Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010

Final decisions (by stewards)

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.

Alexanderps

38 users commented on Alexanderps' confirmation, or 15.6% of participating users. Final revision r1875696.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  5 agreed, 3 seconded (30 didn't mention this).
  Erwin_{[Obelix, Jusjih, Mwaldeck]}, Mardetanha, Billinghurst, Xqt, Grondin, M7.

• active enough.
  3 agreed (35 didn't mention this).
  Jusjih, Dungodung, Millosh.

• trustworthy, experienced, we should promote diversity in steward group.
  1 agreed (37 didn't mention this).
  Oscar.

Concerned

• inactive.
  21 agreed, 2 seconded (15 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Seb az86556, Tiptoety, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin_{[Obelix, Mwaldeck]}, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Finnrind, Herbythyme, Mike.lifeguard, Razorflame, Billinghurst, Fastily, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Caspian blue, NonvocalScream, Prodego, SlimVirgin, Innv.

• routine user checks on ptwiki of new users (some established on other wikis) without good reason (local discussion, Alexanderps' statement). Tinz mentions it was done to catch a "persistant troll out there".
  5 agreed, 2 seconded (31 didn't mention this).
  Ruy Pugliesi, Teles, Tinz_{[Stepro, Geitost]}, Church of emacs, Innv.

• home community doesn't trust him? (Teles reports lost trust due to above checkuser concern.)
  5 agreed, 2 seconded (31 didn't mention this).
  Laaknor_{[Pmlineditor, Dungodung]}, Jamesofur, JoshuaZ, Geitost, Erwin.

• Steward policy violation: right changes on home wiki (30 of 99 total rights changes).
  2 agreed, 5 seconded (31 didn't mention this).
  Laaknor_{[Pmlineditor, Dungodung, Jamesofur, Geitost, Erwin]}, Leinad.

• mostly does "easy stuff like SRP".
  1 agreed, 5 seconded (32 didn't mention this).
  Laaknor_{[Pmlineditor, Dungodung, Jamesofur, Geitost, Erwin]}.

—Pathoschild 08:12:57, 2800:16, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

Andre Engels

43 users commented on Andre Engels, or 16.7% of participating users. Final revision r1875695.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  17 agreed (26 didn't mention this).
  Erwin, Mardetanha, JAn Dudík, Obelix, Freaky Fries, Waerth, DustSpinner, Taketa, Lymantria, Xqt, Fastily, Cirt, Geitost, JoshuaZ, Jayjg, Leinad, M7.

• trustworthy, helpful, wise, good steward.
  7 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
  MoiraMoira, Davin, Dungodung, Oscar, Millosh, Annabel, SlimVirgin.

• active enough / some recent activity.
  7 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
  Pmlineditor, Mav, Jusjih, NickK, Lolsimon, Billinghurst, Innv.

• we need more stewards.
  1 agreed (42 didn't mention this).
  Billinghurst.

Concerned

• inactive.
  15 agreed, 2 seconded (26 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Seb az86556, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin_{[Mardetanha, Freaky Fries]} Marcus Cyron, Herbythyme, Dungodung, Mike.lifeguard, Jamesofur, Billinghurst, FollowTheMedia, Caspian blue, Church of emacs, NonvocalScream, Leinad.

• no reason given.
  1 agreed (42 didn't mention this).
  Razorflame.

—Pathoschild 08:43:27, 28 00:19, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthere

41 users commented on Anthere, or 16% of participating users. Final revision r1875694.

Favourable

• trustworthy, experienced, institutional memory, level head.
  9 agreed, 3 seconded (29 didn't mention this).
  Lar_[Geitost], Erwin, Oscar, Yuyu, Lar, Lechatjaune, JoshuaZ_[Sarah], NonvocalScream, SlimVirgin.

• no reason given / no worries.
  9 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
  Billinghurst, Fastily, Millosh, Kropotkine 113, Will Beback, Caspian blue, Grondin, Jayjg, M7.

• could be active if found a niche / inactivity partly due to Board work.
  4 agreed, 1 seconded (36 didn't mention this).
  Bastique_[Cirt], Oscar, Aphaia, Mav.

• has done much, does not deserve to lose access.
  1 agreed (40 didn't mention this).
  Waerth.

Concerned

• inactive.
  21 agreed (20 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Lar, Mike.lifeguard, Kylu, Pmlineditor, WizardOfOz, Innv, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Herbythyme, Dungodung, Jamesofur, Razorflame, Billinghurst, Majorly, Suprememangaka, Geitost, Prodego, Leinad.

???

• neutral (no comment).
  1 agreed (40 didn't mention this).
  Obelix.

—Pathoschild 09:10:20, 2800:21,29 February 2010 (UTC)

Bastique

74 users commented on Bastique, or 28.5% of participating users. Summarized up to r1875726.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  60 agreed (14 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Lar, Avraham, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Taichi, Tiptoety, Roberto Mura, Hégésippe Cormier, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, Nick1915, ChristianH, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Nakor, Finnrind, Jusjih, Dungodung, Obelix, Razorflame, Mailer diablo, Jyothis, Oscar, Marco 27, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Philippe, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Kropotkine 113, Laaknor, Túrelio, Kanonkas, Themfromspace, Will Beback, FollowTheMedia, Deror avi, Caspian blue, Junafani, Khoikhoi, Ludo29, Raymond, EVula, Cecil, Jayjg, SergeyJ, Charitwo, Sarah, Leinad, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.

• Active, brilliant, helpful, thoughtful, hard-working, often available, advanced steward.
  12 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
  Katerenka, Ottava Rima, Innv, Kylu, Lycaon, Jamesofur, Aphaia, Deror avi, Cenarium, NonvocalScream, SlimVirgin, Szwedzki.

• active enough given other resposibilities.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  John Vandenberg.

• plays farmville.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Casliber.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• too many jobs.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Marcus Cyron.

• allegedly did not intervene against inappropriate behaviour at a Wikimedia event; denied by Bastique.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Proabivouac.

• reacted negatively to Proabivouac's accusations.
  1 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Caspian blue.

—Pathoschild 20:25:39, 2800:25, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

Cspurrier

37 users commented on Cspurrier, or 14.4% of participating users. Final revision r1875692.

Favourable

• active enough / intends more activity post-graduation.
  11 agreed, 9 seconded (17 didn't mention this).
  Kylu_{[Pmlineditor, Obelix, Bastique, Millosh, Church of emacs, JoshuaZ, Durova, Jayjg, Leinad]}, Innv, Mav, Jusjih, Billinghurst, Juliancolton, Fastily, FollowTheMedia, Geitost, EVula, SlimVirgin.
• no reason given / no worries.
  3 agreed (34 didn't mention this).
  Razorflame, Cirt, M7.
• trustworthy, experienced.
  1 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
  Oscar.

Concerned

• inactive / could not fulfill promise of more activity from last confirmation.
  13 agreed, 1 seconded (23 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Mike.lifeguard, Seb az86556, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Finnrind, Dungodung, Caspian blue_[Majorly], NonvocalScream.

—Pathoschild 21:07:08, 2800:27, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

Darkoneko

69 users commented on Darkoneko, or 26.2% of participating users. Final revision r1875737.

Favourable

• no reason given.
  49 agreed, 1 seconded (19 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Innv_[Millosh], Jamesofur, MoiraMoira, Taichi, Tiptoety, Roberto Mura, Katerenka, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, Nick1915, Elfix, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, JAn Dudík, Nakor, Finnrind, Jusjih, Obelix, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Alphos, Fastily, Anthere, Kropotkine 113, OrbiliusMagister, Kyro, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, KrebMarkt, Stepro, Junafani, Hégésippe Cormier, Moyg, VanBrooken, Clem23, Hercule, Popo le Chien, Perky, NonvocalScream, Leinad, Dave souza, M7, Djordjes.

• meow.
  7 agreed, 1 seconded (61 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy_[Avraham], Lar, Pmlineditor, Mardetanha, Dungodung, Bastique, Vituzzu.

• active, trustworthy, experienced, often available, good steward.
  7 agreed, 1 seconded (61 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer_[Avraham], Kylu, Ottava Rima, Mercy, Loreleil, SlimVirgin, John Vandenberg.

Concerned

• some kind of dispute on frwiki / IRC, with Darkoneko banned from an unspecified non-serious channel; accusations of inappropriate behaviour and throwing accusations around; loss of trust; something about "the story with Neerdael". Hégésippe and Elfix note the mentioned events seem irrelevant.

  edit: Elfix explained that Darkoneko joined a secret ##cabale^connect IRC channel, got kickbanned because he "was not welcome" (along with several who had never visited it), and accused Galdrad of doing it. Galdrad was offended, and the users in that ##cabale channel opposed his confirmation.

  The "story of Neerdael" refers to an abusive sockpuppet DarkoNeko discovered and exposed. Some frwiki users stated that it was not abusive and that there was no reason to expose it. Apparently, this was settled and the sockpuppet considered abusive.

  4 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
  Vyk, Suprememangaka, Moipaulochon, Galdrad.

—Pathoschild 21:45:48, 2800:29, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

DerHexer

93 users commented on DerHexer, or 35.4% of participating users. Final revision r1875730.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  65 agreed, 1 seconded (27 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Spacebirdy, Deliriousandlost, Lar, Kylu, Avraham, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Taichi, Tiptoety, Hégésippe Cormier, WizardOfOz, Barras, Nick1915, ChristianH, Laaknor, Lukas9950, Nakor, Jusjih, JZ85, Dungodung, Obelix, Stefan64, Razorflame, M.L, Mailer Diablo, Jyothis, Oscar, Sargoth, Marco 27, Finnrind, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Alphos, Philippe, Lymantria, Xqt, Egmontaz, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, APPER, Roo1812, Tinz, Túrelio, Themfromspace, FollowTheMedia, FloNight, Ida Shaw, Ceoil, Junafani, LadyInGrey, JoshuaZ, Raymond, EVula, Cecil, Pablo X, NonvocalScream, Roger Davies, C-M, Itu, M7, Djordjes, per everyone_[Geitost].

• active, good, awesome steward who knows no bounds, brilliant, talented, excellent, helpful, often available, best steward, valiant and bold crosswiki vandalfighter, levelheaded.
  24 agreed, 1 seconded (68 didn't mention this).
  Bastique, Katerenka, Church of emacs, Innv, Ottava Rima, Holder, Jamesofur, Bsadowski1, Ejs-80, Elfix, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Bücherwürmlein, Farct, Mercy, XenonX3, OrbiliusMagister, Stepro, WiseWoman, SlimVirgin, Leinad, Ra'ike, Dave souza, per everyone_[Geitost].

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (92 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• not a native speaker, not always able to respond quickly.
  1 agreed (92 didn't mention this).
  Caspian blue.

• mistaken oversight on enwiki (details on enwiki).
  1 agreed (92 didn't mention this).
  John Vandenberg.

—Pathoschild 22:56:33, 2800:32, 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)

Drini

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

67 users commented on Drini, or 25.9% of participating users. Final revision r1875714.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  50 agreed, 1 seconded (16 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Spacebirdy, Innv, Jack Merridew, Kylu, Avraham, Jamesofur, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Taichi, Roberto Mura, WizardOfOz, Ejs-80, Barras, Nick1915, ChristianH, Erwin, JAn Dudík, Jusjih, Dungodung, Obelix, Razorflame, Mailer diablo, Jyothis, Bastique, Gustronico, Oscar, Nixón, Finnrind, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Xqt, Aphaia, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Kved, Church of emacs, Junafani, Sulmues, LadyInGrey, Khoikhoi, EVula, NonvocalScream, Leinad, M7, Djordjes.
• Active, helpful, excellent, tireless, technically savvy, committed, multilingual steward.
  15 agreed, 1 seconded (51 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer_{[Marcus Cyron]}, Katerenka, Lar, BetoCG, Tiptoety, Herbythyme, Saloca, Mardetanha, Ottava Rima, Barcex, Annabel, Caspian blue, Vituzzu, Diegusjaimes, John Vandenberg.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• linguistic bias; old story, explained by Vituzzu: a Spanish user was canvassing for the Commons Picture of the Year vote; when Vituzzu confronted the user, the user began harassing him, but Drini did not take the issue seriously. Vituzzu says drini is a good steward, and doesn't want to make a big issue of this, so he's neutral.
  1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
  Vituzzu.

???

• no comment?
  1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
  Dreitmen

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

Nihil Obstat. Drini is reconfirmed. Kylu 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dungodung

62 users commented on Dungodung, or 23.6% of participating users. Final revision r1875734.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  50 agreed (12 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Lar, Jamesofur, Christian Giersing, MoiraMoira, Ejs-80, Taichi, Bsadowski1, Tiptoety, Roberto Mura, Hégésippe Cormier, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, Nick1915, ChristianH, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, Herbythyme, Obelix, Razorflame, Bastique, Jyothis, Oscar, Sargoth, Yuyu, Dalibor Bosits, Finn Rindahl, Billinghurst, Mercy, Aphaia, Lymantria, Xqt, Vituzzu, Fastily, Teles, Millosh, Micki, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Stepro, Junafani, Kaster, NonvocalScream, John Vandenberg, M7, Djordjes, Laslovarga.

• Excellent, brilliant, technically-savvy, advanced, good, friendly, helpful, kind, reliable steward.
  9 agreed (53 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Katerenka, Kylu, Innv, Pmlineditor, Mardetanha, Sanya, Cirt, Leinad.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• called someone a troll (diff).
  3 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
  Kubura, Caspian blue, John Vandenberg.

• Processed a checkuser request without checking whether it was supported by community consensus (diff). Dalibor Bosits notes community consensus is not required for user checks.
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Kubura.

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

Effeietsanders

47 users commented on Effeietsanders, or 17.9% of participating users. Final revision r1875738.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  28 agreed (19 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Juliancolton, Davin, WizardOfOz, Church of emacs, Nick1915, Elfix, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, Razorflame, Jyothis, DustSpinner, Bastique, Oscar, Yuyu, Finnrind, Aphaia, Fastily, Annabel, Anthere, FollowTheMedia, Caspian blue, Raymond, NonvocalScream, Lolsimon, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.

• trustworthy, experienced, provides insight in steward discussions, "best guardian of the principles", available, proficient, excellent, dedicated, involved, has good sense of data privacy protection.
  7 agreed, 2 seconded (38 didn't mention this).
  Lar_{[Erwin, Leinad]}, Mardetanha, Billinghurst, Durova, Fontes, Millosh, Bdk.

• active enough / often available on IRC.
  4 agreed (43 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, Pmlineditor, Barras, Mav.

• not bureaucratic (translated diff).
  1 agreed (46 didn't mention this).
  Taketa.

Concerned

• not active enough.
  4 agreed (43 didn't mention this).
  MoiraMoira, Davin, Dungodung, Caspian blue.

• bureaucratic.
  3 agreed (44 didn't mention this).
  Dungodung?, Waerth, Aphaia.

• Argued against bureaucrats on small wikis.
  1 agreed, 1 seconded (45 didn't mention this).
  SergeyJ_[Bolo1910].

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

Erwin

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

55 users commented on Erwin, or 20.9% of participating users. Final revision r1875716.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  45 agreed (10 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Taichi, Bsadowski1, Davin, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, ChristianH, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, JZ85, Freaky Fries, Dungodung, Razorflame, Jyothis, DustSpinner, Bastique, Oscar, Taketa, Finnrind, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Alphos, Mercy, Lymantria, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Caspian blue, Stepro, Junafani, Cenarium, NonvocalScream, Leinad, John Vandenberg, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.

• Active, excellent, brilliant, helpful, hard-working, technically-savvy, priceless, one of the best stewards.
  9 agreed (46 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Katerenka, Innv, Lar, Jamesofur, Nick1915, Mardetanha, Annabel, Kanonkas.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (54 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

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

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

Guillom

53 users commented on Guillom, or 20.2% of participating users. Final revision r1875729.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  37 agreed (16 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Innv, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Roberto Mura, Hégésippe Cormier, WizardOfOz, Church of emacs, Nick1915, Elfix, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Nakor, Jusjih, Dungodung, Mailer Diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Bastique, Oscar, Finnrind, Alphos, Philippe, Fastily, Kropotkine 113, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Stepro, Junafani, Popo le Chien, Raymond, Leinad, Ruy Pugliesi, M7, Djordjes.
• often available, sane, good, nice, involved, helpful, sensible steward.
  8 agreed, 1 seconded (44 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer_[Katerenka], Ejs-80, Billinghurst, Millosh, Cirt, SB_Johnny, SlimVirgin, NonvocalScream.
• active enough / less active because of real life (Ph.D., hiring, moving).
  5 agreed (48 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, Ottava Rima, Aphaia, SlimVirgin, John Vandenberg.
• Foundation employee in the trenches working alongside us.
  1 agreed (52 didn't mention this).
  Lar.
• mreow.
  1 agreed (52 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• inactive.
  3 agreed (50 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Lar, Pmlineditor.

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

Jusjih

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

33 users commented on Jusjih, or 12.5% of participating users. Final revision r1875720.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  23 agreed (10 didn't mention this).
  MoiraMoira, WizardOfOz, Nick1915, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Dungodung, Razorflame, Aphaia, Jyothis, Bastique, Oscar, Yuyu, Finnrind, Fastily, Cirt, FollowTheMedia, Church of emacs, EVula, NonvocalScream, Ruy Pugliesi, M7, Djordjes.
• multilingual, experienced, good steward, often available.
  7 agreed (26 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Innv, Lar, Pmlineditor, Mav, Millosh, Jusjih.
• active enough.
  6 agreed (27 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Kylu, Mav, Millosh, Leinad, Jusjih.
• actively participates beyond stewardry.
  1 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
  Billinghurst.

Concerned

• not very active.
  2 agreed (31 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Marcus Cyron.
• never on IRC.
  2 agreed (31 didn't mention this).
  Mardetanha, Leinad.

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

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

Kylu

62 users commented on Kylu, or 24% of participating users. Final revision r1875715.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  49 agreed (13 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Jan eissfeldt, Spacebirdy, Seb az86556, Avraham, Innv, Jamesofur, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Tiptoety, Roberto Mura, Katerenka, Herbythyme, Barras, Nick1915, Church of emacs, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Dungodung, Mailer diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Bastique, Oscar, Finnrind, Billinghurst, Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy, Vituzzu, Josette, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Stepro, Junafani, Jayjg, Geitost, EVula, Cenarium, NonvocalScream, Leinad, John Vandenberg, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.

• active, helpful, pleasant, competent, good, polite, excellent, stellar, humble, one of the best stewards.
  10 agreed (52 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Mike.lifeguard, Ottava Rima, Lar, Bsadowski1, Ejs-80, Durova, Teles, Caspian blue, Charitwo.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• did not answer questions on SergeyJ's bureaucrat request.
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Bolo1910.

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

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

Laaknor

54 users commented on Laaknor, or 20.5% of participating users. Final revision r1875728.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  43 agreed, 1 seconded (10 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Jan eissfeldt, Lar_[Jamesofur], Kylu, Christian Giersing, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Innv, WizardOfOz, Barras, Nick1915, Elfix, ChristianH, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, JZ85, Dungodung, Razorflame, Jyothis, DustSpinner, Bastique, Oscar, Finnrind, Billinghurst, CactusWriter, Xqt, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Egmontaz, FollowTheMedia, Stepro, Church of emacs, Junafani, Geitost, SergeyJ, NonvocalScream, Leinad, M7, Djordjes.

• active, friendly, trustworthy, good, helpful, knowledgeable, steward; always available on IRC; impressive work.
  8 agreed (46 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Ejs-80, Mardetanha, EivindJ, Aphaia, Mercy, Ottava Rima, John Vandenberg.

• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (53 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• did not answer questions on SergeyJ's bureaucrat request. Laaknor noted someone else answered.
  1 agreed (53 didn't mention this).
  Bolo1910.

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

Lar

144 users commented on Lar, or 55.1% of participating users. Final revision r1875679.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  47 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Seb az86556, Jack Merridew, Avraham, Jamesofur, MoiraMoira, Tiptoety, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, Erwin, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Dungodung, Mailer Diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Bastique, Finnrind, MZMcBride, MBisanz, Dalibor Bosits, Jennavecia, CactusWriter, Coffee, Vituzzu, Fastily, Kevin, Majorly, RMHED, Scott MacDonald, Tinz, Iain99, Kwj2772, Privatemusings, InkSplotch, Túrelio, FollowTheMedia, Bishonen, Polargeo, Rama, Raymond, NonvocalScream, AniMate, Roger Davies, M7.

• Active, helpful, friendly, competent, technically-savvy, experienced, trustworthy, extraordinary, clueful, good, civil, considerate, level-headed, effective, thoughtful, dedicated, caring, kind, knowledgeable, approachable, sensible steward; valuable asset; good judgement and sense of humour; outstanding; excellent record as a steward, fine job, performs well.
  35 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Ottava Rima, Kylu, Pmlineditor, Ejs-80, Nick1915, Aphaia, Oscar, Guinnog, Tryptofish, Cla68, Billinghurst, JamieS93, MF-Warburg, Unitanode, Millosh, Stanistani, FT2, SB_Johnny, Versageek, Ceoil, NickK, Martinp, Mbz1, Mercy, EVula, Quadell, Sjakkalle, Gmaxwell, Pablo X, Keegan, Prodego, MichaelMaggs, Leinad, SandyGeorgia.

• enwiki dispute / allegations irrelevant, no evidence of steward abuse.
  20 agreed (94 didn't mention this).
  Jennavecia, Coffee, MF-Warburg, Josette, NuclearWarfare, Unitanode, Montanabw, Kevin, FT2, Millosh, Majorly, Scott MacDonald, Tinz, NickK, George The Dragon, Martinp, Themfromspace, Pablo X, MichaelMaggs, John Vandenberg.
• Many complaints seem to be personal griefs, rather than legitimate concerns.
  15 agreed (99 didn't mention this).
  Herbythyme, Guinnog, Tryptofish, Unitatode, Montanabw, EVula, Effeietsanders, Stanistani, Shell Kinney, Drini, Protonk, Gmaxwell, MichaelMaggs, John Vandenberg, anonymous.
• willing to do the right thing, even if unpopular.
  4 agreed (110 didn't mention this).
  Montanabw, SB_Johnny, Gmaxwell, MichaelMaggs.
• understands issues surrounding living-person biographies.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Cool Hand.
• mreow ! mreoow.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• self-righteous, arrogant, uncivil, dismissive, unpleasant, vindictive, carries grudges, prone to drama and politicking, untrustworthy, poor judgement; personal attacks (request for comments); poor character for a steward.
  24 agreed, 10 seconded (80 didn't mention this).
  Quadell, A Nobody, Tim Song_{[Short Brigade Harvester Boris]}, Colonel Warden, MSGJ, Dave souza, Pohta ce-am pohtit_[Cirt], Ruslik0, Sjakkalle, Casliber, Okip_{[Dream Focus]}, Crum375, RayAYang, DGG, SlimVirgin_{[FeloniousMonk]}, Guettarda, Jayjg, Slrubenstein, Blurpeace_{[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]}, JoshuaZ_{[Sandahl, Alex Bakharev]}, Sarah_{[Ryan Postlethwaite, Piotrus]}, Will Beback, Leifern, Khoikhoi.
• increasingly extreme; ignores policy to pursue idealogy; contempt or poor understanding of consensus and community; dispute on enwiki about out-of-process deletion of living-person biographies; disruption; request for comment, arbitration cases "BLP deletions" and "WP:PROD wheel war".
  16 agreed, 13 seconded (85 didn't mention this).
  Nsk92_{[Bolo1910, Sarah[Piotrus, Jayjg, Khoikhoi]]}, Sandahl, Guettarda_{[Alex Bakharev]}, Brian McNeil, OhanaUnited, Ynhockey, Caspian blue, RayAYang, Tim Song_{[Short Brigade Harvester Boris]}, Thekohser, Pohta ce-am pohtit_{[Cirt[Leifern, Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]]]}, Plot Spoiler, Okip_{[Dream Focus]}, Prodego, MSGJ, Jclemens.
• unilateral; "judge, jury, and executioner"; overbearing, threatening, uses positions for advantage in discussions.
  8 agreed, 15 seconded (91 didn't mention this).
  Lycaon, Nsk92_{[RayAYang, Bolo1910, Cirt[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]], Sarah[Piotrus, Jayjg, Khoikhoi]]}, Pohta ce-am pohtit_[Leifern], Durova_{[Ynhockey, Slrubenstein, FeloniousMonk]}, Sjakkalle, Okip_{[Dream Focus]}, Dave souza.
• militant, divisive, polarizing, idealogical, narrow-minded, "his side versus everyone else"; "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" (diff).
  6 agreed, 16 seconded (92 didn't mention this).
  JoshuaZ_{[Sandahl, Alex Bakharev, Cirt, Leifern, Slrubenstein, Khoikhoi, Sarah[Piotrus, Jayjg, Khoikhoi]]}, Nsk92_{[RayAYang, Bolo1910]}, The Wordsmith, Casliber, Cenarium_{[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]]}, SlimVirgin_{[FeloniousMonk]}.
• alleged inappropriate behaviour towards women.
  3 agreed, 7 seconded (104 didn't mention this).
  Proabivouac, Sarah_{[Ryan Postlethwaite, Piotrus, Jayjg, Khoikhoi]}, Cirt_{[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]]}.
• active contributor to Wikipedia Review; unexplained "allegations of conflict of interests and security concerns"; cited thread; Lar's explanation.
  5 agreed, 5 seconded (104 didn't mention this).
  Alex Bakharev_[Jayjg], Ynhockey_{[Cirt[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]]]}, Will Beback, Sjakkalle, MONGO.
• breach of privacy policy (proposed arbitration finding); misuse of checkuser tool.
  6 agreed, 3 seconded (105 didn't mention this).
  OhanaUnited, Crum375, Cenarium, RayAYang, Blurpeace_{[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]}, SlimVirgin_{[FeloniousMonk]}.
• few article edits on en-Wikipedia.
  1 agreed, 6 seconded (107 didn't mention this).
  Guettarda_{[Alex Bakharev[Jayjg, Cirt[Blurpeace[Lauryn Ashby, Jaakobou]]]]}.
• not very active.
  2 agreed (112 didn't mention this).
  Guettarda, John Vandenberg.
• not very responsive.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Caspian blue.
• supported global sysops.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  John Vandenberg.
• too many jobs.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Marcus Cyron.
• "per most of the above".
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Xavexgoem.
• no reason given.
  1 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
  Cube lurker.

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

Leinad

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

44 users commented on Leinad' confirmation, or 16.7% of participating users. Final revision r1875717.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  35 agreed (9 didn't mention this).
  Barras, Bastique, billinghurst, Christian Giersing, ChristianH, Church of emacs, Cirt, Djordjes, Dungodung, Erwin, Faslily, Hyothis, Innv, JAn Dudik, Jan eissfeldt, John Vandenberg, Juliancolton, Jusjih, Kanonkas, Kylu, MarcusCyron, Mardetanha, Mercy, Millosh, MoiraMoira, oscar, Razorflame, Ruy Pugliesi, Stepro, Taketa, Teukros, Viatoro, Vituzzu, WizardOfOz, Xqt.
• Confirm, with thanks.
  3 agreed (41 didn't mention this).
  Finn Rindahl, NonvocalScream, Ottava Rima.
• Helpful.
  2 agreed (42 didn't mention this).
  Elfix, Nick1915.
• Reconfirm. Hard working good guy.
  2 agreed (42 didn't mention this).
  Lar, Pmlineditor.
• Impressed with accessibility and responsibility.
  1 agreed (43 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer.
• Feels comfortable with the steward team as a whole.
  1 agreed (43 didn't mention this).
  M7.

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

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:02:29, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

M7 (M/)

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

43 users commented on M7, or 16.3% of participating users. Final revision r1875719.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  34 agreed (9 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Christian Giersing, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Katerenka, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha ,Jusjih, Dungodung, OrbiliusMagister, Mailer Diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Bastique, oscar, Marco 27, Dalibor Bosits, Finn Rindahl, Mercy, Vituzzu, Fastily, Ruy Pugliesi, Millosh, Annabel, Anthere, Church of emacs, Guidomac, NonvocalScream, LeinaD, Djordjes.
• Quick, active.
  4 agreed (39 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Kylu, Bsadowski1, John Vandenberg.
• Effective, experienced.
  3 agreed (40 didn't mention this).
  Innv, Roberto Mura, Ejs-80.
• Helpful.
  2 agreed (41 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Lar.

• un'istituzione ormai (has become an institution!).
  1 agreed (42 didn't mention this).
  Nick1915.

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

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:05:40, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

Mardetanha

61 users commented on Mardetanha, or 23.2% of participating users. Final revision r1875727.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  42 agreed (19 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Juliancolton, Innv, Lar, Jack Merridew, Pmlineditor, MoiraMoira, Roberto Mura, Hégésippe Cormier, Barras, Church of emacs, Nick1915, ChristianH, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, JZ85, Dungodung, Mailer diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Yuyu, Dalibor Bosits, Finnrind, Philippe, آرش, Cirt, Ladsgroup, NickK, Egmontaz, PeterSymonds, Stepro, Junafani, Khoikhoi, EVula, NonvocalScream, John Vandenberg, Roger Davies, Wayiran, Djordjes.
• Great work, useful, needed.
  8 agreed (53 didn't mention this).
  Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Katerenka, billinghurst, OrbiliusMagister, Jan eissfeldt, Kanonkas, Leinad.

• helpful, active.
  3 agreed, 1 seconded (57 didn't mention this).
  Kylu_[Jamesofur], Mercy, Ottava Rima.
• Wants all stewards reconfirmed.
  1 agreed (60 didn't mention this).
  M7.
• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (60 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

• Needs more cowbell.
  1 agreed, 1 seconded (59 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, Kylu_[Jamesofur].

Concerned

• POV pushing, infringement of "don't decide" policy.
  1 agreed (60 didn't mention this).
  SergeyJ.

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

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

Updated format. —Pathoschild 07:08:57, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

Mav

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

30 users commented on Mav, or 11.4% of participating users. Final revision r1875721.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  26 agreed (4 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Lar, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Dungodung, Razorflame, Waerth, Bastique, Oscar, Plot Spoiler, Innv, Ruy Pugliesi, Fastily, Cirt, Anthere, Church of emacs, Junafani, Jayjg, NonvocalScream, Casliber, John Vandenberg, M7, Djordjes.
• good job for several years, nice commitment, trustworthy, helpful, sensible.
  3 agreed (27 didn't mention this).
  Pmlineditor, Billinghurst, SlimVirgin.
• became more active since last confirmation.
  1 agreed (29 didn't mention this).
  Millosh.
• participates in en-Wikipedia Featured Article process.
  1 agreed (29 didn't mention this).
  Casliber.

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

Summary to be added later, but Mav is confirmed per nihil obstat. --Erwin 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike.lifeguard

77 users commented on Mike.lifeguard, or 29.3% of participating users. Final revision r1875725.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  57 agreed (20 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Juliancolton, Katerenka, Seb az86556, Kylu, Avraham, MoiraMoira, Bsadowski1, Hégésippe Cormier, Herbythyme, WizardOfOz, Barras, Church of emacs, Nick1915, ChristianH, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, NonvocalScream, JAn Dudík, Nakor, Jusjih, JZ85, Dungodung, Mailer diablo, Razorflame, Innv, Christian Giersing, Jyothis, DustSpinner, Bastique, Oscar, Sargoth, Taketa, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Alphos, Finnrind, Philippe, Xqt, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Annabel, Túrelio, KrebMarkt, Stepro, Junafani, LadyInGrey, Jayjg, Geitost, EVula, Charitwo, Micki, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.
• active, excellent, wonderful, helpful, spectacular, hard-working, Άψογος steward; good work.
  15 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Ottava Rima, Lar, Techman224, Holder, Jamesofur, Pmlineditor, Roberto Mura, Egmontaz, Elfix, Erwin, Obelix, Mercy, Cenarium, BokicaK.
• active in diverse areas of stewardry.
  3 agreed (74 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Erwin, Leinad.
• excellent oversighter.
  1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
  Elfix.
• mreow ! mreoooow *hasseloffed purrr*.
  1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• too many jobs.
  1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
  Marcus Cyron.
• does not implement requests to remove sysop access when sysop is away.
  1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
  NonvocalScream.
• questioned oppose votes on Global sysops/Vote, labelled opposition as "faulty reasoning".
  1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
  John Vandenberg.

—Pathoschild 02:05:37, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

Millosh

36 users commented on Millosh, or 14.1% of participating users. Final revision r1875733.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  30 agreed (6 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Juliancolton, MoiraMoira, Church of emacs, Erwin, Mav, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Innv, Dungodung, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Bastique, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Ottava Rima, Finnrind, Mercy, Ruy Pugliesi, Durova, Fastily, Sargoth, Micki, Cirt, Leinad, Roger Davies, M7, Djordjes.
• active, good, insightful, dedicated steward.
  3 agreed (33 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, Pmlineditor, WizardOfOz.
• active enough.
  2 agreed (34 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, John Vandenberg.
• helped resolved "some thorny issues".
  1 agreed (35 didn't mention this).
  Lar.

Concerned

• inactive / not very active.
  4 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
  Dungodung, Mercy, Spacebirdy, NonvocalScream.
• loss of trust (unexplained).
  1 agreed (35 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy.

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

Nick1915

44 users commented on Nick1915, or 16.7% of participating users. Final revision r1875731.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  39 agreed (5 didn't mention this).
  Nick1915, Juliancolton, Spacebirdy, Kylu, Lar, Christian Giersing, MoiraMoira, Roberto Mura, Herbythyme, Innv, Ejs-80, WizardOfOz, Barras, ChristianH, Erwin, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, Dungodung, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Marco 27, Bastique, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Finnrind, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Egmontaz, Church of emacs, Junafani, NonvocalScream, Leinad, John Vandenberg, M7, Djordjes.
• friendly, helpful, good steward.
  4 agreed (40 didn't mention this).
  Innv, Mardetanha, OrbiliusMagister, Mercy.

Concerned

• ignored steward consensus in Ventusa@kawiki request.
  1 agreed (43 didn't mention this).
  Bolo1910.

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

Oscar

51 users commented on Oscar, or 19.8% of participating users. Final revision r1875740.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  22 agreed (29 didn't mention this).
  Davin, Hégésippe Cormier, Erwin, Roberto Mura, Dungodung, Billinghurst, JoshuaZ, Razorflame, Jyothis, Lymantria, Ottava Rima, Fastily, Cirt, Anthere, Kanonkas, Will Beback, Jayjg, Geitost, NonvocalScream, Leinad, M7, Djordjes.
• experienced, helpful, knowledgeable, wise, insightful, good, best, sensible steward; good work; good judgement.
  11 agreed, 1 seconded (39 didn't mention this).
  Innv, Lar, MoiraMoira, Freaky Fries, Waerth_{[DustSpinner]}, Mercy, Taketa, Annabel, Church of emacs, SlimVirgin, Dave souza.
• active enough (cited logs).
  10 agreed, 1 seconded (40 didn't mention this).
  Kylu, Innv, Lar, Pmlineditor_[JZ85], Mav, Jusjih, Millosh, JoshuaZ, SlimVirgin, Lolsimon.
• multilingual.
  2 agreed (49 didn't mention this).
  Jusjih, SlimVirgin.
• need more stewards.
  1 agreed (50 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton.
• mreow ! mreoooow *musically purrrrrrrrrr*.
  1 agreed (50 didn't mention this).
  Darkoneko.

Concerned

• inactive / not very active.
  13 agreed (38 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Mike.lifeguard, Seb az86556, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Herbythyme, Dungodung, Finnrind, Juliancolton, Ottava Rima.

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

Pathoschild

81 users commented on Pathoschild, or 31.2% of participating users. Final revision r1879542.

Note: Section needs more eyes to complete and verify, I might've missed something! Kylu 02:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Favourable

• No reason given (including "keep", "support", "obvious" &tc).
  32 agreed (49 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Avi, MoiraMoira, Barras, Ruy Pugliesi, Marcus Cyron, Nakor, Obelix, Jusjih, Dungodung, Stefan64, Christian Giersing, Mailer Diablo, Dustspinner, oscar, Sargoth, Plot Spoiler, Dalibor Bosits, Xqt, Vituzzu, Fastlily, Jack Merridew, Millosh, Cirt, Annabel, Will Beback, Stepro, Kaster, LadyInGrey, EVula, Micki, Djordies.
• Enslave-him, half human half-robot, commons humor & similar.
  11 agreed (70 didn't mention this).
  Jyothis, OrbiliusMagister, bastille, Finn Rindahl, DarkFalls, billinghurst, Alphos, Laaknor, DarkoNeko, Aphaia, Kylu.
• Exceptional steward, very good steward & similar.
  8 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt, Church of emacs, Katarenka, Holder, Pmlineditor, Bsadowski1, Roberto Mura, Techman224.
• Learned from mistake / Keep despite mistake.
  6 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
  Egmonta, Alison, NuclearWarfare, Mike.lifeguard, NonvocalScream, John Vandenberg.
• I love you & similar.
  4 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, delirious & lost, Lar, Jamesofur.
• Competent, available, valuable asset, useful & similar.
  4 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
  Ottava Rima, Nick1915, Tiptoety, Charitwo.
• Helpful and friendly.
  2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
  Mardetanha, Elfix.
• Thanks.
  2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
  spacebirdy, Lymantria.
• We need you.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Jan eissfeldt.
• Favorite steward.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Razorflame.
• Quinessential.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Anonymous Dissident.
• per all others.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Innv.
• Good job.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Eis-80.
• Confirm all current stewards.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  M7.
• If not he, who then.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  WizardOfOz.
• Useful tools and scripts.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Erwin, LeinaD.

Support, but concerned

• Clearly beneficial, but concerned over username-sandbox mistake.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  JoshuaZ.

Neutral

• Cannot support due to username-sandbox mistake, cannot oppose due to otherwise superb performance.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Durova.

Concerned

• Username-Sandbox Mistake.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Luna Santin.

Opposed

• Username-Sandbox Mistake (Regarding storage of usernames-to-oversight in userspace sandbox).
  2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
  Fran Rogers, harej.
• Don't trust him.
  1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
  Hégésippe Cormier.

Kylu 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated format, sorted. —Pathoschild 07:35:32, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

Redux

37 users commented on Redux, or 14.4% of participating users. Final revision r1875664.

Favourable

• per statement / intends to become more active.
  11 agreed (26 didn't mention this).
  Bastique, Nick1915, Finnrind, NuclearWarfare, Avraham, Fastily, Teles, Millosh, Innv, Aphaia, Mwaldeck.
• no reason given / no worries.
  3 agreed (34 didn't mention this).
  Billinghurst, NonvocalScream, M7.
• trustworthy, experienced.
  3 agreed (34 didn't mention this).
  Oscar, NuclearWarfare, Avraham.

Concerned

• inactive.
  25 agreed (12 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Juliancolton, Spacebirdy, Mike.lifeguard, Seb az86556, Kylu, Pmlineditor, WizardOfOz, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Herbythyme, Dungodung, Razorflame, Anonymous Dissident, Bastique, Billinghurst, Finnrind, Majorly, Ceoil, Jonathunder, NonvocalScream, Geitost, Leinad.
• overruled community and steward consensus by confirming Sj (discussion); ignored ongoing stewards-l discussions.
  3 agreed (34 didn't mention this).
  Majorly, Mike.lifeguard, DerHexer.
• no statement for confirmation (written later).
  1 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer.
• no reason given.
  1 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
  Jayjg.

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

Rdsmith4

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

30 users commented on Rdsmith4, or 11.4% of participating users. Final revision r1875724.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  20 agreed (10 didn't mention this).
  Erwin, Mav, Mardetanha, Dungodung, Innv, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Billinghurst, Alphos, Finnrind, Fastily, Junafani, NonvocalScream, Leinad, SlimVirgin, John Vandenberg, Dave souza, M7, Djordjes.
• active enough.
  3 agreed, 4 seconded (23 didn't mention this).
  Kylu_{[Pmlineditor, WizardOfOz, Millosh]}, Lar, Pohta ce-am pohtit_[Elfix].
• trustworthy, thoughtful, knowledgeable steward; old hand.
  3 agreed, 2 seconded (25 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton_[Lar], Bastique, Pohta ce-am pohtit_[Elfix].

Concerned

• sometimes inactive.
  1 agreed, 1 seconded (28 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton_[Lar].

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

Summary to be added later, but Rdsmith4 is confirmed per nihil obstat. --Erwin 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Shanel

52 users commented on Shanel, or 19.8% of participating users. Final revision r1875735.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  24 agreed (28 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, MoiraMoira, Roberto Mura, Barras, Erwin, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Dungodung, Mailer Diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Dalibor Bosits, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Annabel, Egmontaz, Will Beback, Junafani, Grondin, Khoikhoi, EVula, Leinad, Djordjes.
• brilliant / very nice / delight.
  3 agreed (49 didn't mention this).
  Katerenka, Bsadowski1, Billinghurst.
• why not? / automatic confirm.
  2 agreed (50 didn't mention this).
  Innv, M7.
• active enough / regularly available.
  5 agreed (47 didn't mention this).
  Pathoschild, DarkFalls, Ottava Rima, Aphaia, Ruy Pugliesi, John Vandenberg.
• helpful
  5 agreed (47 didn't mention this).
  Pathoschild, DarkFalls, Ottava Rima, Ruy Pugliesi, Church of emacs, John Vandenberg.
• to keep Pathoschild happy / merge with Pathoschild.
  2 agreed, 2 seconded (48 didn't mention this).
  Lar, Lar_{[Pmlineditor]}, Pmlineditor_[WizardOfOz], Bastique.

• definitely / of course / without a shadow of a doubt.
  3 agreed (49 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Pmlineditor, Oscar, Alphos.
• It would be a worse wiki-world without Shanel.
  1 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  Nick1915.
• mreow ! mreoooow.
  1 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  DarkoNeko.
• sexy and efficient.
  1 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  Charitwo.
• confirm, with thanks for service.
  1 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  NonvocalScream.

Concerned

• basically inactive.
  1 agreed, 2 seconded (49 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Kylu, Jamesofur.
• don't trust her.
  1 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  Hégésippe Cormier.

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

Shizhao

34 users commented on Shizhao, or 13.3% of participating users. Final revision r1875741.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  18 agreed (16 didn't mention this).
  Erwin, Mardetanha, Dungodung, Mailer Diablo, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Yuyu, Bastique, Billinghurst, Juliancolton, Fastily, Millosh, Junafani, Geitost, Leinad, M7, Djordjes.
• not inactive, could not use steward tools while on the ombudsman commission.
  3 agreed, 4 seconded (27 didn't mention this).
  Kylu_{[Pmlineditor, Jusjih]}, Lar, Effeietsanders_[MF-Warburg], "per above"_[WizardOfOz].
• experienced steward.
  2 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
  Innv, Aphaia.
• active.
  1 agreed (33 didn't mention this).
  Aphaia.

Concerned

• inactive.
  4 agreed, 3 seconded (27 didn't mention this).
  Marcus Cyron, Mike.lifeguard_{[NonvocalScream[Bolo1910, Jayjg]]}, Juliancolton, OhanaUnited.
• steward policy violation: use of checkuser on home wiki (request for comment).
  3 agreed, 3 seconded (28 didn't mention this).
  Mike.lifeguard_{[NonvocalScream[Bolo1910, Jayjg]]}, Juliancolton, OhanaUnited.
• no statement (written later).
  1 agreed, 3 seconded (30 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer_{[NonvocalScream[Bolo1910, Jayjg]]}.
• POV-pushing, inappropriate removal of political views.
  1 agreed (33 didn't mention this).
  OhanaUnited.
• no reason given.
  1 agreed (33 didn't mention this).
  SergeyJ.

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

Sj

36 users commented on Sj, or 14.1% of participating users. Final revision r1875739.

Favourable

• no reason given / no worries.
  24 agreed (12 didn't mention this).
  Juliancolton, Jan eissfeldt, Pmlineditor, WizardOfOz, Church of emacs, Erwin, Mav, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Jusjih, Dungodung, Razorflame, Jyothis, Yuyu, Bastique, Philippe, Innv, Fastily, Cirt, WiseWoman, NonvocalScream, Leinad, M7, Djordjes.
• trustworthy; quiet achiever, no fuss; insightful, thought leader.
  4 agreed, 1 seconded (31 didn't mention this).
  Lar, Billinghurst_[Durova], JoshuaZ, Dave souza.
• active enough; frequently comments on stewards-l.
  4 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
  Oscar, Millosh, DerHexer, JoshuaZ.

Concerned

• inactive.
  9 agreed, 1 seconded (26 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy, Lar, Erwin, Dungodung, JayHenry, Majorly, Mike.lifeguard_[Jayjg], NonvocalScream, Leinad.
• has no respect for the community; no statement in 2009 confirmation; should not have been confirmed in 2009.
  1 agreed, 1 seconded (34 didn't mention this).
  JayHenry, Mike.lifeguard_[Jayjg].

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

Thogo

The following discussion is closed: nihil obstat.

---

62 users commented on Thogo, or 23.9% of participating users. Summarized up to r1875712.

Favourable

• no reason given
  55 agreed, 1 seconded (6 didn't mention this).
  Katerenka, Jan eissfeldt, Church of emacs, Innv, Lar, Holder, above_[Jamesofur], Pmlineditor, Christian Giersing, MoiraMoira, Roberto Mura, Barras, Nick1915, Erwin, Lukas9950, Ruy Pugliesi, Nakor, Jusjih, Dungodung, Stefan64, M.L, Bastique, Razorflame, Jyothis, Oscar, Sargoth, Dalibor Bosits, Billinghurst, Finn Rindahl, DarkoNeko, Philippe, Yqt, Egmontaz, Vituzzu, Fastily, Millosh, Cirt, Tinz, Túrelio, Kanonkas, Deror avi, Stepro, WiseWoman, Junafani, Raymond, Cenarium, Cecil, SergeyJ, Charitwo, NonvocalScream, John Vandenberg, Roger Davies, Itu, C-M, Djordjes, "per everyone"_[Avraham].

• helpful, hard worker, knowledgeable guy, active, trusted, friendly
  11 agreed (51 didn't mention this).
  DerHexer, Juliancolton, Kylu, Marcus Cyron, Mardetanha, Mercy, APPER, Leinard, Ra'ike, Dave souza, Ottava Rima.

• one of the ones with the most non-flexible backbones
  1 agreed, 3 seconded (58 didn't mention this).
  Spacebirdy_{[Mike.lifeguard, Avraham, WizardOfOz]}.

• helpful on frwiki with an emergency desysop
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Ejs-80.

• all stewards were comfortable
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  M7.

Concerned

• too much jobs and not so cool as before
  1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
  Marcus Cyron.

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

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

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

Suggestions for next year

Summary format

This is the first year we have summaries like this, so there were no precedents to base them on. A few things I noted while putting them together:

• Should we split favourable adjectives into more sections? For example, "active, helpful" (activity/helpfulness) and "multilingual" (qualification) and "good, extraodinary" (character).
• The "Jack_[Joe]" template distinguishes indirect points that aren't explicitly mentioned by that person. In at least one case, listing indirect points resulted in one person's point having a dozen persons indirectly listed (like "James, James_[Josie], Josie_{[Jerome, Jackie]}, Jackie_[Jill]...".) Is there a better way to do this? Should foo_[bar] only apply to citing explicit points (not further indirect points)?

—Pathoschild 03:13:58, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post in this section but... "Needs more cowbell" and comments like it should probably not go under "concerns". Perhaps "jovial comments" or "frivolity" should be its own section with them seen as part-neutral and part-support (no concerns otherwise they wouldn't be saying something silly). No reasons should also be put into this area. Stewards need to weigh various issues, and voting support does represent quite a bit of positive but it doesn't focus on particulars. If there were 3 opposes on lack of activity and 10 supports saying "active enough", then you have a different situation than 3 opposes for lack of activity and 10 supports saying nothing. The parsing of comments is for the Steward benefit, so they should be the ones to ultimately decide, but the above is just my opinion on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava. Everyone is welcome to comment here. I moved 'needs more cowbell' into the 'Favourable' section.

I agree comments without reasons are less compelling than reasoned arguments, although they are a weak indicator of trust (or distrust). Maybe they could be pushed to the bottom of each section, so the arguments are explained first? —Pathoschild 06:04:39, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. However, since the weight is to steward opinion and the confirmation is more to their benefit, I am sure that when a steward has a blank support that they probably have some greater reason. I think the key would be to move the statements but to ensure that people do not see their view points as being dismissed or that the move is somehow attacking/criticizing them. The last thing we need is another source of drama for this process. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lar's confirmation

Awaiting ArbCom?

The following discussion is closed: summary now posted.

---

What could English Wikipedia's ArbCom details say to have you change your outcome/summary? Why are we waiting on them? Do they control the process somehow, or somewhere? NonvocalScream 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We've asked the EnWiki ArbCom to validate the accusations, specifically the abuse of restricted rights, any violation of policy and/or ignoring consensus, and attitude issues that might deserve review before we make any sort of determination. There is no restriction against gaining more information, and with the solidarity of opposition that has been noted on his confirmation page, there's good reason to make the request. Also, please note that this page specifically requests that non-stewards not partake in this discussion: Similar restrictions are in place regularly, similar to the restrictions placed by bureaucrats here for confirmations. If you'd like to comment on this page, feel free, but preferably do not do so in this section. Thank you. Kylu 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that the English Wikipedia arbitration committee will let us know (*they* will validate) if the opposition and/or concern of cross wiki membership who voted in this discussion is valid, or not. Best, NonvocalScream 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, they've already decided on the matters previously, and we've simply asked them for a statement comparing the accusations here versus ArbCom's findings. This way, both groups are restricting themselves to their own competencies. Kylu 04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but the information I'm trying to get, and I should have asked directly... is the information that committee gives, will give more or less weight to the oppisition based on what they say? What I'm trying to ask, is when the steward decides if to confirm or not, will it be arbcom's statement that causes the steward to give to or take weight from the votes in the discussion, for the purposes of making a decision on the confirmation? And if so, would Arbcom then have a conflict of interest in these confirmations? NonvocalScream 04:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's to be treated as a comment. The weight of the comment and the comments it agrees with/is in opposition with depends on the steward in question, as we all arrive at our opinions on the matter in different ways. I don't quite see how that project's arbcom giving a statement on the facts of a matter within its purview could be construed as conflict of interest, though you're welcome to explain in more detail. (For anyone who decides to join in this conversation, keep in mind that it's being held to strict civility.) Kylu 04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here. If we are treating the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee as a comment, then it would have voted after the close, in addition to that, it is safe to say by virtue of being a WMF approved Arbitration Committee, it will receive more weight. If the Arbitration Committee has a direct influence based on the statement the committee makes (validation or invalidation of claims) then the will of the community who voted here, will be usurped by a local project's arbcom. Why did they even oppose if they can be so easily quenched. This does not seem ideal or proper. So for better, or for worst, I do object to the acceptance of a statement made by the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia by any stewards for the purposes of determining this confirmation. Best, NonvocalScream 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the best solution that I've been able to think of which can be implemented at this point in time, and I've not heard of any better suggestions, otherwise we're stuck with our own impressions of the user and any issues that were directly linked: The final outcomes of the various discussions don't seem to agree with the allegations, and we're (as I said) acting outside of our competence if we try to investigate the matters on enwiki on our own. None of this is ideal, but hopefully it's better than simply dismissing comments that are possibly unsubstantiated. Got any suggestions? Kylu 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you would treat a Non confirm - I don't trust. ~~~~ from a Non confirm - BLP fanatics ~~~~. We are setting a dangerous precedent. It is not up to any local project to influence the outcome here. Use the discussion, use the comments. By going outside, you have exceeded, as you say. You have permitted the local project to decide an entire subset of votes... this is no good. Is the stewardship deciding the discussion by permitting the arbcom to inject their weighty nonpublic opinion (or public) , or has the discussion already decided for itself. You decide. Don't have the Arbcom decide for you. Tally the discussion up just like the others, that would be my suggestion. Best, NonvocalScream 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points, except that an explicit "The user has abused [restricted right, such as steward, oversight, or checkuser]" is a more serious allegation than merely "I don't trust this user." We did not ask for Arbcom's opinion, but the facts that they have discovered on the matter. The decision is still up to the stewards to determine the outcome. Either way, we're not going to be dealing with an ideal solution. Then again, I've never seen a working ideal solution implemented anywhere. Eh. Thanks for the suggestion! Kylu 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi NonvocalScream. We're only asking the committee to summarize the various cases, findings, etc that have been cited throughout the discussion. Many of us are not familiar with that wiki's arbitration processes, nor are we fully aware of the history of the conflicts being cited on that wiki.

A similar request for information was made for Darkoneko's summary, where a fr-Wikipedia user helpfully explained some vague comments. I think it best to have all the information available before discussing.

(Also, the summaries are entirely unofficial. Discussion will begin when the new stewards are approved by the Board, so they can participate.) —Pathoschild 05:53:02, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking hypothetically (as I don't wish to be blocked) if an en.wp arbitrator had an affair with a party under its scrutiny, would we agree that this would constitute a palpable conflict of interest?

Less hypothetically, there are very good reasons to think en.wp's ArbCom hopelessly compromised.Proabivouac 10:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How does one palpate a conflict of interest? Best, NonvocalScream 13:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[1]Proabivouac 14:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is what I get for relying on on source fo these things. Learned something new, thanks. Best, NonvocalScream 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, Proabivouac, agree. That I believe there is a conflict when 1) Lar is a heavy contributer there 2) Lar is under the purview of the committee. Lets quit the hypothetical, and focus on fact. Oh, and this is about Lar and the English Wikipedia AC so lets use the names :) Surely your not getting blocked for that. Respectfullt, NonvocalScream 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The committee was asked to summarize previous cases and findings, which have already been cited in the discussion. They were not asked to express an opinion on Lar's suitability as a steward. —Pathoschild 19:02:49, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

As a quick note, the enwp ArbCom has received a request for a small number of factual data points regarding the English Wikipedia, and will respond shortly. While we are glad to collaborate with the standing stewards by providing the requested information, the decision process remains entirely theirs; the Committee neither endorses nor opposes any specific candidates, nor will it opine towards the suitability of any of them for the position. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The summary is finished per Pathos... the factual data points will not change the summary. Please post the summary. Best, NonvocalScream 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from ENWP ArbCom

Sent:

Dear Arbitration Committee members,

As you're aware, the comment period on the 2010 steward confirmations has ended. The stewards have reviewed the comments regarding Lar and wish clarification on the allegations made by certain parties.

Given that the conflicts mentioned take place on the English Wikipedia, and also the scope of your committee, we could not hope for a better means of clarification on the matters in question than to ask for a statement from your committee regarding Lar, his character, level of community trust, and any reported improprieties that may have occurred, in a format that would be appropriate for posting to the discussion to assist with our decision making efforts.

If possible, please give responses to the following:

1. The allegation that Lar has violated English Wikipedia policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.
   
2. The allegation that Lar has violated policies relevant to restricted rights (specifically, oversight or checkuser) locally or used steward rights on the English Wikipedia in violation of steward rules to the knowledge of your committee. Exceptions are given for instances where someone requests removal of their own rights or your committee requests removal of rights.
   
3. The allegation that Lar has used his positions to advantage in discussions.
   
4. Characterizations of Lar as uncivil, rude, vindictive, militant, unilateral, divisive, polarizing, ideological, or narrow-minded.
   

Your input on these matters is valued and will assist in our rendering a useful decision on the matter.

(Salutation, request, and thanks removed. It's all Kylu's fault.) Kylu 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Received:

While it is unorthodox that the enwp ArbCom is requested to participate in the steward selection process, we understand the stewards would wish to have as much information as possible to make a determination and we will answer your questions:

1. The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy.
   
2. The Committee has no knowledge of any abuse of checkuser or oversight tools by Lar nor reason to believe any such have taken place.
   
3. As far as the committee knows, Lar has not unduly used his status as a steward to influence a discussion beyond the usual deference often accorded by many editors to trusted members of the community.
   
4. We have seen no behavior on Lar's part that is far enough outside community norms that it would reach the level where attention from the Committee is sought or warranted.
   

In short, while we do not and cannot endorse or oppose any specific candidate, to the best of our knowledge the allegations enumerated in your email are not supported by any findings of this Committee.

-- Coren, for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

As received by email, minus salutation. Discussion is expected to remain civil. Kylu 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I confirm that this is the email sent by myself on behalf of the enwp ArbCom. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(I note, however, that it might be helpful to actually post the questions that email answers) — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the fun in that? Kylu 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of the opposers were just trying to make things up just to get Lar off of being a steward. While I know that he goes to the Wikipedia Review, my interactions with him have been pleasant and the reasons for opposition, in my opinion, were completely unfounded because I know Lar, and I know that he would never do those things. Hope that that was civil enough for you :) Razorflame 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the committee members could have various opinions without necessarily agreeing with the above. Or, the members of the community could disagree with the committee. I am sure that the fact that there hasn't been an ArbCom case on Lar would have been enough to supply the same exact thing as the committee's message, but then there would have been less drama (or possibly more! everything seems to cause drama these days). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for your second point, but as to the first: this is an official response from the Committee as a whole. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. I was just responding to the "making things up" part by stressing that everyone can have their own version of reality and still all be correct. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lar semi redux

I have some concern with the Steward's elicitation of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia. I'm asking that somehow my concerns can be assuaged.

In reference to Lar's confirmation request. Will the stewards be placing a any amount of weight on the statements of the arbitration committee? Will it be seen as the arbitration committee of any projects will be able to vet candidates for confirmation. Surely I'm not the only one (or possibly am the only) seeing a perception issue with this activity. If stewards do confirm him, we will have the issue that a single committee was able to cause his confirmation by invalidating (thus, disenfranchising the very community that was eligible to vote) the votes of those concerned due to those concerns being addressed by this local committee. If stewards do not confirm him, we will have the issue that the opposer caused the failure. And now those opposes look like drama mongers because the arbitration committee's statement has now been brought into the picture. Alternatively, it is possible that the opposes are in fact correct. I see that by requesting the statements, we have created a unique, complicated, and possibly less than ideal decision situation by involving a local project's committee. Now it appears the stewards have to judge the validity of the committees statement and the opposes statements. Stewards, how will you address this? Warmly, NonvocalScream 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not totally clear on what your concern is. A number of allegations were raised by various parties during the comment period, including statements about what en:wp ArbCom did or did not find when matters were brought to their attention. The ArbCom was asked to comment on the allegations and clarify their findings on these various questions. As requested, ArbCom has made a statement offering clarification. I certainly hope that my fellow stewards take that statement into account, if they have any remaining doubts. However that's not an invalidation of people's views. It is a correction of misperceptions. People cited diffs claiming things about what ArbCom said or did not say that just were not true. That perhaps reflects badly on those people, to be sure, but no one is saying they cannot have whatever opinion they wish. You have asked how stewards will address this matter. I think they will address it fairly and judiciously, and evaluate for themselves whether the trust placed in me by the community at my election, and by the community and by them, at my previous reconfirmation remains. ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With all respect Lar, I supported you. But I don't support a confirmation at the risk of disenfranchisement. I don't support a denial of your confirmation based on misconceptions as you put it. This is a delicate situation that will dictate how the stewards handle future elections, with regards to the majority, and with regards to internal responsibilities (stewards confirming these discussions) and external influences (is is responsible to ask a local project's governing body to comment on the validity of portions of the discussion). I would like to know how the stewards plan on addressing this. I have cited my concerns exactly above, so I don't understand what is hard for you about the clarity of my concerns. I'm seeking an above board explanation to those concerns. I desire what is best for the Foundation, for the candidate, and for the members that voted. You do understand that what is done today, is not solely about you, but is about setting a precedent. This needs to be carefully and thoughtfully approached and discussed. With respect, NonvocalScream 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Stewards have the right, and the obligation, to ask for clarification of matters, where appropriate. This request was initiated by other stewards, although I certainly welcomed it once I learned of it. (I myself was satisfied by the fact that that all of the current or former ArbCom members who chose to comment as private citizens, with the sole exception of Jayjg, who was stripped of his CU, OV, and functionary status by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming a functionary, even those who opposed reconfirmation, did so without in any way supporting the incorrect statements being bandied about). If there is a future situation where asking for clarification is useful (as it was, for example a few years ago with Oscar) I hope the then current stewards act as wisely as they have here, and seek clarification. ArbCom expressed no opinion on my suitability. They merely corrected misstatements of fact. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To concentrate my above... I would think it would be a good idea for in the process of the stewards deciding the confirmation, that there might be an accounting for how they came to the decision (involving the statement) on a public page, like this one. And I'm sure that accounting will answer all my concerns... if the stewards continue to be as thoughtful and explanatory as they have been in the past. I hope my meaning is better conveyed with this posting. Best, NonvocalScream 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi NonvocalScream. The committee was unofficially asked for clarification by a user, not by the steward group. There is no special precedent set — everyone is welcome to invite or provide clarifications during the confirmation process.

Judging the significance of each argument is a fundamental part of the confirmation process. The en-Wikipedia committee has been cited repeatedly in Lar's discussion; this is why they were asked for information. Their statements will be examined just as carefully as those presented by others. They are simply a source of information on the conflict that occurred on the English Wikipedia. —Pathoschild 05:50:25, 06 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... so I am understanding... the statement by arbcom will be a source of clarifying factual information for the stewards when making the decision. The stewards will use that when the stewards are evaluating the discussion and making the decision. Will the stewards offer up a summary on how they came to the decision, perhaps discuss openly this one? Thank you for the time, NonvocalScream 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Public discussion is the idea. That is the purpose of the above sections. —Pathoschild 05:58:12, 06 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your quick and thoughtful responses. Very warmly, NonvocalScream 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussions must be public

The summaries look great, and they do convey a lot of information. Props to Pathos and everyone who contributed and are still working on this. That being said, however, I will note that there is no actual discussion amongst the Stewards taking place on the page marked "for Steward discussion only" until now. I'm not going to participate on those, following through on my statement, but I will reiterate: those discussions are supposed to be public. They are not to take place on steward-l or any other private listing. I certainly took heat during this reconfirmation because all of my statements during last year's reconfirmation were public. And that is just fine. Being chosen for this job means our rationales become public domain, in a matter of speaking. Not discussing elections, reconfirmations and similar matters on non-wiki venues, unless privileged information needs to be exchanged, is a vow I took when I was chosen as both a Bureaucrat at the English-language Wikipedia and a Steward of the Foundation. I know some of the Stewards complained I didn't follow discussions on steward-l last year, but as a matter of fact I would be obliged not to take them into account. The Steward discussion is the second phase of a public procedure. This is the page where the discussions are supposed to take place, so I would urge my fellow Stewards to start discussing whatever issues they perceive here. Statistics and charts are fine, but they are by no means the single measure of the Stewards' discussions. Redux 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Redux, the section states "This section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward." - The discussions regarding retaining stewards have not yet started, and will not likely start until the new stewards are appointed/approved by the Board. The only decisions made, so far, have been the nihil obstat. Sukida 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but some of the nihil obstat closes have been ones where there were people opposed to the confirmations in the initial discussions. Presumably then nihil obstat in this context means no stewards objecting rather than no one objecting. How have those decisions been made? Moreover, shouldn't we wait for the new stewards to be sure of that? In cases where there are literally no opposes this makes more sense. Once there are even one or two saying nihil obstat now with no public justification seems bad. JoshuaZ 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which nihil obstat closes had objections (specifically as opposed to neutral and 'concerned but favorable to confirmation' comments) in them? Those should be changed from nihil obstat to open discussion. Sukida 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Drini is the obvious one. Jusjih also. Thogo and Rdsmith are the only others. All other nihil obstats had zero objections. JoshuaZ 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you link (either by steward/username or diff) to the objections on those nihil obstats? Drini has one "neutral" but no objections, I don't see objections in the comments of the others at all. Sukida 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I screwed up. Read concerned as opposes above. The fact that we label them in the same categories above is very confusing and downplays communal opinion. Maybe they should be split up? JoshuaZ 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if that had been the case, unanimity is not a requirement for confirmation. Specially because it had been a purely Commons matter without relation to steward performance (remember it's not stewards' task to act as local police ). es:Drini 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In JoshuaZ's defense, nihil obstat is only used here when there are no objections at all, not merely "it's obvious this person will be confirmed." Of course, we're absolutely butchering the original meaning with this use, but it's handy. But yes, you'd be confirmed anyway, since you're such a wonderful person. :) Sukida 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope that the stewards doing the deciding look at the comments instead of just the summaries! I honestly thought you were intentionally making a point at how the summary charts were possibly misleading. Sukida 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

May I point that the concern/neutral about me had nothing to do with steward duties (more like Commons one) and that I had zarroo opposes? And that such user was asked later and agreed to "let it go"? And if I'm the problem one, I don't even want to think this is a storm in a glass of water. es:Drini 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, may I suggest to the stewards that the TOC be moved above the start of the div? Having the TOC within the "box" might give the impression that the entire page is steward-only-editing to those who don't peruse the entire page. Sukida 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't remember any requirement to take a vow on anything. Please link. I also find it troubling that you would be forced into a religious oath. It seems a tad odd when compared to the rest of the site. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt an oath is a requirement of the Ordo Dominics Stewardium, though one hesitates to assume there's an openness and transparency clause in any secret society oath. ;) Sukida 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not religious, and not a requirement, but they were points made, and addressed by me, in the threads where I was being considered for both jobs. When I was being considered for Bureaucratship on the en-wp, there was actually a question along the lines of "will you promess not to discuss Bureaucrat-related work on any non-public, non-wiki pages?". During the advisory election for Steward when I was eventually appointed, there were concerns raised that questions and certain reservations raised about candidates were being addressed via e-mail or on talk pages and not on the "election" page. Honestly, this is a reasonable and rather sensitive caveat to being a Steward or a Bureaucrat. One of the oldest and most competent Bureaucrats I have had the pleasure of working with on en-wp used to say that "being in this position [Bureaucrat] means that you will be questioned about any given decision, and you must be prepared to explain yourself, at all times." The reconfirmation is a two-phase procedure, and it is public. Unless there is privileged information to be exchanged, there is no reason why the second phase of this procedure should be private. It is as I said: if you are a Steward, your rationales are public domain. Be prepared to explain yourself, and know that there will always be someone who will not like it.
If any of the "no objection (nihil obstat)" confirmations were automatic and based solely on there not being any objections during the community input phase, that would be wrong. The Stewards are supposed to discuss each case, taking the input under advisement. But in theory, the Stewards could be privy to information that the rest of the community might be unaware of. The reconfirmation ended nearly a week ago, there is no reason why the discussions, at least on some of the issues, should not have started until now. We shouldn't be waiting for all the percentages to discuss, precisely because, as it was mentioned above, we need to look at the concerns raised, and not at the statistics, in order to make a decision.
Stewards are charged with this decision, and it is one of the few times when we are actually demanded to express judgement. So they must do it. Do it publicly, as it is required by the position. And be prepared to explain themselves. Like I had to. Redux 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A small addendum: there is no requirement to wait for the new appointments to start discussions, even if out of courtesy they are waited for before a final decision is made. I'm not sure, but I believe last year was actually the first time the newly appointed Stewards participated in the discussions. This is particularly tricky because appointing new Stewards is up to the Board of Trustees, and that can sometimes take a while. And, as I pointed out before, it is not particularly fair or reasonable to leave a review process open for nearly two months, as it happened last year. Nobody wants hasty decisions, obviously, but neither does it take 20 days to discuss a reconfirmation. The Stewards must be able to coordinate and reach a conclusion within a reasonable amount of time. That is also part of the job. Redux 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Redux, you are completely not-believable. I know for a fact that Crats have discussed matters on lists for a very long time. All jobs have done that since the beginning. Your emphasis and statements seem to project a point of view that seems to have no basis in Wikipedia or Wikimedia tradition. The statement about the "vows" was pointing out your substitution of grandiose language for actual fact and links. If you wanted a public discussion, simply state "I would like a public discussion". However, your posts above make it seem like you are seeking something worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Crats have been doing it, the Stewards were doing it last year. Doesn't make it right. Accepting it as "tradition" — which it isn't — seems rather inconsistent with the observations that have been made over and over regarding the Steward reconfirmation and other Steward actions. Maybe the people who were demanding this type of "higher moral ground" have moved on and those who are here now are somewhat used to this so-called "tradition". But you need to ask yourself: do you honestly believe that those decisions should be made on private discussions? Everything that I have been reading indicates to me that people would not prefer that, nor would they agree to it. And if you do think that it is not supposed to work like this, you should not be labeling my comments as "grandiose language with no basis on tradition". It becomes a tradition if we accept it as such and stop questioning it as if there was no alternative. There is, and the "alternative" was actually here before the "tradition". As either a Steward or a Bcrat, I ought to be accountable for everything I do in those capacities, I expect to be. Anything other than that is not compatible with the type of job I sought of my own free will: Stewards and Bureaucrats are not a collegiate, like an ArbCom. We are chosen to use the tools under our individual judgement (in a manner of speaking), and if necessary we will explain or clarify our thought process. I'm not about to post a rationale that could be summarized as "this is what 'we' decided after a long, careful discussion that nobody but us had access to".
As for the situations I mentioned, you need only read through the 2006 Steward "election" page and my Bcrat nomination page on en.wiki. I'm sorry, but I can't provide properly formatted links because I'm at my work place, using what little free time I have to write those and, to top it all off, Wikipedia is blocked here (but the Meta Wiki is not). Redux 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a couple of examples from en.wp: a while back, the Bcrats had to handle what is probably the most controversial request for Adminship of all times there: the re-nomination of former Office Head Danny. A lot of people loved him, and a lot of people hated him. It was so sensitive that, as an exception, the Bcrats decided to work as a collegiate. The decision was made on a specifically set-up page on en.wp, not via e-mail or on IRC. Another example, involving just me: when a user who was asking for Adminship created a sock account to pretend to be his own cousin (or brother, I don't recall which) letting us know that the candidate "had just died in a car crash", I handled the entire situation on the Requests for Adminship general page and on the specific request page. Since we didn't know if it was true at first, I froze the RfA until we could ascertain what had happened, but was overruled by Danny, who used his Office prerrogative to shut down the RfA and all discussions. Except Danny did everything from IRC. I didn't go on IRC to talk to him, I didn't e-mail him. I only posted on the public page, saying something to the effect of "I was unaware that Danny was about to use his prerrogative as Office Head, but what he decided goes and the RfA is cancelled. And I wish we would have those discussions on public pages on Wikipedia, and not on IRC". I'm sure those should both be relatively easy to find. Redux 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Redux, all I see right now is a user who could have been active and wasn't, and then the community felt like expressing their dissatisfaction in their performance. Your statements are very long winded and do not reflect the fact that many stewards posted -during- the confirmation their various opinions. As such, I cannot see any grounds for you to stand on. You have opined a lot about what should be when you have done very little to make what -is-. Your activity level has been to such low levels that I cannot really accept your statements. Note, I did not respond either way on your confirmation, so there was no bias or predisposed view coming into this discussion. These are merely a view by one person who is looking in after the fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And nor am I campaigning for anything. I wasn't before, I'm not now. This is not an election, yet again. I posted to point out that all we are seeing here are statistics, and that is not what should be happening. I would ask that you do not affirm that I "could have been active but wasn't", since that implies a number of things that simply are not true. I was not active because I couldn't be. I had no time, I was otherwise engaged, or whatever way you want to phrase it, it's explained in my statement. Period. Last year, I intervened when I saw the reconfirmation being treated blatantly as an election, when it was left open for nearly two months with no conclusion in sight. I found the time to "change what is", as you put it. And how exactly does one change anything on Wikimedia if not by expressing opinions during discussions? I would say that I am trying to "change what is" right now, by starting this very discussion, even if I'm not doing it as a Steward. What exactly do you propose I should be doing? Especially considering that, whenever I use restricted tools, I do it adhering to the exact standards I have been talking about here, like I did last year. This, right here, is what needs, and should, be done.
What any of the Stewards have posted in the first phase of the reconfirmation they post as regular users. I will hear what they have to say, just like I will hear what you or anyone else had to say. I fail to see how I have "no grounds to stand" because a single Steward defended the private discussion on steward-l — which I am assuming you are referring to, since my original comment was referring to discussions needing to be public. If you are referring to the "remove per inactivity" posts, that is completely out of topic and not what I am talking about here at all. I trust that the body of Stewards will act with the necessary neutrality and detachment during the second phase.
And I cannot see any relation between my level of activity being low at the moment and my stating that private discussions in certain situations are not adequate. Redux 06:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)