Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Redux (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 16 April 2010 (Concerns not addressed: 2 cents, again). It may differ significantly from the current version .

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Redux in topic Planning the 2011 confirmations

This discussion page was split into several subpages for our poor low-bandwidth users; see general discussion, confirmations A-L, confirmations M-Z, or the full unsplit page.


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.

Final decisions (by stewards)

Latest comment: 14 years ago 190 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.
The following discussion is closed: not confirmed.

Pathoschild (削除) 08:12:57, 28 (削除ここまで)00:16, 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. Kylu 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove per given concerns, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • i cannot but agree with the seriousness of the concerns raised during this reconfirmation, and do no longer support, sorry. oscar 21:48, 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. -- Avi 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • I'm sorry Alexander, but I see a clear consensus. Sadly, remove per above--Nick1915 - all you want 07:54, 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
  • Remove - no consensus to confirm. Wutsje 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove - per the above issues. --Cspurrier 19:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Neutral, I've maid my view clear in the first round. Laaknor 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Closed with 0-5-0 because of low activity and raised issues. A neutral steward might remove his rights. Many thanks for your work! —DerHexer (Talk) 23:09, 12 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 following discussion is closed: confirmed (with objections).

Pathoschild (削除) 08:43:27, 28 (削除ここまで) 00:19, 29 February 2010 (UTC)


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)

The following discussion is closed: not confirmed.

Pathoschild (削除) 09:10:20, 28 (削除ここまで)00:21,29 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Inactive per policy, so unluckily must and should be removed, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • 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. oscar 21:57, 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.wb 22:31, 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. oscar 13:58, 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. -- Avi 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Sorry, remove per above--Nick1915 - all you want 08:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Sadly remove. --FiliP ██ 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove - No consensus to confirm. Wutsje 00:20, 12 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. --Cspurrier 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove as inactive. Agree with Cspurrier. Laaknor 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Closed with 0-5-0 because of inactivity. A neutral steward might remove her rights. Many thanks for your work! —DerHexer (Talk) 23:32, 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)
The following discussion is closed: confirmed

Pathoschild (削除) 20:25:39, 28 (削除ここまで)00:25, 29 February 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: not confirmed.

Pathoschild (削除) 21:07:08, 28 (削除ここまで)00:27, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Confirm - Active enough per policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 02:22, 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
  • As DerHexer says. 11 actions in the past year. 11. I think the community's concerns are clear and valid here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:35, 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. oscar 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm. Active enough per policy, input would be welcome in other steward matters. SJ + help translate 05:36, 9 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. -- Avi 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove, inactive--Nick1915 - all you want 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm. Active per policy.--Jusjih 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm, but only because they're active per policy. Activity level in itself is disappointing. Wutsje 00:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm as active per policy, and fix the requirements in the policy, not here. Laaknor 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Closed with 0-5-0 because of low activity. A neutral steward might remove his rights. Many thanks for your work! —DerHexer (Talk) 23:09, 12 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)
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild (削除) 21:45:48, 28 (削除ここまで)00:29, 29 February 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild (削除) 22:56:33, 28 (削除ここまで)00:32, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

My explanations to that oversight issue can be found on enwiki and meta. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • 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. Kylu 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Pathoschild 23:59:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nihil Obstat. Drini is reconfirmed. Kylu 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 00:57:06, 01 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 01:36:15, 01 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Pathoschild 02:48:48, 01 March 2010 (UTC)

Nihil Obstat. Erwin is reconfirmed. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 03:24:54, 01 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Pathoschild 03:42:30, 01 March 2010 (UTC)

Nihil Obstat. Jusjih is reconfirmed. Kylu 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 04:10:47, 01 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Recuse of course. Kylu 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed

Pathoschild 05:43:34, 01 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: not confirmed.

Pathoschild 01:37:56, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Recuse - I asked the enwiki arbcom for the text below. Kylu 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • 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.wb 22:49, 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
  • confirm as opposes afaics have no relation to the use of steward tools and are local homewiki issues. oscar 23:24, 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.wb 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • (削除) Remove. (削除ここまで) 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". I reviewed many pages surrounding this dispute , 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.
    • Incivility, vindictive, overbearing, threatening, &c.

      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).

    Reclose it with that (削除) BS (削除ここまで)section removed, then.

    Redact your latest accusation about me, made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_Okip:_Arbitration_reaps_what_it_sows and make no further counterfactual claims or accusations against me, or I may choose to pursue further steps in dispute resolution.

    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? oscar 12:39, 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 want 08:27, 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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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. -- Avi 16:55, 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/c 18:18, 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.wb 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • I quite agree with Avi's assessment, so I suggest confirming. --FiliP ██ 20:47, 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. --Cspurrier 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
I don't see any steward related misuse therefore confirm --Mardetanha talk 19:59, 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. Laaknor 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Closed with 1-3-1. Not confirmed, due to loss of trust and issues raised in the discussion; recommends Lar nominate himself in the next election. —DerHexer (Talk) 01:43, 13 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)

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Nihil Obstat. Leinad is reconfirmed. Kylu 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:02:29, 05 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Nihil Obstat. M7 is reconfirmed. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:05:40, 05 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

++Lar: t/c 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Moved "needs more cowbell" to favourable. —Pathoschild 05:57:35, 04 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:08:57, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Pathoschild 23:17:06, 03 March 2010 (UTC)

(削除) Summary to be added later, but (削除ここまで) Mav is confirmed per nihil obstat. --Erwin 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 02:05:37, 04 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. Kylu 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • No really concerning steward related issue. So should be confirmed, of course. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm. Many jobs handled well; No significant opposes. Kylu pinpointed the issue around sysop removal. SJ + help translate 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 02:22:24, 04 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 02:32:57, 04 March 2010 (UTC)


ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

Pathoschild 03:26:27, 04 March 2010 (UTC)


Closed with 4-0-1. So confirmed. Arguments raised against activity were noted; actions on Special:Log/globalauth/Oscar are enough to be treated as active per policy. So most of the Commitee decided to reconfirm him. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:05, 13 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)
The following discussion is closed: confirmed (with objections).

Kylu 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Updated format, sorted. —Pathoschild 07:35:32, 05 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Confirm - Overwhelming support. Stewards could not function as is w/o Pathoschild. Sandbox mistake looks isolated. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • 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. Kylu 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Singular mistake made in good faith for which he excused himself. So at least for me okay, should be confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • pathoschild is very active and, looking at the support, very trusted: should definitely be confirmed. oscar 23:29, 8 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 translate 05:50, 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). -- Avi 07:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm, per Avi, my trust in Pathoschild has not changed at all--Nick1915 - all you want 08:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm, as there is an overwhelming support for him, with an isolated case that won't happen again. --FiliP ██ 20:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm. Per above. Wutsje 00:28, 12 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. Effeietsanders 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm. A very hard working steward who made a small mistake. --Cspurrier 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm; anyone can do a mistake. Laaknor 20:18, 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)

The following discussion is closed: not confirmed.

Pathoschild 04:30:33, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove per my explanations on his confirmation page. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:20, 8 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. 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. -- Avi 07:40, 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. oscar 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
    You call this a Gordian Knot? I call it clear community consensus. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
    why, this impasse of course! oscar 20:35, 10 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.wb 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove - Although just active enough, there's clearly no consensus to confirm. Wutsje 00:51, 12 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. --Cspurrier 19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Remove , inactive --Mardetanha talk 20:01, 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. Laaknor 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Closed with 0-5-0 because of inactivity and low trust of community. A neutral steward might remove his rights. Many thanks for your work! —DerHexer (Talk) 00:24, 13 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)
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

Pathoschild 04:40:46, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

(削除) Summary to be added later, but (削除ここまで) Rdsmith4 is confirmed per nihil obstat. --Erwin 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed.

All the hard work was done by Juliancolton, but Kylu stole credit for it on 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Sorted. —Pathoschild 01:17:34, 07 March 2010 (UTC)

ReconfirmedMike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
The following discussion is closed: confirmed (with objections).

Pathoschild 05:09:38, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

  • (削除) Confirm - Steward policy violations appear to have been done w/o malice, were done well over a year ago and have not been repeated. (削除ここまで) 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.wb 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
    Striking my comment about policy violations. I was not aware of the OC link. Such a steward needs to be a much better example. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 11:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
    They may not have been oversighted, but Wing confirmed that they had been formally requested. SJ + 07:39, 11 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.wb 20:06, 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. oscar 23:56, 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. -- Avi 22:04, 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.--Cspurrier 19:39, 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. Laaknor 20:37, 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

Committee discussion summary: Shizhao was confirmed with four agreeing and one undecided.

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)

The following discussion is closed: confirmed (with objections).

Pathoschild 05:39:21, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Confirm - Active per policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • (削除) Confirm (削除ここまで) - 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. Kylu 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
    A steward who sees this clear desire from the community to remove a steward for valid reasons and doesn't step down voluntarily doesn't raise profound issues of trust? Going further, and watching a battle over whether community wishes should be heeded doesn't? Actually allowing the reconfirmation to be forced through regardless what the community wants doesn't? What does it take for trust issues to be raised? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:26, 8 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. Kylu 01:33, 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 translate 05:09, 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.wb 17:38, 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.wb 02:06, 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. Kylu 02:11, 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 translate 05:09, 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
    Yes, you said so in the confirmation. This is about what the community-at-large (including yourself) wants. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:04, 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
  • active per policy: reconfirm. plenty support as well. oscar 13:46, 9 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. -- Avi 22:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm - Active per policy, issues with 2009 confirmation are unrelated to this reconfirmation--Cspurrier 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
  • Confirm, active per policy this year, and inactivity-related stuff should be discussed on policytalk and not here. Laaknor 20:44, 12 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)
The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

DerHexer (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Reply

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:52:48, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

Nihil Obstat. Thogo is reconfirmed. Kylu 03:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply


Planning the 2011 confirmations

Latest comment: 14 years ago 28 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)

Decision process — committee?

History
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?

Pathoschild 04:30:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Davies talk 06:21, 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)
That wasn't their mandate. Further, policy was pretty clear, and they went against policy. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

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/c 16:42, 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. --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
"quis custodiet..." (Juvenal) or with the passive periphrastic, it'd be better ;)--Nick1915 - all you want 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
remind me next year, another reason to confirm you :) --Herby talk thyme 20:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Rule of diminishing interest

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. Redux 03:07, 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... Redux 14:00, 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 :) --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 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. Redux 00:44, 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. --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 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. Redux 12:56, 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). --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 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. Redux 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Concerns not addressed

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/c 23:09, 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/c 03:00, 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/c 10:27, 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? -- Avi 02:03, 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/c 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Reply
I was referring specifically to my suggestion for 2011 :) -- Avi 03:51, 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. -- Avi 05:09, 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/c 10:27, 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). Redux 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /