|
English: The 2010 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.
Suomi: Vuoden 2010 ylivalvojien vaalit on loppu. Uusia ääniä ei hyväksytä enää.
العربية: انتخابات المضيفين لعام 2010 انتهت. لا أصوات أخرى سيتم قبولها.
Deutsch: Die Stewardwahlen 2010 sind beendet. Weitere Stimmen können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden.
Español : Las elecciones a Steward del año 2010 han concluído. No se aceptan más votos.
فارسی: .رایگیری در مورد انتخابات ویکیبدهای جدید پایان یافته است.رایهای جدید مورد قبول واقع نخواهد شد.
Français : Les élections de 2010 pour Steward se sont conclues. Aucun vote au-delà de cette date ne sera compté.
Gaeilge: Tá na toghcháin Maoir 2010 dúnta anois. Ní féidir aon vótaí eile a glacadh as an am seo amach.
Galego: Xa remataron as eleccións a steward do ano 2010. Non se aceptarán máis votos.
Alemannisch : D Stewardwahle 2010 sin umme. Du chasch nimmi abstimme.
עברית: בחירות הדיילים לשנת 2010 הסתיימו. הצבעות נוספות לא תתקבלנה.
Magyar: A választás lezárult, további szavazatokat nem fogadunk el.
Italiano: Le elezioni del 2010 a Steward sono terminate. Nessun voto ricevuto dopo questa data sarà preso in considerazione.
日本語： 2010年のスチュワード選挙は終わりました。今後の投票は受け付けられません。
Nederlands: De stewardsverkiezingen van 2010 zijn gesloten. U kunt niet meer stemmen.
Polski: Wybory stewardów w 2010 roku zakończyły się. Nowe głosy nie będą akceptowane.
Português : As eleições para Steward de 2010 estão encerradas. Nenhum voto lançado a partir desta data será computado.
Русский: Выборы стюардов — 2010 завершены. Дальнейшие голоса не будут приняты.
Svenska: 2010 års val av stewarder är avslutat. Ingen ytterligare röstning kommer att accepteras.
中文： 2010年监管员选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（简体）： 2010年监管員选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（繁體）: 2010年監管員選舉已經結束。逾期投票將會作廢。
Ελληνικά: Οι εκλογές επιτρόπων για το 2010 έχουν τελειώσει. Δεν γίνονται δεκτές άλλες ψήφοι.
Türkçe: 2010 kâhya seçimleri tamamlanmıştır. Daha fazla oy kabul edilmeyecektir.
Azərbaycanca: 2010 eşikağası seçkiləri tamamlanmışdır. Daha çox səs qəbul olunmaz.
|
logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement
English:
- Languages: en
- Personal info: Yes, I've been inactive for quite some time now. And the reason is because I've had to move since starting a new job, and this job requires quite a lot of traveling. The reason why I had not added a statement until now, something I never skip doing, is somewhat illustrative of my present situation: I have spent the last 3 weeks in Central America, where I had very, very limited access to the internet. Just got back, and found out that the reconfirmation had already started. As for the future, obviously I don't expect to keep this pace for much longer. I should be able to settle down, possibly in Brazil's capital, Brasília, where I'd be able to dedicate more time to Wikimedia, Wikipedia and other projects. But realistically speaking, that should still take one or two months. Being that I would still be able to return to work, I will not resign, since this is voluntary work and being overwhelmed by our jobs is just something that can happen to anyone. I will make no excuses. I am inactive for the time being, and have been inactive in the recent past because I was simply unable to be active. I will come back, provided I am not removed following this reconfirmation.
Furthermore, since I see there are already people making remarks concerning my intervention in the previous reconfirmation, I will state right now that my intervention in this reconfirmation will be limited to adding this statement and answering any questions from the community, as long as they are directed to me personally, and not to the Stewards in general. I will not vote, I will not participate in the Stewards discussions regarding the results. If I feel that there is clear consensus to remove me, regardless of what I have just stated and regardless of any answers I may provide over the course of this reconfirmation, I will remove the flag myself -- after the poll closes, as my final execution of community consensus, and not as a resignation. And should this be my last days as a Steward, I will say only that it has been a great experience, and a pleasure to have worked in this capacity. And, of course, thank you for your patience and the trust that has been bestowed upon me over the last few years. Redux 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
русский:
- Языки: en
- Личная информация: здесь должно быть заявление
- Not anylonger active, no statement, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Also per Majorly.
- Inactive. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- As above... — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now that there's a statement:
Remove. Redux says it best: "Yes, I've been inactive for quite some time now." Indeed you have. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to point out that Majorly's assessment of the closing of last year's reconfirmations is completely accurate, as is Anonymous Dissident's. The community's will was overruled, and to this day I am thoroughly ashamed I watched it happen without doing more to prevent that outcome. This was mainly due to "older" stewards throwing their weight around - you can read the page and see . While that was inappropriate, I lacked the will to stand up to that intimidation. I very nearly resigned because of this. I hope this year's modified closure process will result in the community's opinion being enacted as best we can. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is an spectacular misread of both the reconfirmation process and last year's events. I'm sorry you felt intimidated somehow. Had I noticed that, I would have encouraged you to participate more actively in the discussion page, although you were actually one of the few who did participate more actively where the Stewards were in fact supposed to be discussing the process. That being said, however, you are now implying some level of bad faith, or some kind of "plot" from some of the Stewards to defend their peers. I must take exception to that. At this point, I will refer you to my more detailed comments below. I really don't get why it seems to be that difficult to understand that the reconfirmation was not, and still is not, an election. The current rules state pretty much the same as last year's did in terms of it being the Stewards' job to take into account comments from the community and making a decision in light of their understanding of the job. Now, 96% of the time, the job means enacting community consensus without applying judgement regarding what local communities have decided. There is, however, the other 4%. And the reconfirmation is part of that. This is what was agreed with the then-Head of the Board of Trustees, which, I might recall, are the ones empowered to promote and remove Stewards. Originally, both the reconfirmation and the Steward elections were "advisory elections" to them. Then it was agreed that the reconfirmation wasn't going to be an election at all, and that the body of Stewards would be encharged of making a decision as a team, with input from the community (the public reconfirmation). We don't get to change that without the Board of Trustees' say-so. And frankly, most of the Stewards, if not all of them, agreed at the time that this was the only format that would allow Stewards to be able to perform during the year without worrying about being "political" enough to survive repeating elections. Forgive the bluntness, but in order to be able to do this job, you will need to be able to think outside the proverbial box when the job requires it, however rare that might be. Redux 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm amused by your persistence in claiming that what you did was right and that we're misrepresenting the events. How many more will it take to convince you? This type of stubbornness is yet another trait I'm dismayed to see in anyone with a position of authority. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Amused"?? I would appreciate it if you would keep the sarcasm in check. I said in the beginning I would provide answers if they were required. Not liking the answer is your prerrogative. And from the position of a Steward, having people disagree with something you do is pretty much part of the job. That's one of the points I have been making. Another one is that precisely because a decision a Steward makes, however in good faith, can dissatisfy people on one level or another, we cannot have yearly "reelections" for the current Stewards, and hence the format of the reconfirmation. In this particular case, I made the decision I thought was appropriate and in line with the rules, and I made it in good faith. That is the promise I must keep as a Steward, not that my decisions will always please everyone or even, for the sake of argument, that they will always be right. I don't believe I made a mistake, but if I did, it was while trying to do the right thing. That is the only realistic promess anyone can make. If there are people who think I should have acted differently, I will listen to their suggestions, and if there is agreement that we should handle the reconfirmation differently, and if we have the Board of Trustees onboard with that, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Redux 15:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- When I said I was ashamed to have done less than enough last year I meant it. You should be ashamed too. I should have stopped you from dismissing community input, but you shouldn't have done so in the first place. In fact, all stewards should be shamed - we failed the community. Sadly, the only recourse the community has to rectify that failure is these reconfirmations, creating something of a catch-22. I'm afraid I can't say anything further that's civil at the moment. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with you having a different understanding of the reconfirmation or even the role of the Stewards in the reconfirmation. I think you are wrong, you think I'm wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, your comment above is incredibly, and I mean, incredibly beligerant ("I should have stopped you", "I can't say anything further that's civil"??) and not at all what I would expect to hear from a Steward. You are out of line and you need to revisit what it is that it means to be a Steward of the Foundation — and mind that: we are Stewards of the Foundation. In any event, being that the reconfirmation has ended, I believe there is no point in discussing this further here. Redux 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I said I was ashamed to have done less than enough last year I meant it. You should be ashamed too. I should have stopped you from dismissing community input, but you shouldn't have done so in the first place. In fact, all stewards should be shamed - we failed the community. Sadly, the only recourse the community has to rectify that failure is these reconfirmations, creating something of a catch-22. I'm afraid I can't say anything further that's civil at the moment. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Amused"?? I would appreciate it if you would keep the sarcasm in check. I said in the beginning I would provide answers if they were required. Not liking the answer is your prerrogative. And from the position of a Steward, having people disagree with something you do is pretty much part of the job. That's one of the points I have been making. Another one is that precisely because a decision a Steward makes, however in good faith, can dissatisfy people on one level or another, we cannot have yearly "reelections" for the current Stewards, and hence the format of the reconfirmation. In this particular case, I made the decision I thought was appropriate and in line with the rules, and I made it in good faith. That is the promise I must keep as a Steward, not that my decisions will always please everyone or even, for the sake of argument, that they will always be right. I don't believe I made a mistake, but if I did, it was while trying to do the right thing. That is the only realistic promess anyone can make. If there are people who think I should have acted differently, I will listen to their suggestions, and if there is agreement that we should handle the reconfirmation differently, and if we have the Board of Trustees onboard with that, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Redux 15:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm amused by your persistence in claiming that what you did was right and that we're misrepresenting the events. How many more will it take to convince you? This type of stubbornness is yet another trait I'm dismayed to see in anyone with a position of authority. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is an spectacular misread of both the reconfirmation process and last year's events. I'm sorry you felt intimidated somehow. Had I noticed that, I would have encouraged you to participate more actively in the discussion page, although you were actually one of the few who did participate more actively where the Stewards were in fact supposed to be discussing the process. That being said, however, you are now implying some level of bad faith, or some kind of "plot" from some of the Stewards to defend their peers. I must take exception to that. At this point, I will refer you to my more detailed comments below. I really don't get why it seems to be that difficult to understand that the reconfirmation was not, and still is not, an election. The current rules state pretty much the same as last year's did in terms of it being the Stewards' job to take into account comments from the community and making a decision in light of their understanding of the job. Now, 96% of the time, the job means enacting community consensus without applying judgement regarding what local communities have decided. There is, however, the other 4%. And the reconfirmation is part of that. This is what was agreed with the then-Head of the Board of Trustees, which, I might recall, are the ones empowered to promote and remove Stewards. Originally, both the reconfirmation and the Steward elections were "advisory elections" to them. Then it was agreed that the reconfirmation wasn't going to be an election at all, and that the body of Stewards would be encharged of making a decision as a team, with input from the community (the public reconfirmation). We don't get to change that without the Board of Trustees' say-so. And frankly, most of the Stewards, if not all of them, agreed at the time that this was the only format that would allow Stewards to be able to perform during the year without worrying about being "political" enough to survive repeating elections. Forgive the bluntness, but in order to be able to do this job, you will need to be able to think outside the proverbial box when the job requires it, however rare that might be. Redux 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to point out that Majorly's assessment of the closing of last year's reconfirmations is completely accurate, as is Anonymous Dissident's. The community's will was overruled, and to this day I am thoroughly ashamed I watched it happen without doing more to prevent that outcome. This was mainly due to "older" stewards throwing their weight around - you can read the page and see . While that was inappropriate, I lacked the will to stand up to that intimidation. I very nearly resigned because of this. I hope this year's modified closure process will result in the community's opinion being enacted as best we can. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now that there's a statement:
- If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remorseful remove as inactive. Kylu 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Inactive.
no statement- remove. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) - Inactive. --WizardOfOz talk 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras talk 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hardly any activity and no statement, so I'm afraid I must say remove. --Erwin 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)- I would definitely like to see more activity. Taking Anonymous Dissident's comments and your statement and comments into account I wonder whether you will become more active, but in the end only time can tell.
For now I say confirm per Oscar.--Erwin 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)- I'm afraid I'll have to say remove. We need active stewards and a promise like this isn't enough. --Erwin 13:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would definitely like to see more activity. Taking Anonymous Dissident's comments and your statement and comments into account I wonder whether you will become more active, but in the end only time can tell.
- inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- sorry but remove , on the ground of inactivity --Mardetanha talk 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby talk thyme 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- very low activity, weak not-reconfirm --FiliP ██ 11:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Inactive, remove. Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove. Last 50 edits stretch back to his attempts at last year's confirmations to convince us inactivity is not a good reason to strip people of access. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reaffirming remove vote. I'm sorry, but you said very similar things last year, including that you had "begun returning to activities". You have not been active as a steward for more than two years now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and realistically speaking it is always a possibility that we might plan to do certain things (e.g., return to full activity, and so on) and in the end we can't quite make it. At this point, I predict I should be able to be more active in a couple of months, but that is not written in stone either. That being said, however, and as I mentioned in response to Carry's comment, it would be better if I, or any of us, could provide some kind of prior notice when we intend to take a leave of absence (or when we need to extend one). Beyond that, we cannot be worrying about filling quotas. The best and only promise I can make is that I never intended to leave or abandon my work as a Steward. But unintended absences are, at least for me, a fact of life. Redux 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reaffirming remove vote. I'm sorry, but you said very similar things last year, including that you had "begun returning to activities". You have not been active as a steward for more than two years now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good faith Keep but please notify us when you expect to disappear again. We worry! bastique demandez! 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, I should at the very least have e-mailed the Foundation Office about this. But since those things are usually not planned, we can sometimes lose track of how long it's been since we were actually active. It might take comments like "remove per inactivity" for us to actually go back to the contributions history and realize just how long it's been. At least that is what happened to me. Duly noted. Provided I'm not removed now, I will make it a point to post notifications should I ever have to take prolongued leaves of absence in the future. Redux 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep after statement :)--Nick1915 - all you want 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep - clear statement. my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). oscar 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- neutral, though comfortable with a wikibreak, as long as their is a serious self-review at a realistic timeframe of what their commitment allows, and is made for the community's benefit. billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, despite statement I have to say remove per inactivity. Finn Rindahl 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep per statement. Cbrown1023 talk 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)- Confirm. He's definitely trustworthy, and I would be happy on taking his word on his future contributions. Per Oscar as well. NW (Talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Absence explained satisfactorily and my experience with Redux is that I trust him in that as his life and work settle down, he will return to higher levels of activity. -- Avi 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep After statement. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. If what you are saying is true, we all should give you a second chance. I hope you enjoy here in Brazil. Be more active on pt.wikipedia too. Good luck.Teles (talk / pt-wiki talk) 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Next time, you should keep a satellite phone with yourself, so you can be prompt enough :P --Millosh 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, for next time. —Innv {ru-ws} 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and wish you better connection :) --Aphaia 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove Sorry, you're basically inactive and each year it seems we get empty promises of more activity. Thanks for your work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reaffirm vote per this. Stewards do not overrule the community. Sj should have been removed last year, the vote was clearly in favour of that. For another inactive steward to overrule that is very inappropriate. Majorly talk 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Sorry, but I'll address this as if it was a question, although I'm fully aware that it wasn't. However, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of reconfirmation. It is not a reelection. It is the Stewards' job to take community input under advise in deciding how to proceed regarding the Steward body. Those were the rules last year, and I was doing nothing but abiding by them. Furthermore, the decision is hardly unilateral, and I did not overrule anyone. Any Stewards disagreeing with the interpretation I gave to Sj's case were free to, and indeed should have brought it up in discussion, and a consensus would have emerged. And should it have been to remove Sj, that's exactly what would have been done, and it would have been I who would have been overruled, rightfully so. If the Stewards, who were charged with evaluating the reconfirmation results from last year, had felt that I should not have had a voice in the discussions because of my level of activity then, I would like to think that they would have brought it up, and this would have been dealt with accordingly. In addition, a comment amounting to "I support removing you because I disagree with something you did in the past as a Steward" is precisely why the reconfirmation cannot be treated like a simple reelection. Obviously, people are going to disagree with any given decision I might make as a Steward. That is just part of the job. However, if the job requires that I make a decision, and in that case it did, then I will make it. In the case of Sj's thread, you may not recall this, but it was, along with a few others, left open for someone to make the final evaluation and close it. For one reason or another, there was no one making the judgement call that was required to provide closure to a process that had been going on for more than a month. So I made the call, which was in full accordance with the valid rules concerning the 2009 reconfirmation. And I closed a lot of the threads in that reconfirmation, I should add, and not only Sj's. If there is any criticism that might help me to better perform the job, I'm certainly all ears, and indeed I welcome it — as I did when I noted in response to Carry's comment, in this reconfirmation, that we should not take leaves of absence without some kind of notification. But what I would consider inappropriate is not to make constructive remarks when they could have been made in that spirit, and then wait until a perceived opportunity to retort by "voting" to remove, in a matter of speaking. Redux 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can try to justify your decision till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that you overruled 17 of the 18 voters at Sj's 2009 confirmation, right after having been inactive for more than a year yourself. It was a very poor show indeed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The 2009 reconfirmation was not a vote. The community was supposed to give input so that the Stewards could make a decision regarding their peers. Nobody was overruled, all the rules were followed. There's no need for me to repeat was is written in my previous comment above, so please refer to it. This, however, is the first negativity I'm hearing about Sj's decision, and that includes the Steward body. As I mentioned before, there are a number of avenues through which people can comment on a particular decision, or the entire process (in this case, the 2009 reconfirmation, in case people were unhappy with the rules in effect). If you feel that I, personally, made a mistake in closing Sj's reconfirmation, this could have been brought up to me directly, or within the scope of proposing an overhaul of the reconfirmation process. However, for the sake of argument, even if we were to work with the hypothesis that a mistake was made, "remove because, as I see it, you made a mistake" is also not appropriate. This is, yet again, a good example of why a Steward reconfirmation is not an election. With only a few exceptions, usually pertaining to unauthorized release of privileged information, we do not remove people because of a mistake. This was also discussed in the 2009 reconfirmation, referring to a couple of other Stewards. Furthermore, and again, the decision regarding Sj was not mine alone to make. The other Stewards acceeded to it, either explicitly or tacitly. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, they could have overruled me. Redux 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You immediately disappeared when the reconfirmation was closed (as you appeared when the last and this confirmation started; but I assume good faith and trust your statement concerning your job). How could we disagree with your decision then? Also many stewards in fact were dissatisfied with your closures because you ignored all open (!) discussions on steward-l concerning this issue and all opposes (by stewards) in that reconfirmation by deciding all on your own in a confirming way. Should we have overruled you? Without discussing it with you? Without being able to quote a rule which should have prevented you from doing so? (Afaics there's no rule for ignoring discussions [in that case]. Luckily for this time a commitee of at least three users will do that in a consensus based way.) … I for myself came back from university and saw that all critical confirmations were closed by you without consensus, neither on mailinglist nor onwiki, and was not able to intervene because of the given facts. As I spoke for removing in each case I of course did not agree with you. You might disagree with me, too, but I rated that behaviour as quite uncooperative and misleading … —DerHexer (Talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the Stewards made one or two comments on the discussion threads and then abandoned them completely, not returning to either review or reaffirm their positions in light of ongoing discussions, of which I was participating. As a rule of thumb, when discussing highly visible topics, I do not engage in discussions off-wiki (ie, via e-mail or instant chat). As far as I know, that is normally frowned upon, and sometimes viewed as even unethical — as a matter of fact, I recall this was actually a topic of discussion during the election in which I was appointed a Steward. In 2009, only a handful of the Stewards were actually involved with the discussions right up to the end on the actual discussion page. I'm rather surprised to learn that many Stewards were discussing this on other avenues and never intervened on the actual discussion page, which the community was following — I kept waiting for more input on some of the more polemical, close-call threads, but there was no more relevant discussion on them, except for a couple of back-and-forths between a few of those Stewards who were actually more involved there, but without any new input, those had ceased to bring anything new or relevant to the discussions. I didn't close any of the threads out of the blue. Furthermore, I noticed explicitly that, taking into account the reconfirmation itself and the Steward discussions, the entire process was already dragging too long, and we needed closure to it (new Stewards had already been appointed and still there was no conclusion to the reconfirmation process). And still, with the exception of Lar, no one was doing the actual closing of the discussions. I actually didn't want to close any threads except the clear-cut ones, but in the end, it was extremely unfair to have that process drag on for an unlimited period of time — something that doesn't happen in any other instance regarding elections, reconfirmations, etc.. So I closed them, because no one else was doing it. And in doing it, I took into account the current discussions on the actual reconfirmation page. Even if I had been following any private listings on the reconfirmation, I would not feel comfortable taking them into account in closing the process, because it was a public process, and even if Stewards were the only ones allowed to comment, the discussions were not supposed to be private, unless privileged information had to be exchanged, which was not the case. And in that regard, I must note that "public" only applies to pages on the Meta-Wiki. However, if the Stewards are adopting a new posture regarding such discussions, and this has, on at least some level, the agreement of the community — which I don't believe it does, but please correct me if I'm wrong — then no problem, I will start participating in off-wiki discussions when dealing with similar situations (but not on this reconfirmation, since I said I wasn't going to take part in the Steward discussions). Like I said, I'm all ears to any criticism and/or suggestions that might help the job. Redux 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You immediately disappeared when the reconfirmation was closed (as you appeared when the last and this confirmation started; but I assume good faith and trust your statement concerning your job). How could we disagree with your decision then? Also many stewards in fact were dissatisfied with your closures because you ignored all open (!) discussions on steward-l concerning this issue and all opposes (by stewards) in that reconfirmation by deciding all on your own in a confirming way. Should we have overruled you? Without discussing it with you? Without being able to quote a rule which should have prevented you from doing so? (Afaics there's no rule for ignoring discussions [in that case]. Luckily for this time a commitee of at least three users will do that in a consensus based way.) … I for myself came back from university and saw that all critical confirmations were closed by you without consensus, neither on mailinglist nor onwiki, and was not able to intervene because of the given facts. As I spoke for removing in each case I of course did not agree with you. You might disagree with me, too, but I rated that behaviour as quite uncooperative and misleading … —DerHexer (Talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The 2009 reconfirmation was not a vote. The community was supposed to give input so that the Stewards could make a decision regarding their peers. Nobody was overruled, all the rules were followed. There's no need for me to repeat was is written in my previous comment above, so please refer to it. This, however, is the first negativity I'm hearing about Sj's decision, and that includes the Steward body. As I mentioned before, there are a number of avenues through which people can comment on a particular decision, or the entire process (in this case, the 2009 reconfirmation, in case people were unhappy with the rules in effect). If you feel that I, personally, made a mistake in closing Sj's reconfirmation, this could have been brought up to me directly, or within the scope of proposing an overhaul of the reconfirmation process. However, for the sake of argument, even if we were to work with the hypothesis that a mistake was made, "remove because, as I see it, you made a mistake" is also not appropriate. This is, yet again, a good example of why a Steward reconfirmation is not an election. With only a few exceptions, usually pertaining to unauthorized release of privileged information, we do not remove people because of a mistake. This was also discussed in the 2009 reconfirmation, referring to a couple of other Stewards. Furthermore, and again, the decision regarding Sj was not mine alone to make. The other Stewards acceeded to it, either explicitly or tacitly. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, they could have overruled me. Redux 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can try to justify your decision till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that you overruled 17 of the 18 voters at Sj's 2009 confirmation, right after having been inactive for more than a year yourself. It was a very poor show indeed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Sorry, but I'll address this as if it was a question, although I'm fully aware that it wasn't. However, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of reconfirmation. It is not a reelection. It is the Stewards' job to take community input under advise in deciding how to proceed regarding the Steward body. Those were the rules last year, and I was doing nothing but abiding by them. Furthermore, the decision is hardly unilateral, and I did not overrule anyone. Any Stewards disagreeing with the interpretation I gave to Sj's case were free to, and indeed should have brought it up in discussion, and a consensus would have emerged. And should it have been to remove Sj, that's exactly what would have been done, and it would have been I who would have been overruled, rightfully so. If the Stewards, who were charged with evaluating the reconfirmation results from last year, had felt that I should not have had a voice in the discussions because of my level of activity then, I would like to think that they would have brought it up, and this would have been dealt with accordingly. In addition, a comment amounting to "I support removing you because I disagree with something you did in the past as a Steward" is precisely why the reconfirmation cannot be treated like a simple reelection. Obviously, people are going to disagree with any given decision I might make as a Steward. That is just part of the job. However, if the job requires that I make a decision, and in that case it did, then I will make it. In the case of Sj's thread, you may not recall this, but it was, along with a few others, left open for someone to make the final evaluation and close it. For one reason or another, there was no one making the judgement call that was required to provide closure to a process that had been going on for more than a month. So I made the call, which was in full accordance with the valid rules concerning the 2009 reconfirmation. And I closed a lot of the threads in that reconfirmation, I should add, and not only Sj's. If there is any criticism that might help me to better perform the job, I'm certainly all ears, and indeed I welcome it — as I did when I noted in response to Carry's comment, in this reconfirmation, that we should not take leaves of absence without some kind of notification. But what I would consider inappropriate is not to make constructive remarks when they could have been made in that spirit, and then wait until a perceived opportunity to retort by "voting" to remove, in a matter of speaking. Redux 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reaffirm vote per this. Stewards do not overrule the community. Sj should have been removed last year, the vote was clearly in favour of that. For another inactive steward to overrule that is very inappropriate. Majorly talk 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove My thoughs are that two years of inactivity is a very long time on the internets and that you might by this time be out of touch. Ceoil 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep After statement. Mwaldeck msg 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove for inactivity, but with thanks for service in the past. Jonathunder 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm. Please with caution with regards to activity. Give back the tools if you don't need them. Thank you for your continued service! NonvocalScream 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove and come back when you have time again. I'm not convinced for this year. --Geitost diskusjon 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Inactive, in last 2 years you made only a few steward actions. Remove. LeinaD (t) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove. Jayjg 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
