcing the deadline blindly, which is not the purpose of this procedure, not to mention that it would be a blind bureaucratic action, irreconcilable with the common sense and sound judgement that we are expected to use when acting as Stewards. Another possible justification is that the reconfirmation is an election, so since enough people said "remove per inactivity" we have nothing to discuss and the only option is to do just that; and since the reconfirmation is not an election, that would not be acceptable either. If we ignore Sj's pledge to return and remove him automatically, that could also be taken as a "vote" (not in the exact meaning of an election) of no-confidence that he intends to actually do what he says he will. I am not prepared to make that assumption. The community's input is not being dismissed, in fact I believe it is being taken quite seriously first and foremost by Sj himself. But in the correct context of the reconfirmation, the input is "you cannot continue to be inactive and retain your Stewardship". I know that many people did not actually mean that when they participated; They meant what they said. But many people were treating the reconfirmation like an election, so that needs to be factored in as well. And yet again, this is not a get out of jail free card, as I mentioned in my previous comment above, which also speaks to the fact that we are all quite aware that the community does not wish that Sj retains his Stewardship if he is inactive as he has been. Redux 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    People (including myself) are concerned with chronic inactivity which stretches far back, and has been largely unchanged despite past professions of intent to do so. I don't think people actually believe Sj when he says he will be more active, I think they are right to be sceptical, and I think their conclusions are thus correct. That's not a blind bureaucratic action, irreconcilable with common sense and sound judgement - in fact quite the opposite.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so what you are saying is that, unlike me, you are assuming that Sj will not follow through with the promess to return. And I assume (a bad thing, I know...) DerHexer shares this opinion, considering her latest addition to her comment. That aspect however, was not brought up during the reconfirmation. People only focused on "inactive [now], remove". There was no mention to any aspect of not believing him if he says he will come back because inactivity has been a a pattern since 2007. Keeping that in mind, consider this: I don't believe (although I didn't have the time as of yet to check this more thoroughly) that the other time around he actually made an explicit promess to return. It seems that he just resumed activities, and people then were inclined to reconfirm on those grounds. This time, however, we have a promess made explictly on a public page — as in his comment above, quote: "I will have significantly more time for meta-work starting in two weeks". I'm still inclined to give a very experienced and trusted Steward the opportunity to follow through with the promess made. Taking into account that if he does return, the only concern regarding his Stewardship would have been utterly addressed, and that we do not need to wait for another reconfirmation to remove him should he remain inactive, or if he resumes activities but then shortly after becomes inactive again, it would appear to be reasonable to allow him the opportunity to do as he says. Since this time we (the community, not just the Stewards) would be "collecting" on an explicit promess, if that is not fulfilled we can remove him immediately, at any time. Which is, after all, exactly what I have been sustaining up until now. And in fact, it would make it much more clear-cut if it is the case of removing him due to inactivity some time later this year. But I don't think we can, beforehand, disregard his word. In the end, deciding on whether there is "widespread" disbelief that he will ever be active again regardless of any promess, or understanding that the comments of "remove per inactivity" made regarding him were no different from those made regarding other Stewards, that is, taking into account only current inactivity, not past gaps in activity, has become something for us to decide. And we have his word on it. I just cannot make the leap of assuming he is not sincere, not at this point. And if he is sincere, then there is no issue to address. But we can't find that out if we remove him now. And that would be our loss. Redux 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • I avoided commenting before because SJ appeared during the reconfirmation to be uninterested in retaining his steward tools. Personally, I don't see the point in retaining the tools if one is uninterested in keeping them. However, since that discussion SJ seems to have acquired a new interest in retaining them. I see no point in removing the tools if he intends on using them. I suggest we reevaluate for activity at some later point if our policy is to remove for disuse. bastique demandez! 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: In discussion with Mike and Lar, I'd like to work on a definition of steady activity in a way that helps stewards work effectively together; not just on individual tasks. Part of this should include a non-spectacular way to recognize inactivity, suggest ways for inactive stewards to help with sticking points, and in the end remove inactive stewards. I will try to be a demonstration of same; if I am not active by this sort of metric a couple months from now, I would ask to be deflagged myself. And we should work towards more regular discussions of how we are splitting up available work, without the burden of simultaneously deciding who else will be working with us -- there should be no shame in people discussing what tasks are easy or hard for them, where they'd like to see others pick up slack, &c. -- sj | help translate |+ 04:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sj seems to be taking the inactivity issue seriously (including the view that we will remove inactive stewards at any point and not only at confirmation time), and will be working on some ways of guiding more stewards to become more active (including himself). The community expressed their wish, and while I can't speak for the community, I will speak for myself: Given that Sj has made a commitment to revisit this issue in two months' time, and will be working on some policy changes in this area during that time, I am willing to see where we are at the end of that period. I am not thrilled, but I can accept this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that helping resolve some of the issues around inactivity (how to determine what it is, when it matters, and what to do about it, how to encourage stewards to be more active, how to make it less dramatic to be removed) would be an excellent contribution and it is an important task. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result justification: Close-call decision. The opinions among Stewards have been divided. That notwithstanding, the central issue around whether or not to reconfirm Sj has been his inactivity, dating back to 2007. In recent discussions, however, Sj has shown himself willing not only to work on his own activity level, but also to help reshape the current format of technical inactivity. He has also committed himself to having his activity levels reassessed in two months time, in order to verify that he has been maintaining his level of activity within a desirable minimal. In understanding that the aforementioned recent developments mitigate greatly the sole argument against his retaining his Stewardship, and accepting his proposal to have his activity level re-evaluated within two months, we opt to reconfirm him at this point. Caveat: The Steward is aware that should he not be able to maintain a minimal level of activity, he will lose his Stewardship at a future point in time, before the next reconfirmation. Redux 05:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thogo edit

  • Abuse / COI-case
  • Full of hatred

The following discussion is closed: Thogo has been reconfirmed

Walter edit

  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Walter has been reconfirmed

Wpedzich edit

  • A specific renameuser case while bc was active

The following discussion is closed: Wpedzich has been reconfirmed

Yann edit

  • No statement (Eia: came in later)
  • Inactivity

The following discussion is closed: Yann has been reconfirmed

Zirland edit

  • No statement
  • Inactivity
  • Many mistakes
  • No understanding of policy

The following discussion is closed: Zirland has lost Steward access

General discussion edit

Percentages? edit

The following discussion is closed: Percentages removed.
Why are there percentages about the steward reconfirmation ? these are a request for comments, not a vote. DarkoNeko 09:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
They give an indicative overview of the discussions. If others don't think they're useful, they can be removed easily enough. —Pathoschild 10:04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think they're misleading. It's about the arguments, and I summarized them above. I for one did never react because the arguments were already given. It should not matter whether one person says the steward is inactive or 10. The argument should be considered the same. Effeietsanders 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Removed. —Pathoschild 12:37:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"nihil obstat"? edit

The following discussion is closed: Nihil obstat means 'nothing hinders, confirmed'.
What does "nihil obstat" mean?--Kwj2772 () 09:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The word is taken from Latin, literally meaning nothing hinders. It means that there has been no objection, so they are automatically reconfirmed since there is nothing to discuss. —Pathoschild 10:04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, look to Wikipedia. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When is it time for a decision? edit

When are we clearly having consensus? Could I say that if after three days at least seven stewards share an opinion and it there is no significant opposition (ie, not more then one), we have at least a decision? Then we can slim down again a bit by then, which makes it easier to focus. Effeietsanders 12:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
We should not finalise this until after the new stewards have had a chance to comment, in my view, as last year. However the idea of winnowing the clearer ones out as we go seems to make sense. Just not yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
My idea was not so much to withold the new stewards their say, but to make the discussion more effective by removing the ridiculous and obvious ones (with the idea that the consensus is so broad, that it would not change much anyway). Maybe a 100% agreement would be more appropriate then though :) Effeietsanders 13:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
We don't have to get TOO rigorous about this, we can just touch base with the new stewards and see if they really want to opine on the obvious ones (I'm betting not) and do the sensible thing. Do we have a projected date for Board finalization yet? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
( making public what has been said on the steward list: The new stewards have been activated. They are encouraged/invited to comment on cases where they see fit, but this needs to be wrapping up pretty soon. ...) Almost all cases here are pretty clear cut so let's move them to closed within another 2-3 days at most and focus on the one or two remaining difficult ones. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"View on privacy" edit

The following discussion is closed.
May someone express this more clear? I suppose that it is related to what did I express at the last paragraph of this edit. --Millosh 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The comments without signature come from the page attached to this talkpage. Please see [3] for a more elaborate explanation. Effeietsanders 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Inactivity" edit

Maybe it is better to have this discussion a little more in general here. What is inactive? Because on one side there are the formal requirements (and for those, this whole procedure should not be necessary anyways, they can just be removed without), and there is the opinion-thingy. Because why is it important to be somewhat active anyways? As I see it, inactivity might (depending on how someone handles it though) also lead to inability to actually /do/ something, because there is a huge information gap. Because the tools have changed so much. Because the agreements changed, the policies changed. Etc. So even with good faith, one could argue that there is some "danger" in having very inactive stewards in large numbers around. I don't say that goes for all, but I'd like to see it discussed at least, because I feel that is missing right now. Effeietsanders 10:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yep Effeiets, from my perspective the problem is just the information gap... a lot of things are changed in the last year, most of them are connected to SUL: global groups, global rights, global blocks etc. Assuming BF it seems that some of inactive stews are not been involved in such things--Nick1915 - all you want 15:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Effie and Nick. And yet.. My thinking here is that those inactive stewards that we have been exhorting to pick up the tools ought to take a look at a thing that needs doing, and if they are at all unsure of what to do, pop into IRC and ask, or ask on the mailing list... There was an situation a few months back where Angela did something that some of us thought might have been a bit early, we raised it, it was undone, no harm done, we all learned a bit from it. That's goodness. Everyone's happy to help, too. Further, I think "ask first if you're not quite sure" is always good advice, generally. I know there are areas with SUL or global stuff that have changed, and are likely to change further, and I myself know that sometimes I need to ask my colleagues, because it can be a bit much to keep up with. But that's OK. We are after all, colleagues... and for the record: I really can't think of an overall more helpful and communicative bunch of folks than my fellow stewards, you all are a delight to work with. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those who are unclear why we have activity requirements could gain clarity by reading the archived discussions on the matter - not only regarding stewards.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow that. Perhaps I need to gain clarity on what point you are making. Steward activity, in my view, is a guideline, not a requirement, and thus something to be taken into account along with other factors, not slavishly adhered to even if it leads to a silly outcome. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, Redux says that inactivity isn't a criteria for removal during the confirmations and that inactive stewards can be removed anytime per the inactivity policy; you say that inactivity doesn't necessarily lead to removal. In a word, we can't remove inactive stewards? guillom 13:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
We can remove inactive stewards. (and often, we should) That's different than "we must remove inactive stewards". I am saying that if policy points to something, but common sense says do something else in the particular situation, we should do what is sensible, not what policy dictates. Most WMF (and even more so, individual wiki) policy is descriptive, it describes what reasonable people do in common situations. Descriptive policy is a guide to help one find the reasonable thing to do without having to analyse from first principles each time, not a mandate that constrains action. The only exceptions to this are where WMF (via the board) has mandated something. (for example non free use policy, it is a mandate that every wiki have a non free use policy that conforms to overall WMF non free use policy or at least is no laxer) ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
In principle I agree with this kind of reasoning: we should do sensible things guided by common sense. However, issues arise when people disagree on what is "sensible" (common sense is not so common :). I believe a clear policy is consistent with the "don't decide" principle that governs stewards action, and it has the advantage of generating less drama imho. guillom 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a clearcut answer. But here's my thinking... Policy is goodness because it makes things more repeatable and predictable, which is goodness in and of itself. But common sense is goodness because it helps avoid silly outcomes when rigid rules would lead you to them. We are supposedly elected by the community in part for our common sense and in part for our calmness and ability to look at things dispassionately, and implement consensus. In general we are not to decide things. But deciding about ourselves feels different, in some ways, than deciding about others. Who is better qualified to comment on what we have done and not done than we? For that reason I support the policy interpretation that suggests that we take input, then make the decisions about ourselves, and the policy interpretation that suggests that activity levels are guidelines, and that we can override them, with care and forethought and consensus among ourselves, in the direction of leniency, when it makes sense to do so for the good of the project. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Lar, On "who is better qualified..." and "we are elected for our calmness and ability to look at things dispassionately" - these are usually true when the decision is on other people; however, when it comes to stewards making decisions about stewards themselves, it is a completely different ball game. Hillgentleman 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
We stewards are about as calm as they come, and I have yet to see any signs of non dispassionateness from stewards in this discussion about ourselves so I am not completely in agreement that it's a completely different ballgame. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Lar, Time and again when members of the community have stated their clear "remove"s, and members with the steward tools interpret it as a vague "expressing serious concerns", the judgement is obviously coloured. If the community clearly do not want the service of a particular steward, why should she hang on to her tools? Hillgentleman 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Lar, I really agree that we've been elected partly for our common sense. But what happens if we fail to reach consensus? Let's say half people feel someone is inactive and should be demoted, and the other half feel that inactivity is not a big deal? There is a very practical example with Anthere's case above. guillom 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
There will always be borderline cases. Borderline application of rigid standards leads to silly outcomes. But I have confidence in our ability to work through what to do in a borderline case. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A new flag requires community discussion edit

The following discussion is closed: By Jimbo's request, the Board requested the creation of a founder group [4] for Jimbo.

The founder flag option was not raised in the confirmation procedure. To add a new flag to meta or wikimedia, the discussions among stewards is not enough. There should be a community discussion on Babel (since it affects meta) and Wikimedia forum (since it affects all projects). Hillgentleman 06:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The en-Wikipedia "Founder" group was not created or populated by stewards. It was created long ago by a system administrator. —Pathoschild 06:47:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition, this is not something that is meant to be given out to people who are elected or otherwise chosen. It is meant solely to the founder of Wikipedia and Wikimedia, Jimbo Wales, as a way to clarify his position within the projects. This is actually an alternative to him holding such flags as the Steward flag or the Bureaucrat flag in certain projects. Redux 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Redux and Pathos, additionally not even "staff" group was discussed so much--Nick1915 - all you want 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Final remark: I disagree- The English wikipedia accepts User:Jimbo Wales taking steward actions and acting like a dictator for them. It is not at all clear that every community share this consensus. But I concede if that is a decision of the board of trustees. Hillgentleman 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this just another vote? edit

Is this just another vote? The idea is, the community leaves comments on how they feel about the stewards, and then the stewards evaluate the consensus (one of the few times stewards do decide.) It seems to me that people are just voting here based on their own personal feelings, and not what the community said. Only if the circumstances change significantly should the result be different from the actual original "vote". Example, it was pretty clear that Cspurrier should be removed for inactivity, but at the rate things are going, he's going to be kept by the stewards, which is not reflective of the community opinion. Majorly talk 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, this is not a vote — in fact, we discussed getting rid of the "keep" and "remove" icons altogether, but decided to retain them because they do help with grasping the general feeling. But an important point is: this is not a vote, and neither was the reconfirmation. I think that this aspect was perhaps not completely clear generally speaking. We would need a better wording for future years. The reconfirmation is an opportunity for the community to express their opinion on the Stewards, which means things like quality of work, trustworthyness, helpfulness, etc. If there is a clear loss of trust from the community, this will be taken in consideration, and the Steward is going to lose his or her access (as it seems will be the case with Zirland). But a lot of people focused on "remove per inactivity", which is not exactly the point. Removal per inactivity is provided for in policy, and can be done automatically.
We are, however, taking this opportunity to discuss the situation of those who do fall within the margin for removal per inactivity, in the sense that they are trusted users, and if they were to pledge to return, and then follow through with that promess, we gain nothing by removing them, in fact we lose: we lose trusted people who can help with the work. And then again, if they don't follow through, then we can always remove at any time per inactivity in accordance with the Steward policy, and there is no need to wait for another reconfirmation or similar procedures. It is true that this has not been done so far in practice, but we should be able to correct this. I believe the community is more than welcome to poke us about inactive Stewards. What we would do then, I believe, as the best course of action, is poke the inactive Steward(s) and see if they will return to work. If they say "no" or don't even reply, we remove them. At any time. Redux 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Redux puts it very well. (and in so doing, makes the case for why he's a "keeper", as if there was any doubt... it's not just about number of actions, it is about good counsel). Further, I'd invite you to look at my comments here... none of them are votes. Even the ones that say "obvious keep". Finally, the process is not as you stated it, Majorly, but rather: The community first provides input, the stewards then decide amongst ourselves, in whatever manner we see fit, which may not necessarily be to do exactly as the community seems to be suggesting. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know you haven't, but others (example, Kylu) have simply voted (i.e. they stuck on a "keep" without comment or reason). Either we scrap the community input, or it's "counted" in the end. Otherwise, it's unfair to have people wasting their time leaving comments that may well be ignored. Majorly talk 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, thanks Majorly. I should probably replace them with "The discussion seems to favor keeping, and the opposition comments do little to cause concern regarding this user." Kylu 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply


I must say, I agree with Majorly, I fear I have put some seemingly votes without arguments, and changed that now, thanks for noticing, it should not be a vote and the community should also be heard, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We will not be making decisions based on headcounts in any event. The objective of the reconfirmation was to get input from the community on potential issues with current Stewards, not re-elect them. The objective of this discussion now is to analyze the points raised and make decisions based on them. If a Steward casts a vote-like "keep" or "remove", that won't count towards the "numbers", because we are not concerned with numbers. At most, we will take it to be agreement with the point(s) made by others who, for reasons given, sustained one position or the other. Or, if you will, a "no objection" to the currently suggested course of action. Nobody's comments are ignored, but each signed comment is also not taken as "one vote" to remove or "one vote" to keep, because that is just not what the reconfirmation is about. That is why it was not particularly helpful that so many people only said "remove per inactivity", as I explained in my previous post. Redux 02:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the bottom line is that the Steward policy needs to be changed - in particular the manner in which elections are run, and the manner in which confirmations are run. Cary mentioned the Board's role in "legitimizing" the elections, and stated he wanted it eliminated. And if anyone recalls the mess that was Meta:Rewriting/Stewards policy, they will also recall that there is no consensus among the community for the current method of confirming stewards. I agree on both these points - it must be the community which elects stewards (ideally we wouldn't vote) and it must also be the community which decides whether stewards are kept or not. Anything else is really not acceptable. Stewards get their marching orders from the community. Our only task here is to decode them (ie figuring out what consensus exists or not) and then carry them out. I look forward to changing the policy such that it reflects that principle. My comments regarding the wishes of the community will follow above shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

While there may be wording tweaks needed, I do not agree that the basic approach of the Steward policy needs to be changed. The current two part process for steward reconfirmation is a good one, and I'm not sure that Meta:Rewriting/Stewards policy points to a lack of consensus for it. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you identify as "the basic approach of the Steward policy"... I mentioned two specific areas which ought to be changed, IMO. One would require gaining consensus; the other needs to reflect current consensus (since I don't believe it does so currently, though that's an empirical fact one should perhaps investigate more thoroughly than I have done). I am specifically not referring to anything here, but rather here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm talking about the reconfirmation process. I thought that was clear from context, sorry for any confusion. You seem to be arguing that current practice needs to be changed, or perhaps asserting that what we are doing is not current practice, or not policy. I don't agree. As for the Board's role in the process, I'm ok either way on that, although I have a mild preference for Board approval. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion edit

We have now concluded the 2009 reconfirmation process. For various reasons, a total of six Stewards have lost their access at the end of this process. We thank all of those who took the time to share their views and ideas in helping with the makings of the reconfirmation. Redux 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Return to "Stewards/confirm/2009" page.