Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a public acknowledgment to all other fellow Stewards, including those who left. I am usually concise, so this time I will just mention that I am grateful to you for every time that you have preceded me in one of your action, and that I hope not to have bothered you if I have done the same. It is a pleasure to know that I can be of use, and that you will be at hand whenever I am busy or absent. A special "thank you" for those who managed to be in S.F. this year, and a "see you soon" to all who didn't make it. A great admiration for those who gave our little community much efforts in doing additional tools for managing things, connecting tools and troubleshooting errors. I owe you much, really. --M/ (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...there should be a "keep all" section - or a script with a button that does that in each section. I'd like to vote Keep to all of them, but I don't feel like doing this in a few dozen sections manually. ^^ --თოგო(D)00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ehm, no. Regardless of the merit of these comments, the confirmation pages are also for discussion about the points which were brought. --MF-W21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago633 comments25 people in discussion
The summaries below only provide a convenient overview. Stewards should review the actual confirmation comments and their understanding of relevant policies before commenting.
Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).
This 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.
Confirm - The inactivity issue is mentioned by several people but even those tend to confirm Avi. So there seems to be a clear consensus. -Barrastalk12:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
Auvajs
2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
Confirm. Some might not like it, but WMF decided to remove the incompatibility of OC members, and Barras is just following policy and I've not noticed any wrongdoing from him with regards to this. The other oppose reasons are unrelated to steward activities. No reasons not to confirm IMHO. —MarcoAurelio18:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
'Confirm. WMF has already stated that the Steward-OC double role is not a issue anymore, and Barras was proved to manage both roles wisely, IMO. Besides, no relevant concerns were raised. RadiX∞03:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. It is a valid reason to oppose confirmation because of the steward-OC double role. WMF has not "solved" this concern, it has caused it by allowing stewards to become OC members without resigning. But that doesn't mean that users are not allowed to prefer the old situation. However, here this is the only valid concern and not shared by a high number of users. --MF-W21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Per M7 and QU, I'm going for a weak confirm here. I don't think there's consensus to remove, although the activity issues are valid, but not strong enough for me to vote removal at this time. —MarcoAurelio15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Remove with regret. I personally want Bennylin to stay on, but there is a critical mass of people opposing based on inactivity (which is essentially what the lack of statement is). Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Keep. As I said in my first comment, I personally want Bennylin to stay on - all of my interactions with him have been positive, and I remember him being particularly helpful on a few issues over the last year. If my colleagues do not feel that a critical mass of people are opposing him based on inactivity, and indeed he is active enough per policy, then I am more than happy to take the majority view. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
None of the "remove" reasons has convinced me. Instead, I find that many of the "keep" comments are highlighting good reasons to allow Bennylin to continue his work, even if in the low stats. Also, considering the number of people, consensus is around 2/3, and over if discounting "blanket remove(s)" as usually is done in those cases. --M/ (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. Per M7. Even though there is a bunch of legit concerns on activity, I think there is no consensus to remove. RadiX∞13:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Neutral. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity (general/SC-related), but it is shared by a significant number of users. --MF-W21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
ConfirmStewards policy#Loss of steward access states: "[S]ince stewardship is typically a position likely to get into trouble and since the steward group can easily control itself, the confirmation itself will be done by other stewards.…Stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered." I have reviewed the opinions posted by the community, and while I understand their concerns, I would prefer to retain Benny's steward status, as he has not fallen below mandatory activity requirements, and his language knowledge is especially valuable in that the languages he knows are those which are less helped by automatic translators. Not every steward has to be a Snowolf or a Tegel and be online all the time. We function as a group; we support Wikimedia projects as a group, and my cost-benefits analysis is that Benny still contributes enough and in needed areas to be reconfirmed per his wish to continue volunteering. -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - I see a very weak consensus to keep him as steward. A whole lot of users wishes him confirmed. So remove reasons are due to inactivity (more than 150 actions in the last term, not much, but still ok). Confirmation statement came late, but it came. That can simply happen due to real life issues. The remove reasons are less heavy weighted here, so I think confirming is ok. -Barrastalk12:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. I see valid concerns about inactivity. Sadly, this confirmation started with an inclination for the removal and the single fact that he did not create a statement may have played an important role on that, while others supported even with no statement yet. After the statement is created, there is a clear change on that inclination tending to a more supporting one. That goes against the also valid argument to keep regarding the language skills and the good work he does overall. —Teles «Talk to me ˱CL@S˲» 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. "Low activity" could be a valid reason for opposing, but not here when both of the users who mentioned it don't even opine in favour of not confirming; and when actually several more users mentioned the (high) activity. --MF-W21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - clear consensus to confirm. IMO the CU request was invalid and should have been declined, and the issue was not supported by anyone else. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Helped process the ArbCom elections on en.wiki faster than usual
1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
Altamel
Helpful
1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
NickK
positive reply to concerns
1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
Teles
Concerned
Concerns about OS actions on Wikidata
2 agreed (82 didn't mention this).
Rschen7754, Ajraddatz
blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
Auvajs
not contributed to en.wv
1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
Marshallsumter
1 neutral "comment" without reasons.
Confirm. The concern raised wrt. OS at Wikidata looks resolved, and Mardetanha answered to the questions regarding this. It seems all agreed it was an urgent action, thus policy-endorsed. Mistakes (wrt. the use of the tool, hidding the summary or the revision) can happen, specially if the tool hasn't been used for a while and one's in a hurry. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - clear consensus to confirm, though I am still concerned by the actions. Oversight actions are rarely so urgent, they can be revdel'd and dealt with later. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. The concern about the OS action is really very relevant. But if only 2 users share it (thereof 1 in favour of confirmation) ... --MF-W22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. In spite of the "global renamer would suffice" argument, those who commented in favor have pointed out that he is willing to do difficult renames which require steward permission, and he is also active in other stuff as well. RadiX∞20:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - There are some concerns, however, the vast majority of the community wishes him confirmed. Consensus seems clear to me. -Barrastalk12:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity, but only 3 users think removal is warranted because of it. --MF-W22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
You do a good job, though I believe you could be more friendly with words.
4 agreed, 2 seconded (96 didn't mention this).
Teles[Trijnstel], Barras, Shanmugamp7, Eurodyne
Trusted, active, does good work.
1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
Taketa
Active enough and actions were reasonable.
1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
Rschen7754
active and dedicated steward.
1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
Snowolf
No question. His activity is sufficient in and of itself, but I can speak from personal experience in saying that I think he delivers significant value to the stewards as regards our internal discussions. MF-W and I may not always agree, but I value his perspective and advice, and look forward to his thoughts on issues. His continuation as a steward would be a clear benefit to Wikimedia, in my opinion.
1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
Avraham
Concerned
No contributions to en.wikiversity in over a year!
Confirm - clear consensus. Concern by Hindustanilanguage more likely in revenge for voting against his steward election, as he opposed all of the initial stewards that did not support him. Thanks too for making these! Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. Overall good work as a steward, despite some minor concerns about activity and the way he handled a request at SRGP. Clear consensus to confirm, anyway. RadiX∞19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. In spite of some concerns about communication, I think there is consensus to keep him as a steward. Ruslik0 is considered to be a skilled and helpful volunteer, and thus should not be considered for removal, IMO. RadiX∞19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - clear consensus to confirm despite issues with communication. My own experience with his communication has been positive, for what it's worth. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm. Communication issues are the only relevant oppose reason mentioned, but only 1 user thinks he should be removed because of it. --MF-W22:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Confirm - clearly the concerns that I expressed over activity were not important in the eyes of the other participants. Consensus to confirm. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
confusing replies to the concerns mentioned by MF-Warburg
2 agreed, 3 seconded (72 didn't mention this).
Rschen7754[Jni, Kusurija], Nemo bis[MF-Warburg]
no reason given
2 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
Laberinto16, CaZeRillo
blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
1 agreed, 1 seconded (75 didn't mention this).
Auvajs[Kusurija]
contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
Snaevar
Regretful remove - While I personally feel that Taketa can learn from his mistakes and is an asset, there is a critical mass of people opposing. While these are not elections, I do not think that Taketa has maintained enough support to remain in this role. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
As requested, I will expand upon this. Taketa has not taken any controversial or difficult actions which people are opposing him for - the oppose reasons are based on inactivity, general poor use of the tools, and poor understanding of the various practices and procedures that stewards use. Given the rationale of the oppose votes, I don't feel that he maintains the level of support required to continue as a steward. These are serious concerns. If the concerns were "revenge" votes or votes based on a controversial action, I would think differently. My thoughts did take into account the specific circumstances and arguments present, though perhaps I didn't make them clear enough in my first comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Equally regretful remove. Taketa is a good user with good intentions and I have found him to be a nice person to work with, but I'm afraid that I have to agree with Ajr that there does not appear to be sufficient support nor consensus to confirm him as a steward. SPQRobin (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am still considering Taketa's confirmation. The arguments for Remove are strong and a number of Supports agree with the concerns while still supporting. If this was a new election it would fall below the required percentage. But I want to spend some more time considering it. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have looked to this confirmation just from a numeric point of view. It appears that numbers are not that bad for a reconfirmation: even taking into account "blanket remove(s)" that are usually discounted, the consensus ratio does not fall below 2/3. So I would suggest that this reconfirmation might be used to help Taketa to improve and do better and better; I am also convinced both about the good faith, and that the same errors will not be repeated. --M/ (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Expanding on my comment above. I believe that the errors that Taketa made can be explained by his lack of involvement in the steward related activities. When he was elected a year ago, he was just immediately distracted by the Board Election. So, near the year end, when he tried to catch up, he did some actions in hurry, which resulted in errors. But I also believe that in the second year he will be more active (there is no Board Election this year, fortunately) and will not make similar mistakes. Because, if the situation repeats itself during the next year confirmation, I will support the removal. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Weak confirm. Tough decision here. Although I found no *clear* consensus to confirm Taketa as steward, it can be argued that there is definitely no consensus to remove him either. After having reviewed the discussion, the impression I got is of a steward who is friendly, helpful, and a good communicator on the positive side. On the other hand, there are quite some complaints regarding his ability to perform the steward tasks without adding to controversy. However, going off the number of supporters and his willingness to do better, I think we should give him another try. RadiX∞02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Although the process itself is not a vote, I thought that the "majority consensus" rule should be useful in determining some consensus anyhow, especially in a pretty difficult case like this one. However, on stewards policy, is written: "Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed, the steward will lose their status." with no mention on how stewards should determine that consensus or what percentage should be considered as a valid threshold for determining consensus. Since this is not a plain vote, it is fair to discount some blanket supports/removes and take into account the comments which are really weight up. As a result, there are as many relevant claims on his use of steward tools as there are positive feedbacks based on his skills and willingness to do better this time. To put it simply: there seems not to be some consensus either for removal or to have him confirmed. In this case, I would say in dubio pro reo. RadiX∞04:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Remove First of all, I'd like to offer a correction to what M7 said: In fact, the "numbers" are bad for a confirmation. While they are a little bit above 2/3 (25 of 77 said "{{remove}}") if all comments are taken into account, what should matter more is arguments - and ignoring 18 "no reason" keepers as opposed to 3 "no reason" + "blanket" removers, it is under 60% support. And that is indeed "bad" in the sense that in steward confirmations, in the vast majority of cases, the only opposers are blanket-opposers or an occasional revenge "voter" (as can also be seen from the summary tables on this page). It is also bad if you consider that both CU and OS rights on every wiki require at least 70%, and that the steward election requirement is 80%. We put a note on SC this year about the changed confirmation process, which says "they [=stewards] will be especially careful to do it [review the confirmation comments and to give their impression of the outcome] regarding someone about whom they expressed strong opinions in the confirmation". Aware of that, but also seeing that others who opined in this confirmation have already given their impression of the outcome in this section, I will give mine as well. After having reviewed the discussion, I do not have any impression about a "willingness to do better". I also think it is wholly inappropriate for stewards to say "let's give him a second try", "everyone deserves a second chance" etc., when the steward policy says "stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered", and when the number of supporters on the confirmation is one of the lowest (easily visible from the number of "no reason" keepers alone) and no opposers came from the reason which many people feared e.g. in Requests for comment/Confirmation of stewards, namely that the steward acted to solve a tricky local conflict, which would now backfire. --MF-W21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, remove. There are numerically quite a lot of different concerns mentioned on the confirmation, and even though I certainly trust Taketa as a Wikimedian, content editor & Ombudsman, I don't think that continuing in the steward capacity is wise because of the concerns listed on the confirmation page. The statement "I did more then 6 renames in April-October. More like 25." is, IMO, not convincing - 25 isn't much either in what Taketa claims to be one of his expertises in a seven-month period. The reasons for the prolonged limited activity, be it meeting a minister or whatever, are not relevant in this confirmation, I believe. Moreover, the 11 logs on commons are actually 8 + 3 local logs of global renames, and those 8 are actually only 3 requests (consisting of usurp+rename). The two (actually more) logs on fr.wiktionary are for one rename+usurp. The one on pl.wiki was part of a global rename. The 4 (actually 5) on de.wiki are also for one user. The one on en.wiki is the same as the one on meta. This means that the number of renames is actually of the same order of magnitude than what was originally stated. Savhñ22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict.)Confirm Before I explain my reasoning, I would like to explain why I think that some of the statements above may need to be reviewed in light of policy. Stewards policy#Loss of steward access, states: "[S]ince stewardship is typically a position likely to get into trouble and since the steward group can easily control itself, the confirmation itself will be done by other stewards.…Stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered." Stewards are elected based on demonstrating a strong consensus of the community, but are confirmed through a consensus of the active stewards. Therefore, while I very well may be mistaken, I find the reasoning of Ajraddatz and SPQRobin, while understandable, to be flawed, in that they base their decision solely on the level of support in the comments, which is in opposition to their own personal opinions of Taketa's continued utility as a steward. Similarly, I think RadiX's support suffers from the same issue, in that it appears to be completely based on the opinions posted, instead of it being his own opinion taking the community opinions into consideration. The first part of [User:M7|M/]]'s argument to confirm is also one that is not sufficiently Stewards policy-based in my understanding, but he also supports Taketa's confirmation with his own opinion as to Taketa's ability to learn from errors and is expectation that Taketa will continue to provide utility to the stewards, and by extension Wikimedia. Ruslik, Mardetanha, and Melos can probably be assumed to support all of M/'s statement so that would be at least three opinions for confirmation as per policy. On the other hand, we have MF-W who makes the case for removal not solely based on counts and community support, but takes it into consideration together with own reasoned opinion of Taketa's continued utility, which is exactly per policy in my understanding. DerHexer can probably be considered to agree with that in toto as well, so that gives us two policy-based oppositions.
After that long preamble, I found MF-W's arguments convincing enough to revisit my opinion, but after reviewing the discussions, I do not feel that Taketa is unaware or oblivious and that he does intend to perform better, so my careful review of the situation leads me to believe that we stewards would remain better off with a less-mistake-prone Taketa, and I do not have a reason now to doubt that he will perform appropriately. I will say that he should be VERY careful going forward, as if he does not cut down on errors, once they have been pointed out, he will turn into a liability to the steward corps.
I would request of Arj, etc. to recast their decisions in a policy appropriate way as we will probably need the clearest adherence to policy to adjudicate this properly. Thanks for putting up with my pendanticism . -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't think any of the comments here fall outside of policy. The section on confirmations in the steward policy is largely descriptive, not prescriptive - the only imperative statements that I see there are that stewards will conduct the confirmations, and will carefully review situations where there is community opposition. That says nothing about which reasons are acceptable. Since 80% support is required to elect stewards, I feel that the level of support is a very important metric to consider (though not the only one) when evaluating confirmation discussions. That said, I do appreciate your desire to have these discussions focused around substantive issues rather than simple number counting, and I hope that I've reassured you of my intent to not do that. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Edited Ajraddatz (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am glad that I was mistaken; thank you for clarifying Ajraddatz. Obviously we can and should take everything into consideration; it was what appeared to be a desire to support being being overturned by the voiced concerns which threw me. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for my misconception. -- Avi (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Weak remove This is definitely a tough case and I can see the concerns raised as well as the points for confirming him brought up by M7 and others. Considering all of that, especially the community input, I regretfully think that the rights should be removed. - Hoo man (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't know. My gut feel would be remove per low community support, but I do think Taketa is an asset, and we should keep him. Hence I am Neutral here. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Difficult decision - personally, I favor confirmation (as I stated in the confirmations page), but I think the community has raised several valid concerns. A regretful weak remove from me. --Pmlineditor (t·c·l) 18:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Abstain - I thought long about it. I work with him in the OC and also as a steward, I think I have too much of a COI here. I feel I can't judge here neutrally and wish to abstain. I voted in the confirmation and the final result shown here clearly is not a clear-cut case. Since this discussion here is to determine the consensus from the community, which should happen in a neutral way (like closing RfXs as a crat), I simply can't give any sort of neutral input. -Barrastalk10:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Weak remove. I think that M7 is right and Taketa would learn this, what he doesn't know yet, but it seems, that community doesn't confirmed him. einsbortalk07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comment Based on Barras's comment, I want to reiterate that per my reading of Stewards policy#Loss of steward access, community consensus should be taken into consideration, but unlike an election, it is not the final arbiter of an existing steward's confirmation. That lies completely and totally in the decisions of the active steward corps. As such, if we the stewards feel that based on Taketa's work, of which we should know better as we can see the non-logged actions and reflect on his contributions to our work on the e-mail list and wiki, that Wikimedia would be better off with him remaining, we are entitled to make that decision. Of course, as User:Ajraddatz made clear, if we ourselves feel that the community consensus to remove, or even lack thereof to confirm, means that we feel that the stewards and their support of Wikimedia is better off thanking Taketa for his work and letting him go, then that is the decision we should make. I just feel that when Barras said "[s]ince this discussion here is to determine the consensus from the community", it is not what the policy says, which is "[i]f the majority of other stewards request removal of steward access…" By all means, we must consider everything and weight it according to each one of our own's perception, but we should also remember that if we feel we and Wikimedia are better served with Taketa's remaining a steward, we can choose to do so on its own merit. Of course, I may be the one misreading the policy, and would welcome being corrected if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Weak remove. Though I supported Taketa for I believe he is completely able to do the job, has our trust and could improve with past experiences, I don't think there is consensus on this confirmation for any decision. It should be clearer for us what question we are trying to answer with that community consultation. If the question is "Is there enough approval for keeping Taketa as Steward?", the answer is "no". Other questions like "Is there enough consensus for removing Taketa from the Steward group?" may provide different responses. And that particular issue has been changed at Stewards policy in the middle of this ongoing process, which makes things more confusing.—Teles «Talk to me ˱CL@S˲» 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Steinsplitter, Cadfaell, Hedwig in Washington, Trijnstel
trusted user
2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
Alexanderps, Taketa
Concerned
No reason given
3 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
DerekvG, Hindustanilanguage, Arthemius x
Low activity on request pages on Meta
1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
Snaevar
"same problems as in 2011-2"
1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
JSSX
Not contributed to en.wv
1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
Marshallsumter
blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
Auvajs
2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
Confirm. There is consensus to confirm (IMO). In spite of Snaevar's comment, activity level on request pages on Meta-wiki seems to be quite reasonable, and it is not the only thing in steward work that really matters. RadiX∞19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
First of all, I think this format is much improved over how confirmations were done in previous years, even if it is more work; it is more transparent and eliminates the controversies that have dogged the 2014 and 2015 confirmations.
I hope that ElectCom will consider extending the period of discussion for Taketa's confirmation. In such a close case as this one, a well thought-out and deliberated decision will be much better at reducing controversy than a rushed one to get things done with (i.e. Jusjih in 2014), and where related drama continued well into the next election cycle. I also hope that sufficient efforts will be made to notify all stewards so that they have the opportunity to participate (including newer stewards), Taketa if he has any additional comments, and the community by posting on a page like SN. --Rschen775407:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have notified all stewards of these discussions through a message on their talk page. They had already been notified through the mailing list. I believe the main community consultation period has passed, though. Savhñ08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I think this was unnecessary spam. Every steward who doesn't follow the ML probably also doesn't care for his talk page. --MF-W18:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I understand that this isn't the place for the community to rehash the confirmations, but I believe that the feedback from the community on the proposed decision, and the reasoning behind it, should not be discouraged. --Rschen775419:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Which community, the global one which has already expressed their opinions throughout the confirmation period, or the local meta (biased on certain points? better informed on the confirmation process?) community? Even though I will certainly not dismiss community feedback on this process, I believe asking for a specific community's feedback might not be ideal.
MF-W, I hope you can live with the spam - I did it in an effort to transparently and complementary inform all stewards of the ongoing process, should they for some reason not read the mailing list. Savhñ22:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
I'd like to raise a general point regarding the OC-steward double role. I don't really think it should be discussed here, however, it is something that has been there for long enough and will almost certainly always be an issue.
Firstly, I do totally understand the concern about the double role and a few years ago, that would've been a good reason for me to oppose someone. However, a few years ago, WMF suspended the local and global related rights for the term an user was part of the commission. At some point this rule was dismissed. After the term, the users were given back the right without another vote/election. In fact, I'd still support this. In my case, I simply restrict myself from doing most CU work and other stuff which could be problematic. If needed and urgent, I'd however still act as needed.
Currently, a steward/CU/OS would've to formally step down from their positions and stand for a full re-election once their term in the OC has ended. While this is certainly possible, it's for many people annoying as hell and I can understand that people are not going to step down for that reason.
I'm open for any suggestions to solve that possible problem. From my past term as steward and also member of the OC, I think it is possible to avoid any sorts of COIs. If there would be a case involving me, I'd simply abstain from any process and leave everything to the other commissioners. We've currently 7 full members and 2 advisors, so there will always be enough if any member is involved in a case. -Barrastalk10:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
As a steward who was a member of the OmbCom for two years, I agree with Barras that it is not difficult to avoid a CoI and that there should not be concerns with the role, especially if the steward voluntarily reduces usage of CU and OS. -- Avi (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the "suspension" is an issue. If you look at Template:StewardsChart, all stewards who returned within the same term they resigned were given back their rights without any new election. I don't see any reason why this practice couldn't be continued for stewards who (voluntarily) suspend their rights while serving on the OC. --Vogone (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes the WMF may ask someone on OC to stay for a second term. That happened to me in 2015 when my selected replacement backed out. Two years is an eternity in wikispace, which is why I think that forced relinquishing and restoring is less than optimal; just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I didn't even mention "forced relinquishing and restoring" and stewards confirmation also exists after two years (so does it after one year) in case the community has issues with the user in concern continuing. Ideally, this would be the least thing to worry about. --Vogone (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Back to the main issue, obviously I have an opinion colored by my own experience, but what makes you more concerned about a joint steward/OC role any more than an admin opining on an RFC about another admin? Both have access to the same level of private data and the same rights. If it is a quid custodiet ipsos custodes argument, that can be recursed infinitely. If it is a CoI issue, that can be handled by recusing any case which the OC member would be party to. This can be an issue even if the OC member is NOT a steward. Most of the cases I saw dealt with non-stewards. This can be enhanced by the voluntary reduction of use of the privacy related tools during the term. Lastly, stewards are people who have demonstrated the community and their peers' trust, people more likely to be trusted with the privacy data and analyzing it fairly. At least those are my thoughts. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I could perhaps go into further detail, but I think [1] summarises my main concern pretty well. An appeal body for concerns about my or anyone else's private data should be independent, especially if it doesn't work publicly (unlike admins commenting on RFC's of other admins). No external community member can even see what the OC does. --Vogone (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
In former times, stewards who joined the OC and thereby ceased to be stewards went through the confirmation process and did then become stewards again when the OC term ended (if the confirmation was successful, which it always was IIRC) without further election/confirmation. It would be no problem to use this reasonable method again for stewards who become OC members and don't want to be stewards at the same time. --MF-W18:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed that was the method. I think we can discuss this in an hypothetical post-mortem-electionis, but since this is not a blocker anymore, it should be voluntary. —MarcoAurelio14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
We do, so far, not have any rule on that. Yes, I could voluntarily step down for my term as member of the OC, however, I'd have no guarantee that I'd be given back my tools ones the term has ended. At least not in our current situation. Furthermore, I don't think it's useful to make this something one can chose one way or the other.
Regarding the neutrality issue raised by Vogone above, no matter whether I'm currently a steward/have those tools, after 5(?) years as steward, working with them etc, one can hardly be totally neutral. Having the rights currently or not doesn't change this at all. I'm pretty sure I'd not be more or less independent without my steward flag. If you want absolute neutrality, you'd clearly need people in the OC who have never been in contact with most/all groups. As said, I'm pretty sure that my view won't change, no matter whether I have a steward flag or not. The fact I already had it for several years before joining the OC makes me biased. If there is a reason to complain about one of the members of the OC, one can simply contact another member. I'm pretty sure that someone involved in a case won't get involved into it as OC member. -Barrastalk14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
As some stewards have called for, I propose to extend the confirmation period with one week per the policy above ("Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding."). Then more input is possible for the unclear outcome of Taketa. @Jyothis:@Mardetanha:@Shanmugamp7:@Stryn: What do the other Election Committee members think? If not extended, we need to close the confirmation today Sunday 6 March. SPQRobin (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
(not electcom) I'd propose to extend Taketa's (and maybe Benny's) confirmations since they're being the most discussed. Extending the others looks unneeded bureaucracy for me. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio16:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Though i agree with Marco's proposal, i think its better to close altogether at once (i.e, close all of them at 13th march ), instead of doing it multiple times, @Jyothis:@Mardetanha:@SPQRobin:@Stryn: : are you guys agreeing with it or you guys would prefer to do one round now and extend the discussion for Taketa alone. --Shanmugamp7(talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Mardetanha:, Yeah i agree with it, but we would like to decide on when we should the close the discussions for others. if the majority of the electcom agrees to close the discussions for others by today, please be available on IRC during 14 to 19 UTC. Thanks--Shanmugamp7(talk) 05:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Just an update to everyone interested; we will close the steward confirmations altogether on the coming Sunday, March 13. Thanks for your understanding, for the ElectCom, Stryn (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Keep to all of them, but I don't feel like doing this in a few dozen sections manually. ^^ --თოგო (D) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
. -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)