The summaries below only provide a convenient overview. Stewards should review the actual confirmation comments and their understanding of relevant policies before commenting.
Non-steward comments are welcome outside of the "Final Decision" section, subject to the usual expectations of civility.
Confirmation discussions will last two weeks after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. Comments in all sections (including nihil obstat) are welcome by all stewards.
Latest comment: 14 years ago191 comments17 people in discussion
This section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward.
Each discussion below starts with a summary of the confirmation comments. Coloured and underlined names have notes attached; move your cursor onto the names to show the notes, or refer to this legend:
Agrees with this point, but favours confirmation.
Agrees with this point, but opposes confirmation.
Agrees with this point, but is undecided about confirmation.
routine user checks on ptwiki of new users (some established on other wikis) without good reason (local discussion, Alexanderps' statement). Tinz mentions it was done to catch a "persistant troll out there".
5 agreed, 2 seconded (31 didn't mention this).
Ruy Pugliesi, Teles, Tinz[Stepro, Geitost], Church of emacs, Innv.
home community doesn't trust him? (Teles reports lost trust due to above checkuser concern.)
—Pathoschild08:12:57, 2800:16, 29 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove - Lack of understanding of the steward policy (in re rights changes) and losing trust (due to possible checkuser issues), though the accusations of abuse should be taken up with the local arbitration committee. Kylu17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
i cannot but agree with the seriousness of the concerns raised during this reconfirmation, and do no longer support, sorry. oscar21:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Stewards may, through the course of their actions, attract negative opinions of themselves by others; that in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of any failure in action as a steward. However questionable rights assignations and checks that are not in accord with local policies may be construed as not properly filling the role of steward, and there is significant concern that this may be the situation with Alexander, therefore the confirmation should not be successful at this point. -- Avi06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Remove - the concerns with rights changes and checks are things we should have addressed as a team before now; I regret that we did not, as Alexander's insight and language skills are both needed. This suggests a need for better process for educating and reviewing stewards. –SJ+09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Alexanderps was not confirmed by consensus. The rationale was a clear consensus among stewards to remove, a majority opposed in discussion, and low activity. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The only significant issue raised that I saw was the one of activity, and Andre did fulfill the steward activity requirements of at least one action in the six months prior to the election and at least ten actions over the year. Therefore I see no reason not to confirm. -- Avi06:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I'm not convinced about your promise to be more active (like last year): 1 month full of actions just after the reconfirmation, and then, you'll disappear again. Per your personal request, just before the reconfirmation, I tend to suggest a less binding role, like global sysop, but also enough important for your significant experience. So, remove steward access--Nick1915 -all you want08:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Closed with 3-1-1. So confirmed but with objections concerning his activity. But active enough per policy, no other issues raised. First time less active. —DerHexer(Talk)23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Andre Engel was confirmed with three agreeing, one disagreeing, and one undecided. Contraindications were low activity and his disappearance after the 2009 confirmation. The rationale was an overall consensus among stewards to confirm, activity sufficient to avoid automatic removal, and no trust issues.
There was discussion about the lack of tools to accurately measure steward activity, which is wide-ranging and difficult to measure manually. A concern was raised that non-steward comments were not given sufficient weight; was countered that there was no clear community consensus to follow in this case. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
strictly taken inactive per policy, yet in view of her extraordinary services and busy life as a consequence of having served as chair of the board of trustees (a very demanding task indeed), as well as in view of her statement, i would like to propose a keep for say 6 months and then remove if still inactive. oscar21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, when inactive as measured against the policy (which is a low enough bar) the answer is remove. Much as I love Anthere, I don't see wiggle room on this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
yes i understand your point, and that will probably be the way these things will and should be done from now on. i also perceive a more demanding adaptiation of the minimum activity requirements needs to be undertaken, and a more rigid application of these may be desirable, all to be implemented in 2010 imho. at this turning point still, for this unique case, i would still like to plead for *6 months* and re-evalutation, while in the mean time (coming months) adapting and implementing the minimum requirements for activity. oscar13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
As trustworthy and helpful as she is, the inactivity clause does not say "may" but "will". Without ten actions in the past year and one in the past six months, I think we are forced not to confirm, and hope that of she has more time she stands again next year. -- Avi06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Remove - inactive per policy. The policy leaves little choice here. It would be nice though if we could find a way to continue to benefit from her experience. --Cspurrier19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Anthere was not confirmed by consensus. The rationale was inactivity sufficient for automatic removal. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm - As he's doing the jobs he holds and has the technical permissions of a steward without the requirements of the steward policy with his Staff bit, I think Marcus Cyron's objection is actually backwards: Due to him having the Steward right, he's actually "safer" to have around, since he uses it and actions using that right (and account) are subject to the policy and accountable to the public. I do not intend to address the remainder. Kylu17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Remove, sorry. Has never been active in areas beside changing permissions. And only 11 actions during the last year are just two more than minimally needed. —DerHexer(Talk)12:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
meets present minimum requirements, but i would like to see you become more active as promised as well and suggest a re-evaluation of activities after 6 months. oscar22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please forgive my presumption as a newer steward for disagreeing with those whom I fully appreciate understand the role better than I, but the inactivity levels require 1 action in the past six months and 10 in the past year. While it may be worthwhile to discuss adjusting those statistics, anyone who has fulfilled that requirement should not be removed for reasons of inactivity in my opinion. I count exactly 10 steward actions in the past year (I treat the +flag and -flag for work on a small wiki as 1 action, as we are not meant to keep the bits, so the giving and taking are a unit) which fulfills the requirements. The fact that the user committed to be more active and did not is disappointing, but not in and of itself a failure in the role of the steward, and so not a reason not to confirm, in my opinion. There were no other concerns regarding failure or abuse of the steward role, and thus I think that under the current standards, Cspurrier should be reconfirmed. -- Avi07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Cspurrier was not confirmed by consensus. The rationale was inactivity (with one action beyond the minimum to avoid automatic removal), and Cspurrier's inability to meet his promise of renewed activity in the 2009 confirmation. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
active, trustworthy, experienced, often available, good steward.
7 agreed, 1 seconded (61 didn't mention this).
DerHexer[Avraham], Kylu, Ottava Rima, Mercy, Loreleil, SlimVirgin, John Vandenberg.
Concerned
some kind of dispute on frwiki / IRC, with Darkoneko banned from an unspecified non-serious channel; accusations of inappropriate behaviour and throwing accusations around; loss of trust; something about "the story with Neerdael". Hégésippe and Elfix note the mentioned events seem irrelevant.
edit:Elfix explained that Darkoneko joined a secret ##cabaleconnect IRC channel, got kickbanned because he "was not welcome" (along with several who had never visited it), and accused Galdrad of doing it. Galdrad was offended, and the users in that ##cabale channel opposed his confirmation.
The "story of Neerdael" refers to an abusive sockpuppet DarkoNeko discovered and exposed. Some frwiki users stated that it was not abusive and that there was no reason to expose it. Apparently, this was settled and the sockpuppet considered abusive.
4 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
Vyk, Suprememangaka, Moipaulochon, Galdrad.
—Pathoschild21:45:48, 2800:29, 29 February 2010 (UTC)
active, good, awesome steward who knows no bounds, brilliant, talented, excellent, helpful, often available, best steward, valiant and bold crosswiki vandalfighter, levelheaded.
24 agreed, 1 seconded (68 didn't mention this).
Bastique, Katerenka, Church of emacs, Innv, Ottava Rima, Holder, Jamesofur, Bsadowski1, Ejs-80, Elfix, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Bücherwürmlein, Farct, Mercy, XenonX3, OrbiliusMagister, Stepro, WiseWoman, SlimVirgin, Leinad, Ra'ike, Dave souza, per everyone[Geitost].
mreow ! mreoooow.
1 agreed (92 didn't mention this).
Darkoneko.
Concerned
not a native speaker, not always able to respond quickly.
Confirm - Overwhelming support. I see incident on en.wiki as an isolated case of performing an action in good faith that turned out to be wrong. Who hasn't made a mistake? --Daniel Mayer (mav)02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - The arbcom of that wiki relayed a note to the stewards list that it would rather have an innocent mistake which can be easily reversed over possibly leaving damaging information up. It should be encouraged to err on the side of caution. Kylu17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
linguistic bias; old story, explained by Vituzzu: a Spanish user was canvassing for the Commons Picture of the Year vote; when Vituzzu confronted the user, the user began harassing him, but Drini did not take the issue seriously. Vituzzu says drini is a good steward, and doesn't want to make a big issue of this, so he's neutral.
Processed a checkuser request without checking whether it was supported by community consensus (diff). Dalibor Bosits notes community consensus is not required for user checks.
47 users commented on Effeietsanders, or 17.9% of participating users. Final revision r1875738.
Favourable
no reason given / no worries.
28 agreed (19 didn't mention this).
DerHexer, Juliancolton, Davin, WizardOfOz, Church of emacs, Nick1915, Elfix, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, Razorflame, Jyothis, DustSpinner, Bastique, Oscar, Yuyu, Finnrind, Aphaia, Fastily, Annabel, Anthere, FollowTheMedia, Caspian blue, Raymond, NonvocalScream, Lolsimon, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.
trustworthy, experienced, provides insight in steward discussions, "best guardian of the principles", available, proficient, excellent, dedicated, involved, has good sense of data privacy protection.
Confirm - Active per policy. Political views on bcrats are not relevant to Steward confirmation/duties. Being too "bureaucratic" does not seem sufficient reason to object to confirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav)02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - Concern is purely political, and the background question needs to be answered by the community, not by stewards steamrolling an answer into policy. Kylu17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Active, helpful, friendly, competent, technically-savvy, experienced, trustworthy, extraordinary, clueful, good, civil, considerate, level-headed, effective, thoughtful, dedicated, caring, kind, knowledgeable, approachable, sensible steward; valuable asset; good judgement and sense of humour; outstanding; excellent record as a steward, fine job, performs well.
enwiki dispute / allegations irrelevant, no evidence of steward abuse.
20 agreed (94 didn't mention this).
Jennavecia, Coffee, MF-Warburg, Josette, NuclearWarfare, Unitanode, Montanabw, Kevin, FT2, Millosh, Majorly, Scott MacDonald, Tinz, NickK, George The Dragon, Martinp, Themfromspace, Pablo X, MichaelMaggs, John Vandenberg.
Many complaints seem to be personal griefs, rather than legitimate concerns.
self-righteous, arrogant, uncivil, dismissive, unpleasant, vindictive, carries grudges, prone to drama and politicking, untrustworthy, poor judgement; personal attacks (request for comments); poor character for a steward.
24 agreed, 10 seconded (80 didn't mention this).
Quadell, A Nobody, Tim Song[Short Brigade Harvester Boris], Colonel Warden, MSGJ, Dave souza, Pohta ce-am pohtit[Cirt], Ruslik0, Sjakkalle, Casliber, Okip[Dream Focus], Crum375, RayAYang, DGG, SlimVirgin[FeloniousMonk], Guettarda, Jayjg, Slrubenstein, Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou], JoshuaZ[Sandahl, Alex Bakharev], Sarah[Ryan Postlethwaite, Piotrus], Will Beback, Leifern, Khoikhoi.
increasingly extreme; ignores policy to pursue idealogy; contempt or poor understanding of consensus and community; dispute on enwiki about out-of-process deletion of living-person biographies; disruption; request for comment, arbitration cases "BLP deletions" and "WP:PROD wheel war".
militant, divisive, polarizing, idealogical, narrow-minded, "his side versus everyone else"; "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" (diff).
6 agreed, 16 seconded (92 didn't mention this).
JoshuaZ[Sandahl, Alex Bakharev, Cirt, Leifern, Slrubenstein, Khoikhoi, Sarah[Piotrus, Jayjg, Khoikhoi]], Nsk92[RayAYang, Bolo1910], The Wordsmith, Casliber, Cenarium[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]], SlimVirgin[FeloniousMonk].
I cannot decide upon something in this difficult situation because I do not have the time to check all raised issues to weigh all arguments adequately. Glimpsing at them, I see nothing steward related which opposes his confirmation. —DerHexer(Talk)13:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The alarming issues regarding behaviour aren't steward-related? Those issues permeate everything Lar does, including (especially?) anything done as a steward. Those are most certainly relevant here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, everything can be related to elect a new steward. If we use the same criteria for confirmation, all raised concerns are steward related. But as I said, I've just flicked through it and do not feel able to judge it correctly. —DerHexer(Talk)23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit shocked to see so many users raising many the same concerns that I've held for some time quietly. I simply cannot say that the behavioural concerns raised are unfounded - I've witnessed or experienced them too often for that. I also cannot agree that these are unrelated to Lar's steward activities. Indeed, the biggest issue here, I think, is using his privileged access as a badge (steward being the biggest badge) with which to inappropriately win arguments, or gain political advantage - and this is not limited to the English Wikipedia (where I rarely venture). Indeed, I should point out that Lar is the other "older steward" I recently mentioned - this continuity of behaviour permeates everything Lar does, and is not restricted to his actions on one wiki. In these cases, Lar doesn't use the tools themselves, he uses his position in a manner unbecoming of a steward - whether using it for political advantage or belittling others who disagree with him, or any of a number of similar legitimate grievances mentioned in the confirmation. I'm not comfortable working with Lar as a steward, and I haven't been for most of the past year. I strongly believe he should be removed from this position. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Remove. The issues raised obviously worry a number of people; 35% of users who commented on Lar (or 19% of all users) were concerned enough to oppose his confirmation, with the highest participation by far.
While there are legitimate comments about Lar's helpfulness and other qualities, these cannot outweigh the concerns if they are well-founded. These concerns needed to be investigated and either validated or put to rest. Following is my investigation and notes. I focused on examples and evidence; plenty of unsupported statements can be found in the confirmation discussions (on both sides).
ignores policy & consensus, dispute on enwiki about out-of-process deletion of living-person biographies, unilateral, &c.
An arbitration committee motion summarizes the dispute. It is clear that Lar acted without consensus in the enwiki dispute, but there is no clear evidence of policy violation. The arbitration committee recognized the legitimacy of their actions, if not their enthusiasm, cautioning them to "conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner". Ireviewedmanypagessurroundingthisdispute, to same conclusion. The committee statement on this page restates the above summary, specifically that Lar's actions were disruptive but did not violate policy. The committee has no jurisdiction over and made no comment about community consensus.
This dispute appears to be irrelevant to his functions as a steward; I am not aware of similar situations in his steward duties, which would likely result in his prompt removal of steward access.
Breach of privacy policy.
Very little information is provided about this. A proposed arbitration finding shows several arbiters agreeing that "Lar disclosed data derived from page logs, in circumstances in which none of the situations permitting disclosure applied. This constituted a breach of the privacy policy." However, the committee concluded that "Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the Committee." Since Lar is now on the ombudsman commission that investigates such claims, there cannot be a fair investigation by that commission.
I spoke to a trusted Wikimedian who knows the details of what happened, but they refused to explain beyond saying that there was no abuse or error.
Without further information, no judgments can be made based on this argument.
alleged inappropriate behaviour towards women.
There is no reliable public information available on this issue.
Several discussions were linked to on en.wikipedia, meta.wikimedia, and wikipediareview.com. I reviewed these, as well as the pages related to the BLP controversy, and found several combative or hostile comments by Lar that concern me (listed hereafter). I hold stewards to a high standard of behaviour, which I don't think Lar always upholds. Several of these are very recent, and no longer made in the heat of the original controversy.
He's not? Was he ever? He sure talks like the stereotypical bad admin they like to make fun of on that BADSITE.
Thanks for your input. I don't agree, though. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What exactly did you solve with your comment?
Fascinating.
There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some.
(I myself was satisfied by the fact that that all of the current or former ArbCom members who chose to comment as private citizens, with the sole exception of Jayjg, who was stripped of his CU, OV, and functionary status by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming a functionary, even those who opposed reconfirmation, did so without in any way supporting the incorrect statements being bandied about).
Sorry if that's "arrogant" of me to point out, but you're so confused on this point that it merits direct refutation. You should stop ranting. It's really rather unbecoming. I am minded to ask ArbCom for a sanction on your actions since you continue to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations even after being repeatedly warned about it.
Referring to an editor's well-meaning contributions as bullshit (BS) is uncalled for, however much Lar disagreed with the summary the user posted. Lar's statements here are belittling, dismissive, and threatening. If Lar uses dispute resolution as a threat, he likely misunderstands its purpose.
I've recently encountered Lar's combativeness first-hand. When I was writing the summary at the top of this section, he repeatedly insisted I specify whether I was with or against him, and pressured me to make it seem less negative. I will not quote our private discussion without his permissions, but several statements were hostile and combative.
At the time, I assumed his behaviour was isolated and simply the result of the pressure he is under, with the recent enwiki controversy and his confirmation. After investigating the concerns mentioned above, and based on Mike's above comment, I see it is not the isolated case I thought it was.
Given the above details, I no longer feel comfortable having Lar as a steward. —Pathoschild 06:25:11, 09 March 2010 (UTC)
confirming or not should imho be a question of inactivity, and/or loss of trust e.g. as a result of abuse or misbehaviour as a steward. i tend to read the two comments above as more like a conflict or dispute over differing styles of personalities rather than actual misbehaviour by lar. "not feeling comfortable" sounds rather too subjective to me. it may be just me, but is this really a case of "misbehaviour as a steward" in your opinion? oscar12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lar has done good work as a steward, but no steward should ever behave in a threatening, dismissive, or hostile way; this is antithetical to the steward role. There appears to be a strong loss of trust shown in the confirmation, where less than 65% of participants were in favour.
Lar has responded honestly below. I don't know if he'll be able to keep his commitment, but I'm certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want the old Lar back. (You can count this bean as neutral.) —Pathoschild 18:55:25, 09 March 2010 (UTC)
If there're 2 requirements in the steward policy, activity and trust, I want to confirm him: I'm convinced about his good faith, his experience and competence. I've read all the concerns, and sincerely, I'm more peeved about lar' private life intrusion than his hypothetical abuses. --Nick1915 -all you want08:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, some new steward has to take the plunge. I will preface my remarks with a statement directed specifically to EnWiki users, who have responded here in large numbers; please forgive me if y'all know this, I was somewhat uncertain prior to this election and I wish no one to be unclear as to how these discussions work. I have been instructed that Steward confirmation decisions are not the same as the EnWiki RfX;s. Whereas in RfX's, the consensus is solely that of the franchised community, and the role of bureaucrats is to identify and implement that consensus, when dealing with steward confirmations the consensus is that of the corpus of stewards who should take into account any valid concern raised by one and all during the discussion. Therefore, what will follow is my own opinion of the matter after having read the discussions involved.
It is my understanding based on policy that stewardship is removed for two basic reasons 1) Lack of need as demonstrated by the defined Inactivity parameters and 2) a loss of trust in the role as steward. I think it safe to say that there is no activity issue with Lar, so I will focus on the second: has Lar acted in a way that would indicate he cannot be trusted in the steward role.
The first element in my decision process is personal observation. In my roles in Wikimedia (both in the Commons and on Enwiki) I have seen nothing that would indicates to me that Lar has acted in a way that abused the role. Whether it be with OS or CU on the Commons or or EnWiki, my personal observations of Lar and his actions allow me to opine that he has been a proper "steward" (pun intended) of the roles he has been granted, and I am personally unaware of any violation of the roles he has. This lead to my initial statement supporting his confirmation, as I have found him to be accessible and knowledgeable.
However, various concerns were raised during the confirmation that requires address. These issues, though, must be analyzed in the context of the role of steward. Firstly, someone my well be inappropriate for a role on a particular wiki yet perfectly appropriate for that same role on a different wiki due the the different user base. Secondly, stewards, and all functionaries for that matter, need to make difficult decisions, and those decisions are bound to upset one or more groups of people. That is unfortunate, but not necessarily an indication of a failure in the role.
The BLP deletions on EnWiki
I do not see this as an issue that would prevent confirmation. Firstly, this is an EnWiki matter, not a steward matter; Lar is forbidden to act as a steward on EnWiki outside extenuating circumstances. Even if Lar were to have been found in breach of EnWiki policies by the EnWiki body authorized to handle editor behavior (ArbCom) that does not ipso facto make him a failed stewards. Different projects have different policies and atmospheres and it is inappropriate to use the mores or political struggles of one project to judge another. Compound this with the findings of actions supported by the EnWiki policy, I must dismiss this as an issue preventing confirmation.
Off-wikimedia inappropriate behavior
Whether it in person or on various other webboards, as long as wikimedia policies about release of private information or issues like canvassing were not abused, this is irrelevant.
Possible breach of privacy policy
If this is accurate, this is an issue. The protection of private information is a core responsibility of the steward role. However, based on the supplied evidence and discussions, similar to my understanding of what happened with Pathoschild, I do not see an abuse of the steward role. Having read the discussions I concur with w:en:User:Newyorkbrad's detailed analysis in that this was at best an unfortunate mistake, and not in any way an abuse of position, and should not stand in the way of reconfirmation.
Possible misuse of checkuser
If this is accurate, this is an issue. Similar to above, however, there was no finding of misuse of the tool and the actions taken were appropriate and within the range of discretion CUs and OSs have. Therefore, this is not an issue standing in the way of reconfirmation.
Attitude and inter-editor behavior
Each and every one of us has a duty and responsibility to treat each other with the respect that human beings deserve. It may well be the largest flaw of the internet, that conversation is not treated as between two people but between to pseudonymous ciphers and so there exists a distinct lack of common courtesy and respect. That is something we all need to work on. Stewards, or any functionary, being in the spotlight more often should personally hold themselves to higher standards due to whatever (mis)perception exists about how having extra maintenance tools affects the user. However, this is not the US military and there is no Article 133 that leads to court marshal and loss of pay and privilege. I would strongly counsel Lar to take this particular criticism to heart and, over the next year when he will not be acting as a steward anyway, to work very hard on alternate methods of dealing with the inevitable and continuous frustrations that plague wikimedia volunteers. But even acting like a jerk at times (for I do not think it fair to say that he acts arrogantly or dismissively constantly, at least in my experience it is rather rare) does not mean that there was an abuse of the role of steward, and I do not think that this should stand in the way of confirmation.
As an aside, I give no credence to there being any "fear" on the part of EnWiki ArbCom due to Lar's being an ombudsman. Firstly, these people are not scared of Lar; sheesh, they barbecue Jimbo on a regular basis. Seriously, these are all people who think of wikipedia first and would have no issue implicating Lar should he have been found wanting. Further, reductio ad absurdum ALL stewards are technically able to be judged by Ombudsman; we are all potential CUs and OSs on every project. Does that mean that NO ONE may comment; I direct you above where stewards are openly not afraid to call for Lar's non-reconfirmation.
In closing, no evidence of tool misuse was found by the investigating bodies as posted below by EnWiki, internal political squabbles on one project do not, in and of themselves, indicate inappropriateness for the role, personal interaction, while critical does not automatically equate, in my mind, with abuse of the role, and my own observations of Lar's actions in roles related to stewarding have been overall favorable. As such, while I see opportunities for Lar to improve as a wikimedian and a human being, I do not see sufficient reason to remove the steward role from him. -- Avi16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you look at my early history onwiki, you see a different person. I got a fair number of barnstars from people who were taken by how calm, how unflappable, and just generally nice I was. Heck, I even was the primary author of COM:MELLOW, an essay on why being nice is such a good thing. Looking back over the last few months, it seems that Lar has went somewhere. I think the wiki process (especially the turbulent environment on en:wp) can grind people down. I myself feel very ground down, for sure. In large part it is fromdealing with the same allegations about CU, my personal life, and so forth, raised again and again even after they have been investigated and found baseless... That's not an excuse, it's just an explanation. I make no apologies for having strong opinions, or for voicing them, but I will voice them in ways that do not leave people thinking I'm arrogant, dismissive, rude or what have you. That's unacceptable. I think everyone wants the old Lar back. I know I want the old Lar back. I acknowledge the criticism levied about my demeanor and I will do better. Or leave. ++Lar: t/c18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Looking back over the past few months" ... yet these issues go back at least a year. I have to point out again (the first time was by email) that characterizing these issues as "having strong opinions" or "voicing them strongly" is simply an insulting mischaracterization - that isn't what people are upset about at all. Indeed, even in the past several days you've engaged in exactly the unacceptable behaviour we're talking about in private correspondence. If one of the chief complaints is holding onto as much power as you can so you can use it as a stick to bash others who you feel are your inferiors, and then we see you here in a desperate attempt to hold onto this power... Remind me, what is it we're supposed to believe has changed, exactly? You should resign, spend a year on the Ombudsman Commission and prove that you can participate without belittling others etc. Next year, run in the steward election to prove that you've regained the trust we can now see that you've lost so thoroughly. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - There are some real issues here and I do not think they can be completely ignored. Overall though Lar's work as a steward has been good and I think we benefit more from him keeping the steward bit, then taking it away. --Cspurrier19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do see the seriousness in what people say here, and agree with a lot/most that has been said here already. Most of the complaints are about home wiki-behaviour, and should not be affected in the meta/steward-reconfirmation. Since Lar is going to be an ombudsman for the next year, I would say confirm, and let him prove that he can get "the old Lar back", as he himself wants, in the next reconfirmation. If there are still as much complaints next year, I will oppose reconfirmation, otherwise the stewards as a group will loose trust from the community. Laaknor20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Lar was not confirmed with three agreeing, one disagreeing, and one undecided. The issues raised in his confirmation were discussed extensively by the eight participants present. The overall lack of consensus among the stewards was noted — 40% of stewards who commented were undecided or opposed (with several noting the difficulty of the case), along with 35% of the community. The role of the committee in deciding the confirmation was discussed, and the original proposed scope — as an "arbitrating group" tasked with making the final decisions — in light of this lack of consensus.
The relevance of the en-Wikipedia dispute to the steward role was discussed, and considered irrelevant in and of itself. The allegations of checkuser abuse were found lacking evidence or details. The potential role of wikistress in his recent behaviour was noted. The apparent biases by some participants in the discussion were noted. His behaviour towards various women was briefly discussed, but thought to be in the past.
Contraindications were sufficient activity and a possibility he might improve his behaviour; however, re-election in the next cycle was agreed to be a more ideal option in this case.
The rationale was his negative behaviour towards Wikimedians, concerns about pressuring Pathoschild to pick a side while the latter was drafting the summaries, later emailing committee members about his confirmation, and a loss of trust and credibility expressed in the confirmation discussions. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm - Overwhelming support. Expressing political views and participating in contentious discussions is NOT a valid reason to block confirmation. Having too many jobs is not an issue unless it adversely affects judgment or participation levels. Not deciding to do an action is also not a valid reason to block confirmation; that is why we have multiple Stewards. --Daniel Mayer (mav)02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - NonvocalScream has an objection worth reviewing, but not by stewards: We really, really need a policy in place so that the stewards do not have to decide the matter. I made a section for NVS on my pet policy discussion page to assist in drafting a policy. Kylu17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm, active per policy. Users that have a problem with activitylevel should discuss this on the policy talkpage, and not on reconfirmation-page. Laaknor20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Oscar was confirmed with four agreeing and one undecided. Contraindications were low activity. The rationale was sufficient activity and overall consensus to confirm. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm - While the username-sandbox mistake was an issue, it has since been rectified and Pathos is aware that mirrors like to strip off the NOINDEX declaration. Sure, why bother with respecting the content of another site and privacy of individuals if it gets more page hits, right? So, we get another steward to visit him, punish him properly, then go on with his 500 billion logged actions per day version of laziness that helps keep the place running. Kylu17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. Responded quickly and helpfully in single mistake noted. Provides essential steward-level support for the work of other stews, indefatigable. –SJ+help translate05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
According to the Steward policy, stewards may lose their status under two circumstances: 1) Inactivity and 2) a consensus that the steward is no longer trusted in his or her role as steward. This consensus is decided upon by the stewards, and I have been specifically informed that they are allowed, nay supposed, to use their judgment in combination with the opinions voiced by all—stewards and non-stewards alike. In the case of Pathoschild, there is no concern regarding activity. If anything, we should all be emulating his example. However, there was a concern raised related to trust, and that was the personal information that was stored on sites that ended up being mirrored outside of wikipedia. Personal information protection is something with which I personally (pun not intended but inevitable) am very concerned in various roles in which I try to help the wikimedia projects, and negligence in caring for personal information may well be considered a reason for a user to lose the trust of the community. However, in my opinion and judgment based on the discussions and the history, I do not see any negligence on the part of Pathoschild. This is an unfortunate mistake we all need to learn from, but it neither indicative of a negligent approach to the steward position nor a violation of the steward role, and I am happy to be able to opine that Pathoschild should be reconfirmed (and opine that he should use encryption when lists are necessary). -- Avi07:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
confirm, I assume that the "sandbox-incident" has been investigated by the ombuds committee as it should have been per privacy policy (who also can attach consequences to it). No need for us to repeat that. Effeietsanders14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Closed with 4-0-1. Raised issue concerning having published private data was noted as a single but stupid mistake. Pathoschild has accepted that this was wrong and excused himself. Beyond that issue he is trusted. —DerHexer(Talk)00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Pathoschild was confirmed with four agreeing and one recused. Contraindications were a serious mistake leading to the indexing of attack usernames. The rationale was high activity, overall consensus to confirm, the lack of other mistakes, and a sincere apology for the accidental indexing of attack names.
Disclosure: I'm fairly close to this Pathoschild chap, but the committee members carefully reviewed these summaries to ensure they fairly summarized their discussions. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the Steward policy, stewards may lose their status under two circumstances: 1) Inactivity and 2) a consensus that the steward is no longer trusted in his or her role as steward. I count exactly 10 steward action in the year prior to the start of this confirmation period, with at least one in the past six months. Again, perhaps the inactivity levels need to be revisited, but as they stand now, I do not see how inactivity would be an acceptable reason to remove Redux. Regarding a consensus that the user is no longer trusted, there was an issue raised with regards to Redux's apparent unilateral closure of certain discussions. However, in my opinion and judgment, while the actions may have been construed as "rude", they were not in and of themselves violations or abuses of Redux's role as a steward; it was even pointed out in the discussion that Redux was not overruled as there was no policy-based issue that would countenance an overrule. Therefore, I think that per the steward policy there is no reason not to reconfirm Redux, although he should take to heart the constructive criticism supplied. -- Avi07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
just active enough per policy: confirm. my own recollection of last year's confirmations btw was that redux simply had the guts to hack a gordian knot, in a situation where most seemed waiting for something like that to happen. oscar13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, the part of the policy defining inactivity become invalidated when the community speaks so clearly of their concerns. The conclusion here is exactly what those 25 users said: remove - he is simply not active. I suppose we should be thankful he wasn't more active, since the next most common concern among the community is ignoring consensus. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. Active per policy. Confirming Sj was somewhat problematic, though I do not believe that this is the appropriate venue to second guess every tough call a steward has made. --Cspurrier19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have a problem with these discussions beeing about activity-level instead of trust, and hoped that all stewards that didn't meet the requirement would resign before the reconfirmation. You have had a low activity two years in a row now, and there is (sadly) a strong consensus that you are inactive, and only because this was the case last year too, I have to say remove. Laaknor20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Redux was not confirmed by consensus. The rationale was inactivity and his inability to meet his promise of renewed activity in the 2009 confirmation. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm - Steward policy violations appear to have been done w/o malice, were done well over a year ago and have not been repeated. Active per policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav)03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that concern can be dismissed so easily - they haven't been repeated because Shizhao wasn't a steward for the intervening year, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody actually checked on whether the CUs were OK or not in the first place. Furthermore, during the last year, when someone might have brought a complaint to the OC, Shizhao was a member. Hardly confidence-inspiring for someone who wants their complaint to be taken seriously. But I suppose, given the pattern, that isn't an actual goal of the OC, so it doesn't much matter :\ — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Formal requests are nice, but asking doesn't mean the check was justified - indeed most requests are declined. In any case, I suppose Wing will next say that they were justified, so let's just skip that step. Of course Shizhao will have to stop doing checks on home wiki, even if requested & justified; please see birdy's comments from last year. Unless there is an urgent emergency, there are other stewards who can and should be handling CU requests for zhwiki. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Difficult situation because he could not use his buttons having participated in OC. Neutral by now tending to remove because of given concerns. —DerHexer(Talk)13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
understandably, this was difficult to address in the past year, but now i would like to request for more clarity (apart from the RfC which says "possible violations") about the alleged abuse of cu, without data i am unable to form my own opinion on the case, which imho is not unimportant for the reconfirmation, even if solely to clear the air. oscar23:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
To keep things shorter, for a change, the issue here is one of activity and not one of trust. This is one case where I think the inactivity penalty should apply, as someone active on the Ombudsman Commission should not be using their steward abilities, even if the OC is quiescent. Ombudsmen are supposed to not be regular users to allow for the separation and hopefully impartiality necessary to adjudicate issues. While it is unfortunate that the prior year was also one of less activity, that does not mean that he was to violate his trust as an ombudsman to maintain his steward activity levels. I think that Shizhao should be reconfirmed this year, and should keep in mind that now that he can act as a steward in good faith, he should attempt to do so on a regular basis to respond to community concerns. -- Avi22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
To briefly recap the CU and other issues mentioned: three generic complaints were raised in a 2008 RfC:
Desysoppings on home wiki. This was requested per zh:wp policy linked from the RfC, and does not seem to have been controversial.
A set of Checkusers on home wiki. Done on the request of wing and other zh:wp administrators (as mentioned in comments on the RfC).
Association of 2 IPs with accounts on zh:wp. Shizhao implied that the IPs in question edited without logging in, as well as with the logged-in accounts.
All of these issues were responded to in the RfC, comments on the RfC were all positive, and no similar actions have been raised since. Other than that, Shizhao is generally active on meta and offers useful language support; I am inclined to Confirm. –SJ+07:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - inactivity issue should be ignored as he was a Ombudsman Commission member at the time. We should probably come up with a better way to deal with inactivity/reconfirmation for the period stewards are OC members. Other issues seem to have already been handled in the RfC.--Cspurrier19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm, activity-related opposes are not really an issue, since he didn't have steward-rights in the last year, and I hope that the RfC has addressed all issues. AGFing and welcome back. Laaknor20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Closed with 4-0-1. Confirmed but with objections concerning his CheckUser action on his homewiki which is not allowed per Steward policy. He should also communicate those actions more with other stewards (via steward-l, IRC, aut idem) to help them read/understand it. —DerHexer(Talk)00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Contraindications were using steward tools on his home wiki; it was decided that good faith could be assumed, and that he should be requested not to do so again and to communicate with neutral stewards when needed. The relevance of inactivity for ombudsmen (who cannot use steward tools during their term) was discussed, and decided to not be relevant. The point raised by one user about POV-pushing on his home wiki was noted.
The rationale was overall consensus to confirm. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm - Revisiting the confirmation decision of the previous year doesn't fall within the scope of this year's confirmations, even if they were erroneous. As there are actions in excess of the minimal activity policy and no loss of trust issues, confirmation is the only viable decision. Kylu17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see the issue last year as the responsibility of the closer, actually. It may be an issue of Sj not wanting to second-guess the results and our not reversing the close last year that emboldened Sj this time. Either way, I don't see that as his fault, though resigning would've been a more ideal solution, I agree. Kylu01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was strongly ambivalent about the outcome of that discussion, and said I would honor what decision the stewards reached. Either resolution could be justified based on the changing views on activity, which had not previously been an element of confirmation but became a significant part of it during that year's vote-like process. –SJ+help translate05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
So you saw this and thought there could somehow be any acceptable conclusion other than removal? For a steward, who is meant to implement community consensus, that is shocking to me. Either you cannot read consensus, or you simply ignored it and allowed others to ignore it too. I can't decide which is worse! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, you are far more blase about this than I am, but I don't think failing to follow through on the promises that got him through that reconfirmation can be easily dismissed. To wit: increased activity, and hashing out an improved method of dealing with those stewards who are not meeting the community's desired levels of activity. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ouch. You're correct about the promise, though, so change to Neutral. I don't want to discourage the improvements he has made, but I can't support him if that's his response to his promise. Kylu02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
We addressed the issue of activity by defining an activity policy for the first time, identifying the need for better measures of cross-project activity other than rights logs, and adding that stewards can lose their flags without a confirmation vote if they ever become inactive. There are mixed feelings about whether the activity bar is too low, which can be resolved by updating the policy. –SJ+help translate05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Confirm per my statement. Should have been removed in 2009, was mistakenly confirmed and not as active as promised but still helps out on steward-l. Although there are concerns I personally would like to see him confirmed. —DerHexer(Talk)13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The community (including me) wants a more active steward. Sj knows that and hopefully continues being active as steward as he is in steward-l and recent time. —DerHexer(Talk)23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This past year Sj demonstrated activity in accord with the current statement at Steward policy#inactivity (which may need adjusting, but that is out of scope here) and so I cannot in good faith use inactivity as a reason to counsel removal of steward privileges. Sj should be encouraged to be even MORE active this year after being reconfirmed. -- Avi22:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Closed with 3-1-1. So confirmed but with objections concerning his activity. Actions enough per policy, furthermore very trusted and working in background like steward-l. —DerHexer(Talk)00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Committee discussion summary: Sj was confirmed with three agreeing, one disagreeing, and one undecided. The concerns about his 2009 confirmation against community consensus were discussed. It was generally considered to be a mistake (of shared responsibility), but past and done with, and best to deal with the present confirmation in its own right. Contraindications were low activity. The rationale was an overall consensus to confirm, no bad faith on his part in accepting his confirmation, and recent activity on the stewards-l mailing list. —Pathoschild 03:05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the first year we have summaries like this, so there were no precedents to base them on. A few things I noted while putting them together:
Should we split favourable adjectives into more sections? For example, "active, helpful" (activity/helpfulness) and "multilingual" (qualification) and "good, extraodinary" (character).
The "Jack[Joe]" template distinguishes indirect points that aren't explicitly mentioned by that person. In at least one case, listing indirect points resulted in one person's point having a dozen persons indirectly listed (like "James, James[Josie], Josie[Jerome, Jackie], Jackie[Jill]...".) Is there a better way to do this? Should foo[bar] only apply to citing explicit points (not further indirect points)?
I don't know if I'm allowed to post in this section but... "Needs more cowbell" and comments like it should probably not go under "concerns". Perhaps "jovial comments" or "frivolity" should be its own section with them seen as part-neutral and part-support (no concerns otherwise they wouldn't be saying something silly). No reasons should also be put into this area. Stewards need to weigh various issues, and voting support does represent quite a bit of positive but it doesn't focus on particulars. If there were 3 opposes on lack of activity and 10 supports saying "active enough", then you have a different situation than 3 opposes for lack of activity and 10 supports saying nothing. The parsing of comments is for the Steward benefit, so they should be the ones to ultimately decide, but the above is just my opinion on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Ottava. Everyone is welcome to comment here. I moved 'needs more cowbell' into the 'Favourable' section.
I agree comments without reasons are less compelling than reasoned arguments, although they are a weak indicator of trust (or distrust). Maybe they could be pushed to the bottom of each section, so the arguments are explained first? —Pathoschild 06:04:39, 04 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. However, since the weight is to steward opinion and the confirmation is more to their benefit, I am sure that when a steward has a blank support that they probably have some greater reason. I think the key would be to move the statements but to ensure that people do not see their view points as being dismissed or that the move is somehow attacking/criticizing them. The last thing we need is another source of drama for this process. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please add a tool to the to-do-list to summarize steward actions by each, split across months and showing focus areas. This will give a better picture of activism while he comes thru for re-confirm. --Jyothis22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed: summary now posted.
What could English Wikipedia's ArbCom details say to have you change your outcome/summary? Why are we waiting on them? Do they control the process somehow, or somewhere? NonvocalScream03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
We've asked the EnWiki ArbCom to validate the accusations, specifically the abuse of restricted rights, any violation of policy and/or ignoring consensus, and attitude issues that might deserve review before we make any sort of determination. There is no restriction against gaining more information, and with the solidarity of opposition that has been noted on his confirmation page, there's good reason to make the request. Also, please note that this page specifically requests that non-stewards not partake in this discussion: Similar restrictions are in place regularly, similar to the restrictions placed by bureaucrats here for confirmations. If you'd like to comment on this page, feel free, but preferably do not do so in this section. Thank you. Kylu03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I understand that the English Wikipedia arbitration committee will let us know (*they* will validate) if the opposition and/or concern of cross wiki membership who voted in this discussion is valid, or not. Best, NonvocalScream03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
From what I understand, they've already decided on the matters previously, and we've simply asked them for a statement comparing the accusations here versus ArbCom's findings. This way, both groups are restricting themselves to their own competencies. Kylu04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I understand, but the information I'm trying to get, and I should have asked directly... is the information that committee gives, will give more or less weight to the oppisition based on what they say? What I'm trying to ask, is when the steward decides if to confirm or not, will it be arbcom's statement that causes the steward to give to or take weight from the votes in the discussion, for the purposes of making a decision on the confirmation? And if so, would Arbcom then have a conflict of interest in these confirmations? NonvocalScream04:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's to be treated as a comment. The weight of the comment and the comments it agrees with/is in opposition with depends on the steward in question, as we all arrive at our opinions on the matter in different ways. I don't quite see how that project's arbcom giving a statement on the facts of a matter within its purview could be construed as conflict of interest, though you're welcome to explain in more detail. (For anyone who decides to join in this conversation, keep in mind that it's being held to strict civility.) Kylu04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are two issues here. If we are treating the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee as a comment, then it would have voted after the close, in addition to that, it is safe to say by virtue of being a WMF approved Arbitration Committee, it will receive more weight. If the Arbitration Committee has a direct influence based on the statement the committee makes (validation or invalidation of claims) then the will of the community who voted here, will be usurped by a local project's arbcom. Why did they even oppose if they can be so easily quenched. This does not seem ideal or proper. So for better, or for worst, I do object to the acceptance of a statement made by the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia by any stewards for the purposes of determining this confirmation. Best, NonvocalScream04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is the best solution that I've been able to think of which can be implemented at this point in time, and I've not heard of any better suggestions, otherwise we're stuck with our own impressions of the user and any issues that were directly linked: The final outcomes of the various discussions don't seem to agree with the allegations, and we're (as I said) acting outside of our competence if we try to investigate the matters on enwiki on our own. None of this is ideal, but hopefully it's better than simply dismissing comments that are possibly unsubstantiated. Got any suggestions? Kylu05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if you would treat a Non confirm - I don't trust. ~~~~ from a Non confirm - BLP fanatics ~~~~. We are setting a dangerous precedent. It is not up to any local project to influence the outcome here. Use the discussion, use the comments. By going outside, you have exceeded, as you say. You have permitted the local project to decide an entire subset of votes... this is no good. Is the stewardship deciding the discussion by permitting the arbcom to inject their weighty nonpublic opinion (or public) , or has the discussion already decided for itself. You decide. Don't have the Arbcom decide for you. Tally the discussion up just like the others, that would be my suggestion. Best, NonvocalScream05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good points, except that an explicit "The user has abused [restricted right, such as steward, oversight, or checkuser]" is a more serious allegation than merely "I don't trust this user." We did not ask for Arbcom's opinion, but the facts that they have discovered on the matter. The decision is still up to the stewards to determine the outcome. Either way, we're not going to be dealing with an ideal solution. Then again, I've never seen a working ideal solution implemented anywhere. Eh. Thanks for the suggestion! Kylu05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi NonvocalScream. We're only asking the committee to summarize the various cases, findings, etc that have been cited throughout the discussion. Many of us are not familiar with that wiki's arbitration processes, nor are we fully aware of the history of the conflicts being cited on that wiki.
A similar request for information was made for Darkoneko's summary, where a fr-Wikipedia user helpfully explained some vague comments. I think it best to have all the information available before discussing.
(Also, the summaries are entirely unofficial. Discussion will begin when the new stewards are approved by the Board, so they can participate.) —Pathoschild 05:53:02, 04 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking hypothetically (as I don't wish to be blocked) if an en.wp arbitrator had an affair with a party under its scrutiny, would we agree that this would constitute a palpable conflict of interest?
Er, Proabivouac, agree. That I believe there is a conflict when 1) Lar is a heavy contributer there 2) Lar is under the purview of the committee. Lets quit the hypothetical, and focus on fact. Oh, and this is about Lar and the English Wikipedia AC so lets use the names :) Surely your not getting blocked for that. Respectfullt, NonvocalScream14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The committee was asked to summarize previous cases and findings, which have already been cited in the discussion. They were not asked to express an opinion on Lar's suitability as a steward. —Pathoschild 19:02:49, 04 March 2010 (UTC)
As a quick note, the enwp ArbCom has received a request for a small number of factual data points regarding the English Wikipedia, and will respond shortly. While we are glad to collaborate with the standing stewards by providing the requested information, the decision process remains entirely theirs; the Committee neither endorses nor opposes any specific candidates, nor will it opine towards the suitability of any of them for the position. — Coren(talk) / (en-wiki)17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Response from arbcom & taking it with a grain of saltedit
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.
Sent:
Dear Arbitration Committee members,
As you're aware, the comment period on the 2010 steward confirmations has ended. The stewards have reviewed the comments regarding Lar and wish clarification on the allegations made by certain parties.
Given that the conflicts mentioned take place on the English Wikipedia, and also the scope of your committee, we could not hope for a better means of clarification on the matters in question than to ask for a statement from your committee regarding Lar, his character, level of community trust, and any reported improprieties that may have occurred, in a format that would be appropriate for posting to the discussion to assist with our decision making efforts.
If possible, please give responses to the following:
The allegation that Lar has violated English Wikipedia policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.
The allegation that Lar has violated policies relevant to restricted rights (specifically, oversight or checkuser) locally or used steward rights on the English Wikipedia in violation of steward rules to the knowledge of your committee. Exceptions are given for instances where someone requests removal of their own rights or your committee requests removal of rights.
The allegation that Lar has used his positions to advantage in discussions.
Characterizations of Lar as uncivil, rude, vindictive, militant, unilateral, divisive, polarizing, ideological, or narrow-minded.
Your input on these matters is valued and will assist in our rendering a useful decision on the matter.
While it is unorthodox that the enwp ArbCom is requested to participate in the steward selection process, we understand the stewards would wish to have as much information as possible to make a determination and we will answer your questions:
The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy.
The Committee has no knowledge of any abuse of checkuser or oversight tools by Lar nor reason to believe any such have taken place.
As far as the committee knows, Lar has not unduly used his status as a steward to influence a discussion beyond the usual deference often accorded by many editors to trusted members of the community.
We have seen no behavior on Lar's part that is far enough outside community norms that it would reach the level where attention from the Committee is sought or warranted.
In short, while we do not and cannot endorse or oppose any specific candidate, to the best of our knowledge the allegations enumerated in your email are not supported by any findings of this Committee.
-- Coren, for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Sounds like a lot of the opposers were just trying to make things up just to get Lar off of being a steward. While I know that he goes to the Wikipedia Review, my interactions with him have been pleasant and the reasons for opposition, in my opinion, were completely unfounded because I know Lar, and I know that he would never do those things. Hope that that was civil enough for you :) Razorflame01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, the committee members could have various opinions without necessarily agreeing with the above. Or, the members of the community could disagree with the committee. I am sure that the fact that there hasn't been an ArbCom case on Lar would have been enough to supply the same exact thing as the committee's message, but then there would have been less drama (or possibly more! everything seems to cause drama these days). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Right. I was just responding to the "making things up" part by stressing that everyone can have their own version of reality and still all be correct. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are a multitude of problems with any reliance on the ArbCom statement above. The most serious such problem regards the 4th question and reply. The level of "uncivil, rude, vindictive, militant, unilateral, divisive, polarizing, ideological, or narrow-minded" behavior that would trigger ArbCom involvement is simply massive. So both the 4th question and the ArbCom reply are very far outside anything relevant to the discussion here. JoshuaZ21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
We understand that there needs to be a significant and ongoing pattern of such to be brought to ArbCom's attention and subsequent case creation. The lack of such a case does not mean that such behaviors are non-existent. Factors such as this (as other similar arguments may be made for the other questions, of course) are taken into consideration when weighing the statement. Thank you for ensuring that all possible implications of the statement are taken into account, however! Kylu21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Saying that some actions are 'supported by policy' is meaningless in our context, after all en.wikipedia has a policy stating that we can ignore all rules if one's believe this will improve Wikipedia. I think it's pretty clear that those actions (deletions of BLPs on the basis that they were long unreferenced) were made outside the deletion policy (as not covered by any criteria for speedy deletion or other deletion processes), and the question of deletions made outside the deletion policy has always been a though and controversial one on en.wikipedia, but in any case IAR can indeed support them, entirely (they may also be partially supported by some ArbCom remedies). It doesn't mean that consensus will support them though, and the BLP RFC showed that consensus was against them, and instead a BLP 'sticky' PROD was introduced to deal with them. However, there were no standing consensus against them before the incident, so one couldn't say that Lar - or any other admin who made those deletions - ignored consensus (question which was not answered by the committee), but it's not disputable that there's been a considerable opposition to those actions at the time they were made.
I will note (in case of misunderstanding) that the fourth point was not an allegation, so the end of the response ('in short ...') doesn't apply to it (otherwise it would be contradictory), and as pointed out above this is not something the committee could determine. Cenarium (Talk)16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The relevant policies regarding oversight and checkuser are Foundation-directed, whereas IAR is enwiki-specific and community-driven: Ignoring policies such as the privacy policy and restricted rights policies and claiming "IAR" is a rather quick way to lose those restricted rights, and anyone with access to them frankly had better be aware that this is the case, regardless of what projects they work on. Substantiated abuse/misuse has resulted in removal, though in my opinion far too many people rely on the Ombudsman Commission to handle the complaints, when privacy policy violation (that is, resulting in a release of private information arising from these tools) is their sole remit. This, unfortunately, is another situation where stewards are expected to "decide" things - specifically when abuse has arisen. Fortunately, saying that we (stewards) receive requests desiring intervention are a rarity is an understatement. Kylu17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the en.wikipedia BLP deletions incident only in my first point (your first question); it was not about CU/OS at all, of course IAR wouldn't apply there. Now that you mention it though, ArbCom can't determine breaches of the privacy policy (cf the opinions of arbitrators I linked at the confirmation page), so they're not in position to fully review uses of CU/OS and related information (and indeed they responded only on the use of tools). Cenarium18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is marked as answered (arbcom asked unofficially, discussion is public). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.
I have some concern with the Steward's elicitation of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia. I'm asking that somehow my concerns can be assuaged.
In reference to Lar's confirmation request. Will the stewards be placing a any amount of weight on the statements of the arbitration committee? Will it be seen as the arbitration committee of any projects will be able to vet candidates for confirmation. Surely I'm not the only one (or possibly am the only) seeing a perception issue with this activity. If stewards do confirm him, we will have the issue that a single committee was able to cause his confirmation by invalidating (thus, disenfranchising the very community that was eligible to vote) the votes of those concerned due to those concerns being addressed by this local committee. If stewards do not confirm him, we will have the issue that the opposer caused the failure. And now those opposes look like drama mongers because the arbitration committee's statement has now been brought into the picture. Alternatively, it is possible that the opposes are in fact correct. I see that by requesting the statements, we have created a unique, complicated, and possibly less than ideal decision situation by involving a local project's committee. Now it appears the stewards have to judge the validity of the committees statement and the opposes statements. Stewards, how will you address this? Warmly, NonvocalScream03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am not totally clear on what your concern is. A number of allegations were raised by various parties during the comment period, including statements about what en:wp ArbCom did or did not find when matters were brought to their attention. The ArbCom was asked to comment on the allegations and clarify their findings on these various questions. As requested, ArbCom has made a statement offering clarification. I certainly hope that my fellow stewards take that statement into account, if they have any remaining doubts. However that's not an invalidation of people's views. It is a correction of misperceptions. People cited diffs claiming things about what ArbCom said or did not say that just were not true. That perhaps reflects badly on those people, to be sure, but no one is saying they cannot have whatever opinion they wish. You have asked how stewards will address this matter. I think they will address it fairly and judiciously, and evaluate for themselves whether the trust placed in me by the community at my election, and by the community and by them, at my previous reconfirmation remains. ++Lar: t/c05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
With all respect Lar, I supported you. But I don't support a confirmation at the risk of disenfranchisement. I don't support a denial of your confirmation based on misconceptions as you put it. This is a delicate situation that will dictate how the stewards handle future elections, with regards to the majority, and with regards to internal responsibilities (stewards confirming these discussions) and external influences (is is responsible to ask a local project's governing body to comment on the validity of portions of the discussion). I would like to know how the stewards plan on addressing this. I have cited my concerns exactly above, so I don't understand what is hard for you about the clarity of my concerns. I'm seeking an above board explanation to those concerns. I desire what is best for the Foundation, for the candidate, and for the members that voted. You do understand that what is done today, is not solely about you, but is about setting a precedent. This needs to be carefully and thoughtfully approached and discussed. With respect, NonvocalScream05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Stewards have the right, and the obligation, to ask for clarification of matters, where appropriate. This request was initiated by other stewards, although I certainly welcomed it once I learned of it. (I myself was satisfied by the fact that that all of the current or former ArbCom members who chose to comment as private citizens, with the sole exception of Jayjg, who was stripped of his CU, OV, and functionary status by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming a functionary, even those who opposed reconfirmation, did so without in any way supporting the incorrect statements being bandied about). If there is a future situation where asking for clarification is useful (as it was, for example a few years ago with Oscar) I hope the then current stewards act as wisely as they have here, and seek clarification. ArbCom expressed no opinion on my suitability. They merely corrected misstatements of fact. ++Lar: t/c05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
To concentrate my above... I would think it would be a good idea for in the process of the stewards deciding the confirmation, that there might be an accounting for how they came to the decision (involving the statement) on a public page, like this one. And I'm sure that accounting will answer all my concerns... if the stewards continue to be as thoughtful and explanatory as they have been in the past. I hope my meaning is better conveyed with this posting. Best, NonvocalScream05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
"I myself was satisfied by the fact that that all of the current or former ArbCom members who chose to comment as private citizens, with the sole exception of Jayjg, who was stripped of his CU, OV, and functionary status by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming a functionary…"
This kind of hostile and gloating battleground-ish rhetoric from Lar provides a real-time illustration of many of the complaints which were lodged against him.Proabivouac10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Casliber thinks I've been too mean to people. He may be right, I might be. But he gave no credence in his comment to any of the false allegations being bandied about recklessly. ArbCom laid those to rest, showing them as false. ++Lar: t/c01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi NonvocalScream. The committee was unofficially asked for clarification by a user, not by the steward group. There is no special precedent set — everyone is welcome to invite or provide clarifications during the confirmation process.
Judging the significance of each argument is a fundamental part of the confirmation process. The en-Wikipedia committee has been cited repeatedly in Lar's discussion; this is why they were asked for information. Their statements will be examined just as carefully as those presented by others. They are simply a source of information on the conflict that occurred on the English Wikipedia. —Pathoschild 05:50:25, 06 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you... so I am understanding... the statement by arbcom will be a source of clarifying factual information for the stewards when making the decision. The stewards will use that when the stewards are evaluating the discussion and making the decision. Will the stewards offer up a summary on how they came to the decision, perhaps discuss openly this one? Thank you for the time, NonvocalScream05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Public discussion is the idea. That is the purpose of the above sections. —Pathoschild 05:58:12, 06 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a difficult matter to raise. Yet it cannot pass without mention that Lar, in his current role as ombudsman, is charged with hearing complaints of misconduct against the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. That creates an inherent appearance of impropriety in requesting their collective opinion of Lar's fitness (or lack thereof) with regard to any position he might seek. The standards at Stewards/elections 2010 are unambiguous: "Candidates must meet the criteria and obtain at least 30 votes in favor with an 80% support ratio." Not should or ought to, but must. The turnout for Lar's candidacy was not borderline: it received more responses than any other. Nor was its result borderline: he finished below 65% in an election whose minimum support ratio is 80%. What is the reason for continued delay? The only possible means by which he could surmount the 80% minimum threshold would be by disqualifying dozens of experienced Wikimedians who opposed without disqualifying any of the supporters. One could point to a certain thread at Wikipedia Review and the rapid entry of a dozen support votes as more dubious than any of the opposes, due to its appearance of canvassing. If there is some other reason for the continued delay it would be very good to see clarification from a steward, because these circumstances generate a bad appearance. Durova00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Durova raises a very good point that did not occur to me and really needs to be discussed. Given that Lar is in a position that oversees the English Wikipedia ArbCom and given that one of the major concerns that has been brought up is allegations that Lar has vindictive and retaliatory tendencies, any statement from the English Wikipedia ArbCom should by nature be taken with a healthy dose of salt. JoshuaZ00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please don't apply the elections standards to the confirmations: The election standards are for new stewards, the confirmation comments are not votes, nor will they be counted as votes. The stewards decide if someone passes confirmation. We (the current stewards) have not all yet commented on the confirmations, nor have the new stewards been promoted and given the opportunity to do so yet. As far as Lar's position on the ombudsman commission, I expect that his close ties with such projects as enwiki and commons would prohibit him from ruling on matters pertaining to those projects due to possible conflict of interest. Perhaps Lar would be willing to verify my expectation? Kylu00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Kylu, this objection regarding the impropriety of reflexive fitness review is not a theoretical matter. Any Steward is welcome to email me for details. Nota bene: I am under no actual obligation of confidentiality. Durova01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Mail sent. Ombudsmen policy does not require recusal in every case but instead asks for judgement, especially since the membership is small and drawn from disparate wikis, but Ombudsmen should nevertheless recuse themselves from deciding matters where they are too closely involved, which I intend to do. ++Lar: t/c01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not directly related to the above, I wonder why fellow steward Mike.lifeguard's comments from Wikimedia Commons,[2] which I cited as part of my oppose rationale, have not been included in the summary statement. This is not entirely an en:wiki matter: anyone who opposed per me (and those who opposed per them) were implicitly validating Mike.lifeguard's concerns as expressed there. Durova01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was actually wondering the same thing. Nevertheless, this appears on the confirmation, and I know that no steward would be so lax in their duties as to rely upon a summary rather than reviewing the original. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm considering a modification to the page header, since apparently at least a couple non-stewards have done so already. Kylu 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) DoneKylu01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would rather propose to enforce that only stewards may comment on the confirmations at this point. There were 3 weeks of open discussion, now it's time to conclude these discussions - and that's up to the stewards. So please all stop repeating the points y'all already made during the 3 weeks of open discussion, it just doesn't help. Thanks. --თოგო(D)01:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's a designated section for Steward remarks. Given that new information has been given in to the Lar discussion after the fact (namely the questions and responses to the ArbCom), effectively discussion is continuing about these issues at a semi-official level anyways. As long as non-Stewards keep their remarks outside the steward-only sections, there shouldn't be any disruption. JoshuaZ02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
With respect, Thogo, it did not appear probable that the en:wiki Arbitration Committee would be sought for special input until after the election closed and a request actually went forward for their input. Two days passed without any mention at this page regarding Lar's current obligation to review their conduct, or how that circumstance reflects upon their review of his conduct. These are unforeseen circumstances. Durova02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then bring new arguments, but stop repeating the old ones. And judging a local project's arbcom including accusing them of being influenced in their sayings by Lar's ombudsman commission membership is absolutely inappropriate, and will not be considered as long as you don't give clear proves for your accusations. I will inform the enwiki arbcom about this. They may discuss that with you outside this page. --თოგო(D)09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thogo, with all due respect, the matter brought up by Durova is relevant given that the ArbCom appears to be either unaware of the history or choosing not to pay attention. In October of 2008 the ArbCom considered the following finding: "Lar disclosed data derived from page logs, in circumstances in which none of the situations permitting disclosure applied. This constituted a breach of the privacy policy."[3]. As you can see from that discussion the sole reason that that did not pass (three Arbs supported the statement) was that other Arbs felt that it was outside the remit of the ArbCom. Indeed, there's a fair bit of irony that that statement failed to pass but that the ArbCom is now claiming that it has no knowledge of any evidence of problems by Lar. Yet, in 2008, three Arbs said there were and the only reason that the other Arbs didn't vote for it was that they were concerned that it wasn't their business. This simplest explanations here are that the ArbCom is either unaware or unwilling to pay attention to its own history. I thought this was more likely due to a simple lack of institutional knowledge until Durova made her remark. Now, I'm not so sure. But one thing is clear: regardless of cause, the ArbCom's statement above is simply false and is contradicted by prior statements by ArbCom members. JoshuaZ22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to point out that the on going discussion is just a continuation of the steward confirmation, a process that ended 8 days ago. The fights are the same as there were before, and continuation of the matter is pointless. The Stewards are now to determine how they will confirm or not confirm Lar. I am sure that if any Steward had further questions or problems, they are capable of seeking answers to it. I hope that people can respect this and discontinue the fighting. If there are ArbCom related concerns, I suggest people proceed on en.wiki about them. As a side note, since the ArbCom officially responded on Lar's behavior, I am sure that they would be willing to open up a case or, at the very least, a clarification, since they already opened the door and stated that the matters were of a serious enough nature for them to respond in the first place. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is marked as answered (the confirmation discussions are public). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.
The summaries look great, and they do convey a lot of information. Props to Pathos and everyone who contributed and are still working on this. That being said, however, I will note that there is no actual discussion amongst the Stewards taking place on the page marked "for Steward discussion only" until now. I'm not going to participate on those, following through on my statement, but I will reiterate: those discussions are supposed to be public. They are not to take place on steward-l or any other private listing. I certainly took heat during this reconfirmation because all of my statements during last year's reconfirmation were public. And that is just fine. Being chosen for this job means our rationales become public domain, in a matter of speaking. Not discussing elections, reconfirmations and similar matters on non-wiki venues, unless privileged information needs to be exchanged, is a vow I took when I was chosen as both a Bureaucrat at the English-language Wikipedia and a Steward of the Foundation. I know some of the Stewards complained I didn't follow discussions on steward-l last year, but as a matter of fact I would be obliged not to take them into account. The Steward discussion is the second phase of a public procedure. This is the page where the discussions are supposed to take place, so I would urge my fellow Stewards to start discussing whatever issues they perceive here. Statistics and charts are fine, but they are by no means the single measure of the Stewards' discussions. Redux15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully, Redux, the section states "This section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward." - The discussions regarding retaining stewards have not yet started, and will not likely start until the new stewards are appointed/approved by the Board. The only decisions made, so far, have been the nihil obstat. Sukida16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes but some of the nihil obstat closes have been ones where there were people opposed to the confirmations in the initial discussions. Presumably then nihil obstat in this context means no stewards objecting rather than no one objecting. How have those decisions been made? Moreover, shouldn't we wait for the new stewards to be sure of that? In cases where there are literally no opposes this makes more sense. Once there are even one or two saying nihil obstat now with no public justification seems bad. JoshuaZ17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Which nihil obstat closes had objections (specifically as opposed to neutral and 'concerned but favorable to confirmation' comments) in them? Those should be changed from nihil obstat to open discussion. Sukida18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Drini is the obvious one. Jusjih also. Thogo and Rdsmith are the only others. All other nihil obstats had zero objections. JoshuaZ18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could you link (either by steward/username or diff) to the objections on those nihil obstats? Drini has one "neutral" but no objections, I don't see objections in the comments of the others at all. Sukida18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I screwed up. Read concerned as opposes above. The fact that we label them in the same categories above is very confusing and downplays communal opinion. Maybe they should be split up? JoshuaZ18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Even if that had been the case, unanimity is not a requirement for confirmation. Specially because it had been a purely Commons matter without relation to steward performance (remember it's not stewards' task to act as local police ). es:Drini18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
In JoshuaZ's defense, nihil obstat is only used here when there are no objections at all, not merely "it's obvious this person will be confirmed." Of course, we're absolutely butchering the original meaning with this use, but it's handy. But yes, you'd be confirmed anyway, since you're such a wonderful person. :) Sukida19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can only hope that the stewards doing the deciding look at the comments instead of just the summaries! I honestly thought you were intentionally making a point at how the summary charts were possibly misleading. Sukida18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
May I point that the concern/neutral about me had nothing to do with steward duties (more like Commons one) and that I had zarroo opposes? And that such user was asked later and agreed to "let it go"? And if I'm the problem one, I don't even want to think this is a storm in a glass of water. es:Drini18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually, may I suggest to the stewards that the TOC be moved above the start of the div? Having the TOC within the "box" might give the impression that the entire page is steward-only-editing to those who don't peruse the entire page. Sukida18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember any requirement to take a vow on anything. Please link. I also find it troubling that you would be forced into a religious oath. It seems a tad odd when compared to the rest of the site. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not religious, and not a requirement, but they were points made, and addressed by me, in the threads where I was being considered for both jobs. When I was being considered for Bureaucratship on the en-wp, there was actually a question along the lines of "will you promess not to discuss Bureaucrat-related work on any non-public, non-wiki pages?". During the advisory election for Steward when I was eventually appointed, there were concerns raised that questions and certain reservations raised about candidates were being addressed via e-mail or on talk pages and not on the "election" page. Honestly, this is a reasonable and rather sensitive caveat to being a Steward or a Bureaucrat. One of the oldest and most competent Bureaucrats I have had the pleasure of working with on en-wp used to say that "being in this position [Bureaucrat] means that you will be questioned about any given decision, and you must be prepared to explain yourself, at all times." The reconfirmation is a two-phase procedure, and it is public. Unless there is privileged information to be exchanged, there is no reason why the second phase of this procedure should be private. It is as I said: if you are a Steward, your rationales are public domain. Be prepared to explain yourself, and know that there will always be someone who will not like it. If any of the "no objection (nihil obstat)" confirmations were automatic and based solely on there not being any objections during the community input phase, that would be wrong. The Stewards are supposed to discuss each case, taking the input under advisement. But in theory, the Stewards could be privy to information that the rest of the community might be unaware of. The reconfirmation ended nearly a week ago, there is no reason why the discussions, at least on some of the issues, should not have started until now. We shouldn't be waiting for all the percentages to discuss, precisely because, as it was mentioned above, we need to look at the concerns raised, and not at the statistics, in order to make a decision. Stewards are charged with this decision, and it is one of the few times when we are actually demanded to express judgement. So they must do it. Do it publicly, as it is required by the position. And be prepared to explain themselves. Like I had to. Redux19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
A small addendum: there is no requirement to wait for the new appointments to start discussions, even if out of courtesy they are waited for before a final decision is made. I'm not sure, but I believe last year was actually the first time the newly appointed Stewards participated in the discussions. This is particularly tricky because appointing new Stewards is up to the Board of Trustees, and that can sometimes take a while. And, as I pointed out before, it is not particularly fair or reasonable to leave a review process open for nearly two months, as it happened last year. Nobody wants hasty decisions, obviously, but neither does it take 20 days to discuss a reconfirmation. The Stewards must be able to coordinate and reach a conclusion within a reasonable amount of time. That is also part of the job. Redux19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but Redux, you are completely not-believable. I know for a fact that Crats have discussed matters on lists for a very long time. All jobs have done that since the beginning. Your emphasis and statements seem to project a point of view that seems to have no basis in Wikipedia or Wikimedia tradition. The statement about the "vows" was pointing out your substitution of grandiose language for actual fact and links. If you wanted a public discussion, simply state "I would like a public discussion". However, your posts above make it seem like you are seeking something worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Crats have been doing it, the Stewards were doing it last year. Doesn't make it right. Accepting it as "tradition" — which it isn't — seems rather inconsistent with the observations that have been made over and over regarding the Steward reconfirmation and other Steward actions. Maybe the people who were demanding this type of "higher moral ground" have moved on and those who are here now are somewhat used to this so-called "tradition". But you need to ask yourself: do you honestly believe that those decisions should be made on private discussions? Everything that I have been reading indicates to me that people would not prefer that, nor would they agree to it. And if you do think that it is not supposed to work like this, you should not be labeling my comments as "grandiose language with no basis on tradition". It becomes a tradition if we accept it as such and stop questioning it as if there was no alternative. There is, and the "alternative" was actually here before the "tradition". As either a Steward or a Bcrat, I ought to be accountable for everything I do in those capacities, I expect to be. Anything other than that is not compatible with the type of job I sought of my own free will: Stewards and Bureaucrats are not a collegiate, like an ArbCom. We are chosen to use the tools under our individual judgement (in a manner of speaking), and if necessary we will explain or clarify our thought process. I'm not about to post a rationale that could be summarized as "this is what 'we' decided after a long, careful discussion that nobody but us had access to". As for the situations I mentioned, you need only read through the 2006 Steward "election" page and my Bcrat nomination page on en.wiki. I'm sorry, but I can't provide properly formatted links because I'm at my work place, using what little free time I have to write those and, to top it all off, Wikipedia is blocked here (but the Meta Wiki is not). Redux22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I seem to recall a couple of examples from en.wp: a while back, the Bcrats had to handle what is probably the most controversial request for Adminship of all times there: the re-nomination of former Office Head Danny. A lot of people loved him, and a lot of people hated him. It was so sensitive that, as an exception, the Bcrats decided to work as a collegiate. The decision was made on a specifically set-up page on en.wp, not via e-mail or on IRC. Another example, involving just me: when a user who was asking for Adminship created a sock account to pretend to be his own cousin (or brother, I don't recall which) letting us know that the candidate "had just died in a car crash", I handled the entire situation on the Requests for Adminship general page and on the specific request page. Since we didn't know if it was true at first, I froze the RfA until we could ascertain what had happened, but was overruled by Danny, who used his Office prerrogative to shut down the RfA and all discussions. Except Danny did everything from IRC. I didn't go on IRC to talk to him, I didn't e-mail him. I only posted on the public page, saying something to the effect of "I was unaware that Danny was about to use his prerrogative as Office Head, but what he decided goes and the RfA is cancelled. And I wish we would have those discussions on public pages on Wikipedia, and not on IRC". I'm sure those should both be relatively easy to find. Redux22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Redux, all I see right now is a user who could have been active and wasn't, and then the community felt like expressing their dissatisfaction in their performance. Your statements are very long winded and do not reflect the fact that many stewards posted -during- the confirmation their various opinions. As such, I cannot see any grounds for you to stand on. You have opined a lot about what should be when you have done very little to make what -is-. Your activity level has been to such low levels that I cannot really accept your statements. Note, I did not respond either way on your confirmation, so there was no bias or predisposed view coming into this discussion. These are merely a view by one person who is looking in after the fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And nor am I campaigning for anything. I wasn't before, I'm not now. This is not an election, yet again. I posted to point out that all we are seeing here are statistics, and that is not what should be happening. I would ask that you do not affirm that I "could have been active but wasn't", since that implies a number of things that simply are not true. I was not active because I couldn't be. I had no time, I was otherwise engaged, or whatever way you want to phrase it, it's explained in my statement. Period. Last year, I intervened when I saw the reconfirmation being treated blatantly as an election, when it was left open for nearly two months with no conclusion in sight. I found the time to "change what is", as you put it. And how exactly does one change anything on Wikimedia if not by expressing opinions during discussions? I would say that I am trying to "change what is" right now, by starting this very discussion, even if I'm not doing it as a Steward. What exactly do you propose I should be doing? Especially considering that, whenever I use restricted tools, I do it adhering to the exact standards I have been talking about here, like I did last year. This, right here, is what needs, and should, be done. What any of the Stewards have posted in the first phase of the reconfirmation they post as regular users. I will hear what they have to say, just like I will hear what you or anyone else had to say. I fail to see how I have "no grounds to stand" because a single Steward defended the private discussion on steward-l — which I am assuming you are referring to, since my original comment was referring to discussions needing to be public. If you are referring to the "remove per inactivity" posts, that is completely out of topic and not what I am talking about here at all. I trust that the body of Stewards will act with the necessary neutrality and detachment during the second phase. And I cannot see any relation between my level of activity being low at the moment and my stating that private discussions in certain situations are not adequate. Redux06:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've never used any election terminology - not "election", "vote", or the rest. Your statements about such represent a hyper-defensiveness that I cannot understand. By the way, I am unconvinced about the lack of activity but the sudden ability to be active on March 1st. It feels like you are hoping for what happened last time regarding your Stewardship to happen again, and I am sure you have diminished the good will that would support the any possibility of that by the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I cannot hope to control what you believe in or not. I am able to post here as long as I am not traveling, which probably gives me antoher 7 to 10 days as it happens. Furthermore, I do not recall claiming you are the one treating the reconfirmation as an election. In spite of that, your comment that my starting this thread somehow diminishes the "good will" for me to retain my stewardship speaks volumes about the political nature that we need to keep out of both the Stewardship and the reconfirmation. I'm here to do a certain job. It would be unbecoming if I were to avoid doing any aspect of it because I was somehow worried that by displeasing someone I might not be able to keep my job. In addition, the Stewards are experienced enough to understand well enough that nobody here was being accused of bad faith. Although I might not have frased it quite like that before, I will now use your own terms to define it: perhaps people have become accostumed to what is a perceived "tradition". I believe it to be wrong, and I do believe that most people, the Stewards included, would agree that the need for transparency in the process is perhaps incompatible with certain discussions being held on private mail lists. I believe Pathoschild has already commented above about the public discussions, which is very nice to hear. Quite frankly, I do not see what it is about this that seems to bother you to that extent. And I'm sorry to say this, but your constant commenting about what you perceive to be my personal role in the process, or perhaps what you are speculating to be my intentions, has completely disturbed what this discussion was supposed to achieve — which I find curious, since I am the one Steward who has been on the record to say that I would not take part in the second phase of discussions, as well as that I do not engage in any non-public communications with anyone during the proceedings — and has not been of much help. I imagine the other Stewards understood quite well what it is that I meant. If anyone didn't, then I hope this back-and-forth with you will at least have served the purpose of clarifying anything. Redux05:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Political? No. Creating this thread comes off as hypocritical. The only time you bothered to put any effort into this community is to throw out accusations of problematic behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It'd be awfully nice if we could put out the fire now. Redux, you've made your point, I think, and further pressing isn't likely to help your case. Ottava, Redux has already stated (diff) that he has no intention of participating in the steward discussions regarding the confirmations (above), among other stated intentions. Time for the stewards to vote! Kylu16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Kylu. That is the point I would make, although I'm not really trying to help my case, or anyone else's case for that matter. However, I would point out how spectacularly unfair it is to claim that I never bother to put any effort on a Wikimedia community, for whom I have been working voluntarily for exactly 6 years tomorrow, 5 of those using restricted tools on one access level or another, simply because I have been inactive as of late. Goes right back to some of the points I made not only this year, but also in last year's reconfirmation. Furthermore, I am making no accusations. Steward discussions on Steward-l are a fact, and that last year the reconfirmation was being discussed there is an uncontroverted fact, because it has been stated publicly. And problematic does not equate bad faith, and it most certainly is not the case here, although it also does not mean it should not be corrected, in my humble opinion. Everything written before that is a non sequitur of everything I stated thus far: The logical conclusion that can be derived from everything I said before is that I started this discussion precisely because I am not political, and that I believe that any political aspect should be kept out of the Stewardship. So this opening makes no sense, and it appears to serve no purpose except to set up an ad hominem claim, sorry. In any event, Ottava, thank you for your input. Your opinion of me is duly noted. Provided I remain as a Steward, I will hopefully be able to change your mind. Redux22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Avi wrote above, "Whether it in person or on various other webboards, as long as wikimedia policies about release of private information or issues like canvassing were not abused, this is irrelevant." See this ArbCom workshop page, and scroll down to expand the collapsed section, in which Lar is shown to have canvassed for an RfA. He ends with a playful remark about canvassing for his own upcoming steward candidacy, in effect reminding everyone on the mailing list to keep an eye out and vote for him: "PS no comment on whether I might do this again for my steward candidacy :)"
His response frames Wikimedia as a battle between his and Jayjg's canvassing machines: "This case is exposing clearly what some of the partisan lines are here, and who some of the soldiers who hew close to their marching orders are. With Jaygj defrocked, there will be less reason to counter their canvassing with a bit of my own. I look forward to that."Proabivouac07:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following stewards discussed on IRC how to close the last open confirmations. Their decision will be added to each section giving a note how many of them voted for confirm-remove-neutral (e.g. 5-0-0).
I was given a copy of the committee's discussion logs to prepare summaries, as I mentioned earlier in discussions on this page. These were reviewed by the eight stewards who participated in the discussion (including the five committee members). I've posted them into the relevant sections above. —Pathoschild 03:09:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Stewardship is not a lifetime status. Users get it if they need it, keep it if people trust them, and lose it if they do not need it or are no longer trusted. Steward status is granted until the next yearly elections, where users will be invited to comment and in particular to ask for removal of status. Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed, the steward will lose their status.
As it seems we are starting to come to the end of these discussions I want to public ally say something that has been bothering me more and more as I read the Steward "discussions". During the confirmation time (last month) you are obviously welcome to say your feeling on the stewards using whatever criteria you desire. That criteria and belief does not have to have anything to do with what the rest of the community believes. However the confirmation period is over. Your job now is to determine if consensus exists for a steward's rights to be removed. I have to be totally honest - I have been severely disappointed reading the comments above where it seems that most people are just "voting" that consensus isn't being really looked at instead people are just saying what they want to happen. Perhaps this isn't what you think you are doing but I will say that is what it looks like from my end.
I know many of you have seen my rant on Talk:Stewards_policy about the activity policy. To be totally honest I don't even think you are interpreting it correctly. If the community has decided that someone is too inactive to need the tools then they must be removed per the yearly review policy I quote above. I hate to say this but to be honest, in my opinion, every steward who says "confirm, active per policy" above is ignoring their duty as a steward to judge consensus. I have been quickly losing respect for people I once held in high respect :/ I hope that you prove me wrong. James (TC)23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello Jamesofur. The confirmations are not strictly determining community consensus, but I am uneasy about stewards ignoring the inactivity concerns. When there is much concern in the community about inactivity, we should look at the steward's activity in its own right, not at whether they meet the minimum activity to avoid automatic removal. We are not discussing automatic removal here; the criteria for that are irrelevant. —Pathoschild 00:15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In general I obviously agree with you on the automatic removal criteria being irrelevant for this discussion. If we are not doing community consensus though we may want to look at that part of the Steward policy as well though. Current it reads "Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed" which would seem to be aiming in that direction, whether that is what we want or not is probably up for argument (I know that others have said it isn't). James (TC)02:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The steward policy defines inactivity pretty clearly to me: "Inactive means no steward action in the past 6 months and fewer than 10 steward actions in the last year." If a steward performed 18 actions in the last year and has not been completely inactive in any 6 month period, then, by policy definition, they are not inactive. Perhaps there should also be a "low activity" layer, twice as strict as the inactive policy that does not trigger automatic removal; requiring community input during the yearly reconfirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav)22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
(warning I said this on the policy discussion page already but since Mav responded to both I thought I would to so everyone see's it). I agree that is quite clear, for automatic removal. I do not understand the insistence in ignoring the community. The current policy allows for removal if the community decides they no longer need the tools, to say they are not allowed to use inactivity (their interpretation) to come to that conclusion is totally against the ideals of the project governance. To add another layer is just as bad because again it makes it so that if you are beyond that layer and people still think they are inactive then you spit in their face and say fuck you your opinion is meaningless. It would be better to just get rid of all the numbers and allow the community to decide. There is no reason to limit the confirmations to not discussing inactivity just like (as much as I wanted Lar to be confirmed) there is no reason to limit the discussion to ONLY steward actions. If the community has lost trust they have lost trust, why is meaningless, if they don't think he needs the tools anymore because he's inactive HOW inactive is meaningless. Let them decide. James (TC)22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a connection between activity levels and lost of trust. My reading of our policy on reconfirmations is that stewards may be removed for two reasons; inactivity, which is defined, and lost of trust, which is determined by community consensus. As for the trust part, Stewards (rightly, IMO) ignored issues raised that were irrelevant to trust (political views, choosing not to take a certain action but leaving it to other Stewards, disputes on homes wikis that had nothing to do with the Steward role, etc). Recall that reconfirmations are not an election. If we want to change the definition of inactivity, then fine, let's do that. --Daniel Mayer (mav)23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree they are different but I do not see where trust is supposed to be the sole issue for discussion on the yearly reviews, that is not what I see on the policy as written. I while I totally agree your first 2 things shouldn't be counted I think it is quite clear that some level of "what happened at other wikis" did in fact get looked at. I don't personally think that is all bad, what others do off Meta can indeed make people lose trust on meta and that has to be looked at. It may not make ME lose trust but it should be looked at. Confirmations are not elections but they are not steward votes either, they are discussions which the stewards then judge consensus (at least that is what the policy says) and like always when we judge consensus sometimes things are weighted differently. Obviously we read the policy as it is written now differently, and it is unlikely I am going to "show you the way" or you me :) so I won't push and prod on that more (at least with you ;) ) James (TC)00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
I was unaware that the closing committee had such power to overrule the rest of the stewards. Laaknor, Mardethana, Cspurrier, Dungodung, Avraham, Nick1915, and Oscar voted to confirm on the steward page, while just Mike.lifeguard opposed confirmation (all others were recused or neutral). Could one of the closing committee members please explain why the seven who voted to confirm were vetoed? Thanks, NW(Talk)02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The committee investigated and discussed much more thoroughly than individual stewards did. They also consulted with several other stewards, including some you listed. The committee was specifically charged with deciding the confirmations—the steward comments were advisory. I have no concerns about their decisions. —Pathoschild 03:09:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think they arrived at the wrong decision, but this is the way we agreed to do the final close this year, and I accept their decision. ++Lar: t/c03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Pathoschild, I noticed above that DerHexer wrote "The following stewards discussed on IRC how to close the last open confirmations." Are these logs publicly available some place? NW(Talk)04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was asked why I said "I think they arrived at the wrong decision". Simply put, this process of having these 5 folk decide the entire on their own, with additional investigation of issues outside of public view and the like, is not what I thought we agreed to. What I thought we agreed to, (and I just did a quick skim of my mail to confirm this, but I could be misreading) was that after last year's sometimes troublesome evaluations of steward consensus, often by 1 or two people, we would have a small committee (smaller than a committee of the whole, but larger than just one person) evaluate the consensus that existed and announce what it was. When the committee all recused from commenting during the steward phase I was surprised. I think if you evaluate consensus in my case, even if you include the views of the committee itself (at 1-3-1), there was a consensus to confirm. Not a resounding one, but a consensus. So they "arrived at the wrong decision". I don't think they did so in bad faith, I think they just misread their mandate. But I am not going to, myself, ask them to change the decision. I leave that to others if they so desire. Like Redux, I will remember fondly the great work we all did during my terms, and how well we all worked together, cooperatively and collegially, thank the community at large and the stewards for taking the time to comment, and try to not remember the unpleasantness at the end, which after all was raised by a small minority, while still keeping in mind the legitimate feedback received from those that had real concerns. ++Lar: t/c11:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
i still assume that basically rationales and reasoning have brought this to a conclusion, with a committee mandated to summarize and publish these things and if necessary to "hack a gordian knot", which here they obviously did. it is certainly specifically this case which was most difficult to handle, with two resultwise contradictory rounds of comments, and i trust the committee will yet more fully publish their reasons and rationales. oscar11:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I must disagree with Pathoschild's assessment of no concerns. I would have some. First and foremost, I will take great exception to DerHexer having written a justification on my thread including the phrase "low community trust", specifically with regards to the word "community", since whatever trust issues during the first phase were raised by two Stewards and Anonymous Dissident. Everything else was inactivity-related — and since I wasn't actually inactive per policy, this actually became about a show of hands. Three users. Not exactly a community. Most importantly, however, one of those users was DerHexer, who was also on the Committee. Since he decided to go on the record with his opinion of my closing of at least some of the threads last year, in not just my thread, but also in Sj's thread both in the first phase (while commenting on JayHenry's input: [4], [5] and [6]) and in the second phase ([7]), he should have recused from participating in this particular close. Since the result posted was "0-5-0" that obviously did not happen. Considering that "inactivity" was cited in the closing rationale, and I was not inactive per policy, that means that the input from phase one was taken at face value at least to some extent. That being the case, if one is going to be one of the judges, one cannot also join the jury. It doesn't appear that it would have made a practical difference, since it could still have been a "0-4-0" result. But as it turns out it wasn't. Mike.lifeguard also should have recused from commenting on my thread in the Steward discussions. The reason being that he made some rather passionate arguments against me in the first phase. In Sj's thread, he made a public apology and implied a "conspiracy of the powerful to protect their peers" (here), clearly referring to myself and Lar, which I find incredibly inappopriate. In my own thread, he was borderline beligerant, claiming that he "should have stopped [me]" and could "say nothing more that is civil" (here). In addition to an issue of lacking detachment and neutrality to participate in the second-phase decision process, since he defends that there is little to no wiggle room after community input, and he decided to join rather veemently in the first phase, I expected him not to fall in the exact same imagery of judge and jury. A recusal was also in order in Sj's thread, in light of a publicly-known personal opinion that Sj should have been removed last year and what a "shame" it was that he was reconfirmed -- taken to the point of contradiction during Sj's second-phase discussion, considering that Mike claims that community consensus must be upheld (even though the first phase is not about gathering consensus, but rather getting input from community members), and this year's prevailing apparent consensus in the first phase was to confirm Sj. I would have expected him to defend a [however hesitant] confirmation. Instead, he argued, again, rather passionately in Sj's thread for the removal, thus recommending bypassing first-phase prevailing "consensus" to reconfirm. And the main point I would like to make right now is how easy it is to hold someone up to one's own standards and find them wanting. And of course, pertaining directly to the couple of comments above, Committee discussions were held on non-public (meaning off-wiki) venues. Not just coordination or exchange of sensitive or classified information, but rather the whole thing. So I will take it that the above closing of the thread I started ("discussions are public") is not to be taken literally. That being said, what is done is done. To everybody who I have worked with all these years, I will say that I will carry the fondest memories of our cooperations. To the community at large, again, thank you for the trust that I have been afforded all those years and for taking the time to comment on the reconfirmation. Redux09:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi Redux. I've been given access to the logs, so I can put together public anonymized summaries of the discussions. I'll post it here this evening. —Pathoschild 13:56:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Redux, I didn't close your confirmation - I don't see the problem with giving my analysis of the community's wishes. Indeed, you'll notice that the reasons for removal in my comments mirror what came from the community and not simply from myself. Had that been solely what I thought, the priority would have been quite different.
My comments on Sj's section are even on a meta-level, I simply responded to other commenters. I don't have magical powers to sway others opinions in the way you must think I do. I wish I did :D As to actually closing Sj's - had I been tasked with doing so I actually would have said "I may disagree, but the community is OK with him & he should be reconfirmed." (I guess that means you're not psychic) But I wasn't tasked with doing that, so I didn't need to do so. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hey Redux, I'm sorry to say this because you have done some great work in the past but your comments above to be totally honest read horribly of sour grapes and bullsh**. The job of the stewards indeed is to decide consensus, in fact it is quite clear in the Stewards policy (see my comments above). 25 of the 37 people who commented on your confirmation (67.6%) said you were inactive. Three of those said you should still be confirmed which still leaves 22 of the 37 commentators saying you should be removed for inactivity, with 59.5% saying you should be removed for inactivity any steward who tries to say otherwise is not only not following consensus he is totally ignoring it. Any steward who is going to just plain ignore a consensus that strong doesn't deserve their tools. The fact that you were (just barely) active per an automatic removal policy that has nothing to do with the confirmations is meaningless and so are any other concerns. The people had spoken that you no longer needed your tools and to be honest you should have resigned already. I do hope you continue in your strengths on wiki and if you still wish to be steward, and become more active, then run again and I'll probably vote for you. James (TC)15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No James, in the reconfirmation, unlike in most Steward tasks, the job is not the decide consensus, and it is not to enforce a consensus. In the reconfirmation, the Stewards are supposed to get input from the community and then discuss each case in light of the Steward policy and their own judgement. The only reason why there is even an apparent consensus araising from the first phase is because there is a continued misinterpretation of the reconfirmation as an election, or a re-election. I suppose it is understandable, since this is indeed a unique format, and it hasn't been around for that long. Still, it is what it is, and it is up to the Stewards to ensure that, until the Board of Trustees decides differently, it does not become an electoral procedure. In theory, something like inactivity does not even need to be pointed out, because it will be obvious from the logs. Obviously the Stewards are going to go through the logs during the second phase. Last year, I made a decision based on the rules, and taking into account the public discussion on Sj's page. The situation had become enough of a standstill for the reconfirmation to run almost two entire months. I did what I believed to be right, in accordance with the rules in place at the time. I will maintain that a handful of people does not equate a community, specifically with regards to the fact that there was no "outcry" about last year decision. There were a few people who disagreed with the decision, or with how I made it. Two of those saw it fit to participate in at least 2 of the three levels of discussion. There is the problem. Mike, sorry, but come on. First, the second phase is a discussion, not a vote. "Responding to comments" implicates working to change the minds of others so they will support a particular position different from what they were arguing previously. Second, yet again, I would appreciate it if you would tone down the sarcasm. Third, your discussion with Oscar was focused exactly on that last year there was "clear consensus to remove" Sj (reiterating my opener in this comment in that regard), and the final part of your independent rationale returns to that point. And that is in the second phase. In the first phase, your veement comments preclude the detachment required to be a judge of consensus, assuming for the sake of argument that this was what the first phase was about. In Sj's thread, you saw it fit to argue favorably to removal in spite of the fact that 32 out of 36 people participating supported reconfirmation . That is most clearly stemming from last year's situation as well. In the first phase of Sj's discussion, you went as far as to suggest a conspiracy theory involving some of the "older Stewards", who "threw their weight around", as you put it elsewhere, to protect a peer. I'm sorry, but after all that, you should have done in both cases what Kylu did in Lar's thread, quite simply. Redux16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to get into the debate about last year but regarding the consensus deal I'm going to have to say no, you're wrong. Please re-read the Stewards policy before you imply I haven't. It is of course slightly possible that the Board has some odd set of secretive decision making rules they want you to follow but I doubt it. If they wish for the steward discussion to be just among themselves that that's fine but they have to say so, absent them saying so all us mortals have is the Stewards policy which is quite explicit:
Stewardship is not a lifetime status. Users get it if they need it, keep it if people trust them, and lose it if they do not need it or are no longer trusted. Steward status is granted until the next yearly elections, where users will be invited to comment and in particular to ask for removal of status. Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed, the steward will lose their status.
I do not understand how you can interpret that to say that your job is not to judge consensus. The community that decided to comment decided you did not need the tools any longer (as is their job) and asked for their removal. If the policy should be different then ask for it to be changed, but as it reads now it is most definitely a consensus driven vehicle. Oh and sorry for the sarcasm (really I actually am) but it's a discussion not a vote? fooled me with all the "confirm, active per policy" "votes" above. James (TC)17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The job has more than one aspect. It is mostly about judging consensus. This is a particular instance where it is not exactly how it is supposed to work. As the wiki gets more complex, so does this job, and there are going to be scenarios that don't quite fit the original role designation. I never said that the job is not about judging consensus. I said that in this particular instance, the specific job at hand is not that. We were more explicit about it a couple of years ago, when the reconfirmation as it is now was introduced — if memory serves me well. The then-Head of the Board proposed the reconfirmation as a simple re-election procedure. We counter-argued that this would open a complicated scenario where the reconfirmation would become a political arena where, as it was put in this reconfirmation, any controversial decision a Steward might make could be second-guessed with a clear chance to "serve justice" by calling for the Steward's removal per "loss of trust", "inability to do the job correctly" or other similar reasons (definitely sounds familiar). That would create a political element that would not be welcome in the job. So this current, sui generis format was put together. It was supposed to work as I have outlined, but as it turns out it started to be treated by many as an election. You are right, some of the rationales and input even from some of the Stewards, in both phases, were very election-like. I would have been fooled too, if I didn't know better. And we let a lot of things slide because "it does no harm". I said in previous years that we did not need people to "vote" "keep" in the reconfirmation. But it does no harm to let people throw in their moral support. I said that rationales such as "remove, inactive" are merely stating the obvious and do not provide anything new with which we could work during the second phase. But it does no harm to let people do it, since we are supposed to take that aspect into account (that no new information is actually being provided, and thus that input would not really be contributing in guiding the Steward discussions). Perhaps in the end it does do some harm. It was supposed to be a discussion between the Stewards using the first phase input as building blocks, in a matter of speaking. It hasn't been working quite like that. If you ask me why the policy is not explaining this more clearly, I don't know. It ought to. Perhaps it would be aggravating to some that there would be no procedure through which people could actually be voted out of the Stewardship, or maybe we just let it slide because it does no harm to just let it read as it does — incidentally, the last part about the loss of access was altered, seemingly unilateraly by a user in November 2008 (here). Although the edit summary claims that the substance was not altered, the adding of the final sentence changed significantly the information about the reconfirmation. And that's exactly around the time when the reconfirmation was rehashed in its current format. That change goes very much against what was discussed and decided with the then-Head of the Foundation regarding the reconfirmation. We dropped the ball by not noticing it in this context at the time. Personally, I cannot conceive, under the current state of affairs, how it is in any way positive to turn the reconfirmation into an election. There seems to be a practical tendency towards that. It will do a lot more harm than it will do good. Redux07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to beat a dead horse so I'll keep this short. I think you're wrong, Stewards are not elected for life and should damn well serve at the will of the community until such time as the board decides they want to do do it all themselves (which I do not believe they want to). I don't think they are elections at the moment, consensus is much better (currently we have real "elections" when you actually become a steward). But I'm just going to end this, obviously we have a fundamental disagreement in what the community involvement should be in this process, I just think you're totally wrong. /me shrugs James (TC)08:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't create the rules, although I made suggestions with regards to how the reconfirmation should be shaped at the time. I did what I could to see that they were followed in the spirit they were created, which is perhaps more relevant than the exact wording, which, as I demonstrated in my previous comment, can be inadvertently altered, and it is not impossible that we might not notice it altogether. The Stewards were charged with this precisely because the Board could not take the extra work, incidentally. But I did not suggest that the Stewardship is a lifelong status or that Stewards should not be accountable. The thing is how to handle the reconfirmation without making it a political job. If a controversial decision is going to be second-guessed at a political arena, then this introduces an unwelcome element in the mindset of anyone with access to restricted tools, something along the lines of "if I take the front seat on this <whatever issue potentially controversial> will that circle around to bite me at the next reconfirmation?". And it probably will. Now, the problem with what you are saying James, curiously circles back to the exact same thing I pointed out all along: it is extremely difficult to implement without having it turn into a de facto election. Redux14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Rlevse: I agree with you. Something isn't right. Policy seems clear: Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed, the steward will lose their status.. I see no such determination of consensus existing in my case. What I see is a small group of stewards who voted to do something different than what the rest of the stewards wanted, and what the community majority wanted. I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens again. I'll now go further and say I think the decision was flawed, exceeded the authority of the group, and should be repudiated by the stewards as a whole. A closed process is not what I signed up for when we were discussing this on the mailing list. Nor is a determination that goes against the consensus of the rest of the stewards who commented. ++Lar: t/c02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The consensus of the stewards was to confirm, but, nevertheless, it wasn't done? It sounds to me like the rules of consensus aren't being followed here. Cla6823:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lar, pointing out that this particular phrase you quoted from the policy was actually inserted unilaterally into the policy during an edit that was supposed to just improve grammar and style (according to the edit summary); I linked the diff in my previous comment. I'm assuming this was unintentional, but as is happens, it changed the substance of policy, and nobody noticed it at the time. This is perhaps even more relevant because on this very thread this exact same passage was invoked to support the view that [first phase] community consensus must be enforced in the reconfirmation. This shows, again, a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding with regards to how the reconfirmation ought to work. My suggestion at this point would be that the Board of Trustees be consulted and issue a statement regarding how Steward reconfirmations are to be handled. If they say it's an election (although they would probably not use those words), then we can just let it be and enforce results accordingly. Redux03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Cbrown, Are you keeping up on the discussions on this page? I don't understand how "Says who?" is an academic response to this statement, especially if you are aware of the above. Pathos, and others stated this above. Transparency is important to this process, and I hope you would understand that. With respect, NonvocalScream19:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi NonvocalScream. Most of the discussion is already public; only the closing committee's discussion has not yet been published. As I've said above, I've been given access to the logs, so I can put together public anonymized summaries of the discussions. I'll post it here this evening. —Pathoschild 21:06:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please. And the preference is that they hold their discussions here, and not on skype, irc, what have you. I don't normally accept IRC logs, but what else can I do in this case? NonvocalScream21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lar... the final confirmation discussions were not on the wiki. I have been assured that summaries will be forthcoming. Also, I have withdrawn my comments here. NonvocalScream08:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware of that, and thanks, but I nevertheless wonder why the discussions need to be anonymized before being shared. I'm missing something, I think. ++Lar: t/c11:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
"I'm aware of that, and thanks, but I nevertheless wonder why the discussions need to be anonymized before being shared. I'm missing something, I think."
How about I post your disgraceful chats without your buddies indefing me and oversighting them. Deal?
This is all so rich coming from a guy who hangs out on IRC himself, soliciting others to do his dirty work. Are we also going to release those logs? And weren't you just the other day saying that an elite group of stewards should overrule the rest of us?
Lar, please resign as Ombudsman. You lost your en.wp oversight election, and now you've lost this one. You're not trusted anymore, and haven't been for some time.Proabivouac13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
sorry, but it was exactly this type of on-person stuff i intended to do without, please consider a similar attitude proabivouac, this leads nowhere at all. oscar13:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
chatlogs? i strongly recommend a good summary and rationales be published instead, as any verbatim chatlog, anonymized or not, will for sure distract attention away from reasoning to reasoners, dispersing discussions as a result. it is more work to prepare but it is that which is in most need of publication imho: more elaborately explained rationales, so these can be discussed, rather than people starting to guess about the "who said what". oscar12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree here with Oscar. The actual problem here is that the reasons for each decision made weren't fully explicated. While that's fine in obvious cases, like the ones I closed, it isn't for these ones. The committee spent several hours making these decisions - yet none of that agonizing comes through in the reasons presented.
I'd much prefer a clearer explanation of (for example) what is meant by "loss of trust" - it could be "loss of trust due to repeated broken promises to be more active and a pronounced tendancy to show up just at confirmation time to argue for staying on" or it might be "loss of trust due to checkuser abuse" -- obviously quite different rationales, yet the reader can't tell which is which when they're described simply as "loss of trust". The planned summary would instead focus attention on the people making the decisions rather than the decisions themselves (which is the important factor here). Explain the decisions clearly and there'd be no need for logs or a summary of them. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps you think you are being subtle. This is precisely why I said you should have recused in certain threads. Please, drop the sarcasm. It is rather unbecoming. Redux15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There actually isn't any sarcasm here, proving again that humans aren't psychic.
Look, it is obvious you're upset & lashing out because your steward tools were removed. Maybe that will spur you into increased activity and running in the elections next year - that'd be the best possible outcome. But please, try to stop blaming everyone but yourself; it is embarrassing to watch. You didn't meet the community's requirement for involvement in the job, and the group of stewards that closed your confirmation recognized that. I honestly don't understand what you're upset about - there's no shame in moving on to other things. So let's actually do that. Move on to other things. — mikelifeguard@meta:~$ 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Mike, you were being sarcastic. And you do realize you made those comments gratuitously, while replying to a comment by Oscar, on a thread that I (or Sj) was not involved with. Now you are making assumptions and being confrontational again gratuitously. You can defend whatever viewpoint you want, it's fine, but do it maintaining an appropriate tone. That's also part of the job. And I'd be worried if there was a Steward who actually cannot tell when he is being sarcastic and confrontational. Redux19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Based from what I see here, and what I've discussed in -stewards, I do not believe we will be getting our hands on those raw logs. This is where we cut our losses and accept the summaries. There is nothing I can do, and I don't think there is anything anyone can do about this. Very best, NonvocalScream02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That may be, but they nevertheless are not satisfactory. See my comment above. This sort of thing, even if it's not reversed in my particular case, needs to never happen again. The committee of 5 ignored community consensus (as is proper in some cases, it's up to the stewards) and further, ignored the consensus of the stewards (which is not proper). That is not the process that was agreed upon when we set up the subcommittee. No prior discussion of secret deliberations was made either. So the whole thing is seriously flawed. I don't assign malign intent to the committee of 5, I've worked closely with most of them, and respect them, but they overstepped their mandate. It is entirely possible that they were heavily lobbied in IRC to do something they didn't intend to do when they started. We'll never know for sure without the logs. So be it, but this is something that may not be a good approach ever again. ++Lar: t/c03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Lar to a limited extent. I think his claims that there was a consensus for his reconfirmation is incorrect and I think a reasonably judgment of the stewards could see that. But the lack of transparency in this process with this committee is disturbing. It would have been particularly good if the existence of such a committee had been announced before hand. I am not convinced that logs should be made visible in that multiple of the steward reconfirmation discussions involved issues that likely should not be made public. (In the case of Lar himself we had edits oversighted from multiple pages on meta about this). Really this would have been more or less fine if the committee had been announced before hand. This only looks bad because of the apparent last minute construction. So, this is a lesson for next year and Lar and Redux should move on. JoshuaZ05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for partly agreeing with me but I think you need to review the policy again, JoshuaZ. I was reconfirmed, there was a consensus among stewards that commented during phase II. That's not deniable. And even if you argue that there was not such a consensus, there clearly was not a consensus not to reconfirm, which is what policy specified is required... it's worded negatively precisely to prevent what you and others tried to do, raise a lot of mostly irrelevant issues, most of which are false to boot, (a statement from en:wp ArbCom put paid to most of them) and that that have no bearing on my ability to successfully execute the steward role, which I did, for two years. The committee of 5 stewards charged with determining what the consensus among stewards was and announcing it... far exceeded their mandate. The longer this goes on without a clear explanation of why they exceeded their mandate, why they disenfranchised the other stewards, and why they did it secretly, the more concerned I become. It leads to speculation that there was some sort of concerted lobbying effort by someone. ++Lar: t/c17:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but it seems that there might have been an impression that I wanted the final result with regards to my Stewardship overturned somehow. That is not the case. As a matter of fact, I will go on the record and state that I would not, under any circumstances, accept the Steward flag back as a result of some sort of overrule of the final results. The process had problems, but it is what it is. I was critical of it, just as I was criticized publicly by some of the Stewards for my handling of last year's reconfirmation. Criticizing the process and some of the actions taken is not, as it was labeled, "obvious lashing out over the results", but rather pointing out the problems that I believed occurred and that must be addressed by next year's reconfirmation. And most poignantly, it is in nature the exact same thing that happened with regards to last year's reconfirmation, only it happened a year later, during the following reconfirmation, which ended up making it a political fuel of sorts, rather than an opportunity for reviewing my actions in last year's reconfirmation. And I alone took the heat for it, because I alone took responsibility for last year's more complicated closings, which I made it a point to handle at a 100% public environment. I would point out that I was criticized publicly for ignoring non-public discussions in last year's reconfirmation, when I worked exclusively with the information available on the Steward discussion page on the Meta-Wiki. And now it appears that the point being called to order here is that there is an unwillingness to make public the decision-making discussions that led to the final results. Redux04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments10 people in discussion
The confirmations this year have been the most dramatic ever; ironically, some of the changes were implemented at the last minute to address issues from the 2009 confirmations. I suggest we productively begin planning for the 2011 confirmations, to avoid these problems. (The topic is planning for 2011. Attacks, blame, and so forth will be moved or redacted as needed to ensure that we stay on topic.)
If you didn't like something about the process this year, here is your chance to change it! —Pathoschild 04:30:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In previous years, confirmations were closed ad hoc by whichever individual steward took the initiative. In 2009 this led to long delays, and when the more difficult decisions were finally made, some felt the discussions had not been adequately considered. Also, private issues could not be adequately discussed publicly, and mailing list discussions are awkward for this.
Just before the 2010 confirmations, a solution was proposed — a small committee consisting of the nihil obstat stewards and the most supported newly-elected. After stewards had discussed the confirmations and closed the nihil obstat cases, this committee would discuss the more difficult cases and make the final decisions.
This ensured that a single steward could not make the final decision, prevented the long delays, ensured that all reasons were carefully examined in real-time discussion, and allowed discussion of the more private concerns. I think the committee succeeded very well in those defined goals, and it's a definite step up from previous years when decisions were made by whichever steward took that initiative.
However, many expressed concerns about the transparency or accountability of these final discussions. (Public summaries were posted, but not the IRC logs themselves.)
Ideas for 2011
The committee has addressed many issues from previous years, but reintroduced the issue of transparency. Should a similar committee exist in 2011? Should a modified form be used, perhaps with two channels — a public logged channel for most discussion, and a private channel for the few issues that should be discussed privately? Should we return to ad-hoc closure, or try something else entirely?
It seems to me that this year's problem was that the closing committee used different criteria to close from those mandated. The burning issue then is whether the committee is deciding of its own volition who must be reconfirmed or merely determining the consensus among stewards for who must be reconfirmed. Roger Daviestalk06:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The closing committee should definitely have a more clear mandate – either they decide the result or they interpret consensus among the community as a closing sysop would at en:WP:AFD. NW(Talk)17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think that the system now works. However, what would the committee use to determine confirmation? 80%? 60%? Should it be a vote or should it be an honest "consensus" in the definition that everyone comes to an agreement? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Skip the steward voting step if there is going to be a closing committee. I still dislike how the closing committee overruled the steward votes in Lar's reconfirmation. If there is a legitimate reason to do so, fine, but don't make it seem like the steward votes are more important than the community's in those cases. NW(Talk)17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The steward section above is for discussion of the comments from the community, not voting. Where no clear consensus was reached in that discussion, the committee was tasked with making an informed decision. Maybe the steward discussion and committee discussion could be combined — have a public real-time IRC discussion, with a committee to make the decision when no consensus is reached? —Pathoschild 18:26:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the following changes are needed for next year:
The closing committee should conduct its discussions on-wiki, not on IRC
The closing committee should move deliberately, not with haste. Trying to rush closure in a few hours is a bad idea.
If IRC must be used, all interested parties, especially the stewards being discussed, must be given sufficient notice, and a chance to participate at a time that is convenient for them.
The committee should not have additional anonymous participation that does not admit of scrutiny or rebuttal
If IRC must be used, the transcripts should be published, not a summary of them put together by a possibly partisan source.
If IRC must be used, the transcripts should not be anonymous. Stewards on the committee should be willing to voice their opinion publicly, this wasn't supposed to be a star chamber.
In any case the committee should not exceed its mandate. The committee mandate was to evaluate consensus, or lack of consensus, among the stewards that discussed the matter, not make a decision on its own.
In any case, the committee should not go against policy. Policy is clear, if there is not a clear consensus to remove, the steward is confirmed. To go against policy is disenfranchising of future volunteer effort.
After the discussion is published, there should be a period for asking questions, which get prompt reply.
Any emails sent should be promptly and thoroughly answered.
In short, this committee was flawed in myriad ways. No explanation has been given for why although it is becoming increasingly obvious that something behind the scenes went on that is not acceptable. I hope this sort of thing is not repeated in future. ++Lar: t/c16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
lack of consensus (among the stewards) to confirm ==> remove. That's how it should work, and that's how it did. And that's not against the policy, because the policy doesn't say what the default is. But what *really* needs to be changed for next year is how the committee is constituted. There should be a voting among the stewards for members of the committee before the election/confirmation starts. For example 3 (previously named) members from the current stewards and the two new stewards with best support:oppose ratio. If one of the committee members is under further discussion him/herself, they would of course need to be replaced, for example by the third-best new steward. And there should really be a time limit after closing of the confirmation session. Two weeks for further research by the committee (like asking Arbcom, asking the steward in question and so on) and one more week to come to the final conclusions. Whether they discuss publicly or not should really be up to the committee to decide, as long as they give a proper rationale for their decisions. What could be forcedly public could be a voting by the committee members whether or not they see the oppose reasons relevant/valid, for every single oppose reason given in the comments. --თოგო(D)17:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it would be practical to pick 3 stewards beforehand since it will be hard to guess who will get no opposes during the community discussion phase. And all that would be be needed is for one person to vote against each steward to throw the whole thing into disarray. Better to choose the three soon after the community discussion phase among the stewards who received the highest community support ratio AND who received at least 30 supports; those three, if not already due to a lack of opposition, would then be confirmed. Steward discussion phase would then start and run for a week or two. The closing committee would determine consensus all during that period and would confirm or not confirm all stewards that are easier cases. This would leave the increasingly more difficult cases open. I like the idea of no steward consensus = not confirm, but those should wait for the full two weeks to elapse. --Daniel Mayer (mav)18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Of course it would be best if the "committee" was made up of respected non-stewards. "Qui custodiat ipsos custodies" tho my la is very very rusty. --Herbytalk thyme19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the glitch in initiatives like this is that interest tends to dwindle rather quickly once the "voting" ends. Only to be renewed when it reopens again, the following year, at which point a lot of people will complain about the format being used and how decisions are being made. It is a bit of a conundrum. Redux03:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello Redux. We're both interested, and that's enough to start a conversation. Do you have particular suggestions for next year? —Pathoschild 12:47:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pathos. I believe the first step would be to get more people involved. In order to do that, perhaps it would be best if this discussion was moved out of this page. I was thinking perhaps a lot of people are perceiving this page as "dead", or closed, since the 2010 reconfirmation has ended. As for next year, the practical aspect of having a committee to make a final decision notwithstanding, I still would have mixed feelings about it. It seems to create a third phase in the reconfirmation, and it opens the scenario of a number of Stewards overruling other Stewards. And, perhaps more importantly, it will reduce the interest of Stewards in commenting and discussing in the second phase. It is usually rather clear from the first-phase discussions which will be the difficult cases to either reconfirm or not. This year, with the exception of Lar's thread, there was very little discussion amongst the Stewards during the second phase. It was mostly automatic closing of the clear-cut cases and, in the difficult cases, there was a vote-like situation where some Stewards posted a vote-like "confirm/remove" comment with a rationale, but little discussion on the rationales presented. It was left to the Committee to judge whether there was consensus among the Stewards to confirm, but in this scenario it gets a lot closer to just seeing how many people "voted" which way. I find it contradictory that the fact that a single Steward might close a thread might be viewed as a problem. Stewards are, necessarily, users who are experienced in analyzing consensus and exercizing judgement on the rationales presented. That can't be a problem, because if it is, we might as well overhaul the entire role of the Admins — the reconfirmation being perhaps the one situation where a Steward will be required to play an Administrator-like role, as far as judging consensus is concerned. In my humble opinion, the real issue would be that if a single Steward closes those difficult cases, depending on how this comes to be interpreted, that could turn into a "political passive" of sorts for that Steward. But I don't believe that creating a Committee would be the solution for that, mainly because it creates other problems. Perhaps if we could get more input... Redux14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll repeat this (but correctly spelt this time) "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
I have doubts that you will ever convince people of the "fairness" of some judgements however when established stewards sit in judgement of established stewards there will always be difficulties. I guess that makes 3 people interested anyway :) --Herbytalk thyme15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
So the suggestion would be a more independent Committee, made up of non-Stewards? Ok, that's an option, but it also creates a few problems. First, how to select the members. Having some kind of election for it would, again, only add to the bureaucracy, as well as introducing a political aspect that would not necessarily ensure the detachment that would have been the reason for this selection to happen in the first place. And if they are simply appointed by someone, or by a group of people, then the issue of independence and neutrality would remain. Second, if not the Stewards, who would be eligible to participate in this committee; that is also debatable. In the end, controversies would still be abundant, I believe. Still, I get from all of this that there is a feeling that having the Stewards run the second phase would allow for some sort of corporatism, where the Stewards would be inclined to protect their peers. Although that could be construed as a valid concern, the experience of the previous two years seem to indicate that doesn't tend to happen. This year's events especially seem to indicate that actually the opposite is more likely to happen: Stewards can be even more critical of other Stewards than the rest of the community. If we only had 2 or 3 Stewards, perhaps that would be more of a possibility, but with +30 members in the Stewards usergroup, it just appears to me rather unlikely that something like that could actually take place. And again, Stewards are supposed to be a group of highly, highly trusted users. If we can't trust them to make an honest, good-faith decision, than the problem at hand extends far beyond the reconfirmation of any given Steward. And I just don't believe that is the case. Redux00:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes - largely I agree with you. However I think there is a lack of transparency in it which will always allow suspicious folk to be just that. I should flag up the fact that I am inherently worried about people with any attachment to power (if you hadn't already realised that!). There are people who are stewards and work, there are people who are stewards and do little. As such the community (I can't be the only one aware of it) will not view all steward opinions as equal.
While the system is not perfect another set of elections fills me with dread! More a case of the fact that folk need to sort things out for next year before next year comes along I guess. Some structure/format/timetable might go some way to allaying fears of an ad hoc kangaroo court maybe. --Herbytalk thyme08:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
If the second phase remains as the final phase, focused on discussions held exclusively on a Meta page, such as this one, instead of IRC and private mail lists, transparency would not be an issue, in my humble opinion. That is what I had advocated all along. As far as different weight being assigned to Stewards' opinions based on a number of criteria, it could be an option to limit which Stewards would parttake in the second phase. Some Stewards already abstain from commenting anyway, so we could just make it official somehow. I would prefer using objective criteria. For instance, "x" activity level, and/or Stewards who have abstained from involvement in the first phase. Whether or not newly elected Stewards, who are still inexperienced, ought to participate could also be discussed. Naturally, as you mentioned it, there is always going to be some level of suspicion if discussions are held privately and final results are posted with a summarized rationale. It's not that there is any wrongdoing involved, which I really do not believe that there is, just to be clear. It is more how it looks to others, how the community will perceive the process. But beyond that, there simply is no such thing as a perfect procedure. A goal that we ought to have would be to keep the whole thing as simple and light-hearted as we possibly can. People shouldn't have to spend a month stressed out because they need to address criticism, harassment (in some rare cases, it's been known to happen) and so on. Redux12:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do agree mostly. It is the issue of how it looks to people though. The problem is that while everything is fine everything is fine. It is dealing with the controversial ones that is the issue I think. And they are the ones there will be the most "heat" about.
I also agree with the simple/light hearted idea - the issue again is dealing with the ones that are not like that.
While objective measures are good to a degree if a steward has lost the support of the community that is the absolute (for me) not playing games with numbers (always hard given the variety of work involved). --Herbytalk thyme14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is a very interesting point, the dealing with the complicated cases. My personal take on this is the "comes with the territory" point. A Steward is not like an ArbCom member, s/he is not appointed to work in a collegiate. Stewards are appointed to use their tools under their own judgement. They are supposed to be people we trust are able to do that — in time: that doesn't mean we will necessarily agree with the decision made. It is definitely not ideal that by dealing with one of those difficult cases a Steward might very well be digging a hole for himself. But it comes with the territory. Someone who decides they want to be a Steward must be prepared to deal with that. And as I said, there is no such thing as a perfect procedure; we must be prepared to accept the fact that some things will not be dealt with in an ideal fashion, and we will have to settle for the next best thing. It's all peaches and cream when we are going by the "don't think" rule, but in situations where Stewards are required to exercise judgement and make a decision, that must be faced as part of the job as well. I'd like to think that the people who were selected to do this job are people who are more than capable of doing that. Accepting the premise that a Committee is not necessarily a viable solution, since it creates more problems, then the option left is for the Stewards to tackle the issues the old-fashioned way. A useful change would be if there was to be a preset duration limit for the Steward discussions in the second phase, so that the closing Steward will not be selecting a point in time arbitrarily to assess consensus and make a final decision. Redux15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Now about three weeks on, and not one of the concerns I raised have been satisfactorily addressed. That says about all that needs saying, I think. ++Lar: t/c23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, it says you haven't suggested any improvements in this discussion. How would you like the 2011 confirmations to go? —Pathoschild 00:39:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the section, above, which starts out "I think the following changes are needed for next year:" written by me??? It contains a number of specific suggestions. ++Lar: t/c03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah-ha, I missed it when I skimmed through the discussion. However, we're only discussing and planning at the moment; nothing will actually be implemented until we organize the confirmations next year, unless you want to draft a process. —Pathoschild 04:58:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It was fairly hard to miss but I'm glad you've now found it, though. Perhaps now you can actually comment on my suggestions, now that you've found them rather than claiming I didn't make any? ++Lar: t/c10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was informed that the way confirmations go is based on a consensus of the Stewards taking into account all comments, steward and non-steward. However, what occurred (specifically in Lar's case) seemed to me to be a decision based on a consensus of a sub-set of stewards, not the entire steward corpus. If that was how it was supposed to be and I had a mistaken perception, so be it and I am glad that it worked as planned. However, if I was correct in my initial understanding, I would suggest for the 2011 confirmations to forestall any uncertainty that confirmations of existing stewards be held similar to bureaucrat discussions on EnWiki. This would be an open, on-meta discussion between all stewards who care to opine and their opinions, taking into consideration their own personal judgments and all points, pro and con, that were raised in the open portion of the confirmation hearings. If the stewards among themselves cannot reach a consensus about the steward under dscussion, that steward is not confirmed. As for the very real fear of Quod ipsos… I worry that unchecked it will lead to ever increasing levels of bureaucracy. I personally would hope (perhaps somewhat naïvely) that having the discussion on-meta and open to all would reassure the vast majority of wikimedians as to the propriety of the results. On the other hand, that may just be naïveté. However, there is merit to Redux's point that Stewards are elected based on the perception of their judgment. Thoughts? -- Avi02:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
"The vast majority of wikimedians" are oblivious to all this. The ones that observed it commented, and many of them commented specifically on how flawed it was. ++Lar: t/c03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is a good idea, but on-wiki discussion is awkward and slow. How about a public IRC discussion between all stewards, with the logs posted on Meta? I think real-time discussion is much more effective. —Pathoschild 05:03:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Not all stewards are available on IRC simultaneously; we span the globe. I would prefer taking an extra two to three days and getting it right than expediting a solution that may be flawed or incomplete. -- Avi05:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it looks like IRC was a vehicle for a considerable fraction of the issues with this year's process. It is interesting to speculate how matters might have been different if the discussions had been conducted where people could see how they were going awry and learned who the mysterious extra folk were that were unduly influencing things. ++Lar: t/c10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
But speaking of sub-sets of people, discussions here are only being conducted by another sub-set of people. Many are unaware that there are still live discussions on this page, and many others are fully aware, but are not commenting, for whatever reason. That's a problem. For one thing, if the opinions I'm reading here were widespread, I suspect my closing of the previous year's reconfirmation would not have caused commotion in the way that it eventually did. And there I find a disturbing connection with the lack of involvement in these discussions. Drawing again from my own experience, none of the concerns apparently caused by the decisions I made last year seem to have been addressed with me in a context of "last try a different approach next year and see if it will go better". Instead, people just kept it bottled up and made it into a political issue during my reconfirmation. And to move away from issues araising from the reconfirmation itself, notice how common it is for people to call for someone not to be reconfirmed because of a single, isolated mistake made months before the reconfirmation. It feels rather disheartening to see that a lot of it is quickly becoming about keeping scores and settling them during the next "election". That is not how it is supposed to work. In that context, a huge problem is that Stewards are participating, sometimes rather veemently, in the first phase of discussions. Then they show up to reinforce that position during the Steward-only second phase, and then some might still be a part of the Committee, as it were this year. That's the image of "jury, judge and executioner". I believe Stewards should have to opt: either they recuse in the first phase and act in the second (and those who might be part of the Committee, they would have to recuse in the second as well), or they parttake in the first phase and recuse in the second (and the Committee, if there is one). Redux01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Recuse of course. Kylu 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Done Kylu 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
