Stewards/confirm/2010/zh-hans

English:

The 2010-11 confirmation will begin on February 7, and will finish on February 28th.

The 2010-11 steward elections are a good opportunity to check if we are still happy with our current stewards. To make the process as smooth as possible, here is how things are organized.

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2010. During the 2010 elections, please mention if you are unhappy with one of the persons listed below and why. For example, you may mention inactivity or negative behaviour. Inactive stewards, as stated in the steward policies, will lose their steward access.

At the end of the elections, the current and newly elected stewards will consider complaints left on this page, and choose to remove stewardship as necessary taking into account both the comments left by community and their own perspective and understanding of the job. All stewards will go through this process after each election.

Alexanderps

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: pt, es-2, en-2, gl-2
Personal info: Steward since last election, I work with the requests on SRP. I hope can help the wikiprojects more this year. Thanks.

Comments about Alexanderps

basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Inactive...~~ Maybe not inactive, but what Laaknor said is... concerning. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. User should be removed as a steward. Tiptoety ^talk 08:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 11:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Confirm, though I would like to see more activity.~~ --Erwin 14:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Laaknor. --Erwin 13:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically inactive and doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools. According to this section of the village pump, on pt.wikinews checks were done by Alexanderps routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (including a bot account). User should be removed as a steward. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
inactive - so adios! Marcus Cyron 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sadly inactive but if he prefers to go on his job as steward then yes please but otherwise remove --Mardetanha ^talk 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity, can't reconfirm this user as steward. Finn Rindahl 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Erwin. Obelix 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Erwin. Not so inactive.--Jusjih 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 99 rightchanges he has done, 30 are in his home wiki/native language where he according to the steward-policy shouln't change rights, and the local community has said that they do not trust him (because of this?!), and the rest of his steward-work is mostly "easy" stuff like SRP. Because of this, I have to say remove Laaknor 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not completely inactive (there was activity in December and before that), but Laaknor's concern is somewhat valid. neutral so far --FiliP ██ 11:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you're not around helping us then it isn't helpful for you to have the tools. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Laaknor and others, sorry you aren't very active and don't seem to have an interest in becoming active. That coupled with the loss of support from your community makes me worry. James (T C) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive, remove. Razor flame 07:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). oscar 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not because of this, Laaknor. The community doesn't trust him anymore cause the checkuser tools were used without a valid reason. He says here that any recently created accounts were being checked, with no reason, with no use of summary. The ombudsman commission was comunicated about the fact. According to "CheckUser policy" the tool should removed immediately. It was not done, wich is a shame for this project. I have to say that I'm sure this user has good faith and it wasn't done for his own benefit.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to fathom why. The role is mop and bucket extraordinaire. If you want to use them, then please do so, if not, then move on. It seems to be a simple decision, but not one where your intentions are stated, just a small smattering of words. Yes if there is going to be output, no if you intend to repeat 2009 billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. Xqt 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Remove, unfortunately. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even small but regular involvement is helpful to other stewards. --Millosh 13:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been around the whole year to know, but logs suggest inactivity, so no need for the tools. --Egmontaℨ♤ 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove rights because of preventive checkuser of new users at pt-wikinews (see link above). The Ombudsman committee was approached with this, but since ombudsmen are supposed to deal only with the Privacy policy (which was not violated) and not the Checkuser Policy ("There must be a valid reason to check a user."), I forwarded the case to the WMF. But I stated my opinion clearly that a checkuser must not perform checks without a valid reason, and that reason must be justified by the behaviour of the user to be checkusered. The fact that there is a persistent troll out there is not sufficient to checkuser random newly registered accounts, some of them without any edits on that wiki, others regular editors in good standing on other projects. --Tinz 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
remove Concerns about overuse of checkuser are severe and have not been addressed. JoshuaZ 03:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove because of inactivity. --FollowTheMedia 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the lack of activeness. --Caspian blue 16:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove regarding the statement of Tinz above. --Stepro 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive, remove --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Erwin too. Mwaldeck ^msg 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Due to inactivity. Thank you for your service. NonvocalScream 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Prodego ^talk 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because inactive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove because of lack of trust (and per Teles, Tinz, Laaknor) --Geitost ^diskusjon 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not trust you. Self-granting oversight right on home wiki doesn't look good. LeinaD (t) 16:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No any activity after creating of statement (log info) and unstabil checkuser actions in pt-wikinews → remove. —Innv {ru-ws} 09:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Engels

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: nl, en, de...
Personal info: I have not been doing much lately, and to be honest that isn't very likely to change soon; still, it might. If people find that too little, I can accept it. On the other hand, I think I'm still trusted, and every little bit of help is help. And I do promise to do what I do the best I can, even if it is little.

Comments about Andre Engels

basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
trusted user, helpful and worth keeping MoiraMoira 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can be trusted, even with less activity. Davin 08:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Confirm, some recent activity. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, though I would like to see more activity. --Erwin 14:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Active enough per policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nearly inactive - so adios! Sorry Andre - but you are one of the guys here who think this is a Order. No, it's a job with hard work. Marcus Cyron 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm but what please care to Erwins point --Mardetanha ^talk 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to work again, I say Confirm. JAn Dudík 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erwin. Not so inactive.--Jusjih 03:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not very much activity, but a good steward nonetheless. neutral so far, inclined towards keeping --FiliP ██ 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obelix 11:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd rather see you move to another role which you can fulfill on a more constant basis. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, basically inactive and has stated he does not think he will become active anytime soon. I'll fully admit the inactivity policy currently in place is far to weak for my own likes. James (T C) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no confirm. Razor flame 07:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, per Erwin Freaky Fries 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Waerth 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - DustSpinner 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). oscar 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Taketa 13:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what a dichotomy we set ourselves, active inactivity / inactive activity; yet we are supposedly desperate for the mop and bucket extraordinaires, so we don't dare release. I feel that there needs to be a commitment to a certain level of activity. Or a commitment to work in an area of specialty. billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [late edit to keep, though a tenuous vote, and more that we need stewards and has flicker of activity] billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lymantria 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. Xqt 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andre is regularly doing a lot for Wikimedian community and he needs steward rights to keep doing that. --Millosh 13:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Andre is a wise and quiet person. It is a pleasure to work together with him. Annabel 07:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current activity, in my opinion, is OK. I hope it will not drop after elections... — NickK 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove because of inactivity. --FollowTheMedia 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the inactivity.--Caspian blue 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but remove per inactivity --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
isn't inactive, please Keep. --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not completely inactive, and I'm not convinced that inactivity is a very good reason for removal. JoshuaZ 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jayjg 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Thank you for your help. NonvocalScream 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andre is someone I've always trusted. I would say keep him in the hope he can continue to help out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, but please be more active. LeinaD (t) 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, active enough in my opinion. Lolsimon 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has recent steward activity (log info) → keep for next time. —Innv {ru-ws} 09:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: fr, en
Personal info: Personal info: Hi ! Although my steward related activities have been very light in the last year, I am still interested in keeping steward access. I'm currently struggling to start professional activities, so my involvement in steward stuff has been limited. But I'm still motivated and involved through the chapter in particular. I'll be happy to keep those access, but I would also fully understand (but regret :)) if removed due to my limited activity.

Comments about Anthere

basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True that Anthere is inactive but (as with Angela, who decided to resign making the point moot) I think there is merit in having the benefit of her expertise available to Stewards. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Lar here... Angela's decision was the right one. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count two steward actions within the last year. If this is true, I respectfully move to remove as inactive per policy, though she's still quite a valued Wikimedian. The foundation is encouraged to add Anthere to an internally-run group (such as Staff) if an exception is warranted. If there are more than ten actions (and I may well be missing some, such as deletion review) please let me know so I can modify this opinion. Kylu 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, inactive. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, sorry, but only 2 steward actions after last confirmation. —Innv {ru-ws} 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any activity, so I'm afraid I must say remove. I do agree with Lar about benefiting from your expertise, but I think you simply are too inactive. (Especially if Kylu's right about the two steward actions.) --Erwin 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need a "steward emeritus" role, folk who left without controversy/in good standing, and who can still stay on the mailing list so we can benefit from their insight and advice, but who no longer have the bit itself? ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I'd like to add that Angela and Anthere were only active in the earliest days and their memory and experience is valuable. --Aphaia 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
she told she wants to be active but she couldn't find anything to do , anyway i would be happy to see you as a active steward but till then i have to say remove --Mardetanha ^talk 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
totally inactive, remove (sadly) --FiliP ██ 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Obelix 11:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
spectacular person who has given a lot to the foundation and its projects (and likely will continue to do so). However, it appears that she doesn't really need the tools and I would tend to say it is better to remove them for now. James (T C) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive, remove. Razor flame 07:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Waerth 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - After everything Anthere has done this is the way she gets treated? Everyone should be ashamed of themselves![reply]
Keep, I'm sure we can find work for her. bastique ^demandez! 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). the case of anthere is special as well, and i know from experience how energy and time-consuming wmf board-work is, and that one really needs time to recover and pick up old and new routines and work again. oscar 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - turstworthy enough -- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if outside life is the priority, make it so, revel in that, the requirement of stewardship is to have a requisite level of activity to meet the needs of the community. The only person who can tell us whether that is capable of being fulfilled is the steward. If you think that what you do matters, and meets the requirement, then you have my support to continue. billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She wants to keep being steward. This is good enough reason for me :) --Millosh 13:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bastique (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any choice will be okay ultimately :-) Perhaps I need to explain why I wish to keep steward access. Some months ago, when I decided not to run again for elections, it was also out of true exhaustion. I needed a break and a very serious one. I feel much better now. But I also need to run like crazy to get again my own life in a working condition (well, such as earning money) and that's a tough one. I kept a few activities in wikimedia related world because I still want to help. But to be fair, that's less than I wish I would do. Last time I went on Commons, I was completely lost within the new rules for deletion and I ran away after a dozen deletions because I was told three times in a row that I should do it this way, not that way, but specifically like this and not like that. I felt completely out of it. A few times, I came to the steward page and felt similarly paralyzed and out of fear of just not doing it the *right* way, I decided to not do anything. I honestly wonder if other oldbies do not feel the same :))) I feel a bit stretched between the idea that I should just do as Angela and completely drop the whole idea of helping in that area (and that would possibly be more reasonable ?), but having the fear that when (if) I want to help again in that area, I will just not be able to do it, and I *know* that I will be too lazy to go again through the entire process to be reelected. It feels like "giving up". To be fair, perhaps the best comment above is the one from Bastique: "Keep, I'm sure we can find work for her." Yeah, what can I be useful for ? Meanwhile... all my thanks to ALL active stewards that help things working properly. Anthere
But, Anthere, when you say A few times, I came to the steward page and felt similarly paralyzed and out of fear of just not doing it the *right* way, I decided to not do anything., why didn't you simply ask if something was unclear? You really don't need to be ashamed for asking other stewards if you don't know what to do or how. ;o) We are there to help, you know. :) And actually, if you do something wrong, it can always be undone, explained and fixed. We are not on Commons, you won't get shouted on if you don't do things the "right way" after a longer break. ;) --თოგო ^(D) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not... I am easily "not bold". Back in 2001... it took me a full month before daring to do my first edit :) Anthere
Anthere, we don't need you for the stray bit flip or rename or global account lock or what have you. We need you for your experience, going way back, so that when we float new ideas on the mailing list you can say "we tried that in 2006 and here's what happened", and when we try to figure out thorny problems, or review policy implications, you can share your expertise with us. That's far more important than bit flipping. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and for your question, that was exactly what I felt when I was back to meta from my several month long wikibreak, and that was mainly why I didn't ask for granting the permission I had lost during my break (it had been just few days ago I came back, lol) ... so stay here, I sure bet you find yourself again quite comfortable and familiar in months or even in weeks, just I'm feeling so again. --Aphaia 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Millosh. Kropotkine 113 08:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Anthere's explanation. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will Beback 09:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay.--Caspian blue 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trustworthy user, her experience is a valuable asset we should not refuse. Lechatjaune 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sorry, inactive. Thanks for your hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Inactive. SM ** =^^= ** 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two actions are more than one, and I'm not sure I find inactivity to be a very good reason for removal anyways. Anthere can clearly be trusted as a Steward. I don't see how the various projects benefit from a removal in this case. JoshuaZ 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – per Kylu and Lar. Too inactive. --Geitost ^diskusjon 03:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Institutional memory serves, and past history of exemplary service. Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 00:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Joshua. If Anthere wants to remain a steward, that's good enough for me. Sarah 04:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Prodego ^talk 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anthere has always provided a level head around the project, and I'd like her to be a steward for that reason alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you will be still inactive, since you write statment you didn't make any steward action. LeinaD (t) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jayjg 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en, fr-3, es-2
Personal info: Hi all. Although my non-staff steward related activities have been light in the last year, (thanks to my staff responsibilities)--I am still active with multiple projects and am available on demand for steward-related functions. I maintain an interest in stewardship and am current on steward procedures (actively read the email list and am in constant contact with other stewards).

Comments about Bastique

Has of course to be confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant steward; needs to be confirmed. Katerenka (d) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sharp, helpful, and available to handle problems probably far more often than should be. Ottava Rima 01:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, reconfirm Bastique! ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, advanced steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Active, useful, so reconfirm. Possibly remove for a period of 7-14 days to enforce a break on the poor guy, though! Kylu 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No brainer; keep him shackled to his chair. -- Avi 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confirm MoiraMoira 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Taichi - (あ！) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 11:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm, of couse --Church of emacs talk 12:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep absolutely!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ChristianH 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. --Erwin 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion too much jobs, but OK. Marcus Cyron 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mardetanha ^talk 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Helpful in the background. Lycaon 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Nakor 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does way to much work, salary should be doubled but other that hold on to him! James (T C) 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selvfølgelig. Finn Rindahl 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, no reason not to --FiliP ██ 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obelix 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razor flame 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 23:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jyothis 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course!--Marco 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 10:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
definitely confirmable. billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I'm not sure, I mean..... who am I kidding? :-) Confirm, of course. --Philippe 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until there is a decent answer to this question:[1] Mr. Bass is Wikimedia Foundation's paid Volunteer Coordinator, and "I don't want to get involved" isn't an acceptable response to incidents of this nature.Proabivouac 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to people who spread vicious lies. Like you're doing here. bastique ^demandez! 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let me get this right: Proabivouac went to Cary with unsubstantiated rumors about a situation in which he was not involved, asked Cary to discuss this theoretical personal situation, and gets irritated because Cary did the quite correct thing in refusing to get involved in drama-mills? And you're questioning Cary's judgment? --Philippe 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cary, when you call me a "[person] who spread[s] vicious lies," you are yourself telling a lie, albeit one intended only to insulate yourself from accountability. You are well aware that these are not "unsubstantiated rumors": I interviewed these women myself, and I believe them. I don't imagine that anything could stop you from being reconfirmed - in DerHexer's words, "Has of course to be confirmed" - but I'd like you to think good and hard about what a responsible person would do in your situation. If a woman joins a Wikimedia project, requests a checkuser or attends a meetup only to be faced with this kind of behavior from a cross-project functionary, I hope you'll agree that's a real problem. I'll go further and say that it's your problem.Proabivouac 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. :] [: --Millosh 13:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep besides my personal preference to see the older people active, he is active enough and trusted. --Aphaia 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kropotkine 113 08:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
raise salary! Laaknor 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. --Túrelio 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issues here. Keep and per Laaknor. --Kanonkas 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Themfromspace 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will Beback 09:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FollowTheMedia 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Always friendly, always helpful. —Deror avi 10:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was going to say "keep with no brainer" until seeing Bastique's response to Proabivouac. I don't know what was going on between the two, but the way he reacted is not what I want from stewards. However, it could be an isolated case, so I give him a benefit of doubt from now.--Caspian blue 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --junafani 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Khoikhoi 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ludo29 11:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays farmville, among other things.... Casliber 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Raymond 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy call... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm aware of his helpful work all around, no issue. Cenarium (Talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cecil 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jayjg 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SergeyJ 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm There are no issues here. Cary, thank you for your continued help in this area. NonvocalScream 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's also my grandpa --Charitwo 03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah 04:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A helpful, thoughtful, hard worker. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LeinaD (t) 16:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thx for hard work Szwedzki 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfirm. Active enough given his other responsibilities. John Vandenberg 05:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cspurrier

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en, de-2, fr-1
Personal info: I have been a steward since Dec 2006. I am currently in the final semester of a MA Anthropology program. This has consumed most of my time for the past year and a half and will likely leave me with little free time until May. After May, I hope to resume a reasonable activity level.

Comments about Cspurrier

basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you should have resigned by now. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see the ten required actions in the local rights log, plus a number of adminless-project deletions within the past year. Kylu 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cspurrier says that he will be return activity after May 2010. —Innv {ru-ws} 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Per Kylu, keep for now. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mike & birdy - inactive. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 11:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral per AGF. Basically, I agree with Mike, but I'd like to see you becoming active after May.~~ --Erwin 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to remove. We need active stewards and I'm afraid promises aren't enough for me. --Erwin 13:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Barely meets activity requirements and says will be more active starting in May. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
remove , last year you promised to be more active --Mardetanha ^talk 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity, can't reconfirm this user as steward.Finn Rindahl 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kylu. Not so inactive.--Jusjih 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very low activity, even less than in 2008 (even though I seem to recollect a promise to become more involved), hence not confirm --FiliP ██ 11:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kylu. Obelix 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razor flame 07:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kylu. bastique ^demandez! 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). in this case i would propose to set a re-evaluation date in 6 months perhaps. oscar 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if the commitment is to resume in May, I think that a wikibreak until then is acceptable, though again the reflection of the community's needs to be paramount in whether they are bringing value in sitting in the seat made available. billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that they do in fact become active in May. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming they will return in May. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kylu. --Millosh 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming that he'll be back in May. --FollowTheMedia 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. You can reapply for the next year's steward election. You said you have not enough time until the half of the year passes by. --Caspian blue 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per Caspian Blue. Majorly talk 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per Kylu --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per Kylu. Claims of inactivity are inaccurate. Low activity is not the same as no activity. JoshuaZ 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joshua and especially also because of willing to come back after May. --Geitost ^diskusjon 02:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kylu. Net positive. Durova 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've got no room to talk about inactivity, and I understand that the stewards aren't bots; they need a break at times. Cspurrier is a net-positive even with just a few actions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kylu. Jayjg 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Please re elect once you have time, and thank you for your service! NonvocalScream 01:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he says the inactivity is temporary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kylu. LeinaD (t) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darkoneko

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: fr, en-3
Personal info: My general statement isn't that different from last year's : as a steward, I sometimes make a few mistakes but I think I'm not doing a bad work overall.
For those not aquainted to me yet:
- My home wiki is frwiki, the french Wikipedia. I arrived in nov. 2004 and became a sysop there in march 2005. I also worked there as a bureaucrat for 3 years (jun 2006 - sep. 2009) but gave up the bit so I could spend more time on other things.
- I manage a bot named Loveless (see [2] and [3])
- I became steward at end of 2006. I don't really do steward requests on wiki but rather use my availability time to take care of the emergency people tells us of on IRC (#wikimedia-stewards), which mainly consist of blocking vandals on wiki not having active sysops (sometimes blocking them globally if they go cross-wiki) and often help repair the damage they did. My public steward activities (everything but Oversight and Checkuser) are viewable on this page ; those local to meta (like right changes) on this one.

Comments about Darkoneko

Oh yes, please. Very often available. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a bird likes a cat ^^^ ... that says a lot. Neko's the cat's meow, in fact. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, why not? —Innv {ru-ws} 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Active, keeper. Kylu 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
of course! James (T C) 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*meow*. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep MoiraMoira 07:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Taichi - (あ！) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Katerenka (d) 09:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm! --Church of emacs talk 12:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yep, confirm, absolutely ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, confirm. − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. --Erwin 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Marcus Cyron 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per birdy Support --Mardetanha ^talk 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm JAn Dudík 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nakor 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
selvfølgelig Finn Rindahl 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Jusjih 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, meow --FiliP ██ 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obelix 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razor flame 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jyothis 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meow bastique ^demandez! 23:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy of every cent of renumeration. Keep.billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every cent... *grumble* es:Drini 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure ! Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not like you'd need anymore support, but it is always nice to point out when someone does a good job. Ottava Rima 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm, doing good bizness --Mercy 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meow --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Innv. --Millosh 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anthere 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kropotkine 113 08:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thiz iz serius biznis! He can keeps mop! - εΔ ω 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Fuck yeah, We want Darkoneko for Steward ! Kyro 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pan, pan, pan, pan, panda-neko. Pan, pan, pan, pan, panda-neko. oups. Confirm --KrebMarkt 08:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stepro 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --junafani 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Vyk 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Inappropriate behaviour, especially on fr. I can't trust him. SM ** =^^= ** 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are no problems with this steward since he has got the status. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — The relationships between Darkoneko and a very small group of users on wp-FR have strictly no connection to his job as a steward. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No problem with his work as a steward + active so no reason not to trust him. Loreleil 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moyg 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per birdy, DerHexer, Kylu, Lar, and everyone else who knows better than I the depth of his work :) -- Avi 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --VanBrooken 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not sure I can trust you. → Moipaulochon ☎ ← 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove because you throw accusations and twisted around. Galdrad 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'd appreciate if you could tell us what are exactly those "accusations"... Is it related to his stewardship? or his activities on the wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation? − Elfix × talk (fr) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Good evening~~ Good night. Well, I think saying this isn't worthy of a Steward (moreover without verifying anything). Given what we saw, I fear he uses his tools against us. Thanks, Galdrad 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why he shouldn't have said that… and I don't see any threat in this message. Who is the "us" that you're talking about? Anyway, that is absolutely not related to his stewardship, but to a secret channel on freenode. − Elfix × talk (fr) 08:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A steward need to be fair and trusty. Since recents events ont IRC, I don't trust him anymore. Furthermore, I well remember the story with Neerdael. That's the comment of "gardrantruc". Thanks, Galdrad 13:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Clem23 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm --Hercule 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Popo le Chien 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm -- Perky 12:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 01:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems helpful and active. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :) LeinaD (t) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Dave souza 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm active enough. John Vandenberg 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: de, en-3, grc-3, la-2, es-2
Personal info: Hi folks! I would like to continue working as a steward. Because of my studies in RL I unfortunally could not be as active during the last year as I would have liked to. But I tried to be frequently available on IRC to help out esp. on #cvn-unifications and #wikimedia-stewards. Concerning the first one I mostly did oversight related stuff, also as temporary oversight on frwiki. On the other hand, I managed those requests which were taken to the steward channel; in this context I'd like to thank all those helpers! All in all I did about 2,000 logged steward actions on meta during the last year, and highly likely even more sysop and esp. oversight actions on local wikis which I haven't counted but can be partially seen in the stats. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about DerHexer

Has to be confirmed, of course. bastique ^demandez! 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And is an awesome steward who knows no bounds - B
we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant steward, definitely needs to be confirmed. Katerenka (d) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome steward, has to be confirmed :) --Church of emacs talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC) oh, and happy birthday! :)[reply]
confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
because we need sorcerers, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very active. —Innv {ru-ws} 01:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
confirm for another term. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A talented individual who uses the tools well. Ottava Rima 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heck(s) ya! Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removal would be a blow to the projects, obvious keep. Kylu 02:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if we cloned him, would he be DerDuodecaler? -- Avi 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe DieHexer ~ TheWizards or ZweiHexer ~ TwoWizards. ;) —DerHexer (Talk) 14:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent steward! --Holder 06:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very active, very good, definite confirm James (T C) 06:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorcerers are good for WMF. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep MoiraMoira 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Taichi - (あ！) 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good steward, please keep. --Bsadowski1 07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active steward. Tiptoety ^talk 08:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active, good work. –Ejs-80 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we Support him :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work as steward (and as temporary oversighter on frwiki ;) ). − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ChristianH 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Often around, always willing to help, doing a lot of good work. --Erwin 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Said a couple of weeks ago that he would cry if someone opposed him on his birthday. I therefor oppose, and say happy birthday! Laaknor 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)~~ keep ofcourse! Laaknor 08:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I cry. :'( :P —DerHexer (Talk) 14:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lukas9950 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best we have. I would better see him writing articles but the Wikimedia projects actually need him the most here. Marcus Cyron 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try to do the splits with w:de:Laokoon atm. :) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One the best wikipedians whom i ever know , keep up your good work --Mardetanha ^talk 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work -> confirm; happy birthday! --buecherwuermlein 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nakor 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JZ85 08:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, as everyone else above, what else? Happy birthday (have had yesterday / gehabt zu haben). best wishes --Geitost ^diskusjon 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep --FiliP ██ 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obelix 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stefan64 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razor flame 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep! --M.L 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 23:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood user.--Farct 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jyothis 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
supported by --Sargoth 09:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without any doubt.--Marco 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clone and keep. billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yep. Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm, always willing to help --Mercy 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XenonX3 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Keep please, one of the best![reply]
mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, of course. --Philippe 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks for your work! Lymantria 12:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. Xqt 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and torture. --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valiant and bold crosswiki vandalfighter. His superpowers make me feel safer. - εΔ ω 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great work. --APPER 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Roo1812 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. --Tinz 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. --Túrelio 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Themfromspace 22:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Opposeper this conversation. His English clearly appears to be not what he describes.seems kind but unresponsive. While the candidate introduces himself able to speak advanced English, but he attributed his belated answer in a brief sentence to his English. So I'm not sure about his language ability.--Caspian blue 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why “Since I'm […] busy with exams, I cannot help you adequately at the moment.” was so ambiguous. I've even forwarded your mail to steward-l but no other one was able to help you, also not the native speakers. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you have not answered to my next message which directly asked your assessment. The unresponsiveness is not my only assessment either.-Caspian blue 12:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit ~~audacious~~daring (changed later) to respond to my mail where I've written that I do not have time because of my exams, with an ever longer mail with more expectations. Have you ever read my mail? Why did you not accept that I haven't had the time to answer, although I explained you why? Do you expect stewards to ignore all things which happen in real life? And am I the only steward which could have helped you? I really feel sorry that I could not assist you, which I've also written in my mail. But if I cannot help you, I cannot. It shouldn't be too hard to accept that. So please remind that also stewards are volunteers. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
audacious - what a wrong and offensive choice of language for your defense. I'm switching my vote from now to oppose per this conversation in which you show me not a good communication skill. I of course read your email with only very short three sentences, that's why I could you send the next email not via Wikipedia email. Your first reply in one week was fully understandable for your personal matter, but the next one was not. I asked your "simple" assessment in your capacity (it did not require other steward's input which just would take for a few minutes) but you have not replied to it for about one month. Moreover, I did not consent you to forward my message to them without asking me first. Moreover, another editor said you have not replied too. So that is why I feel to say that you're not responsive.--Caspian blue 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, audacious derives from Latin audax resp. audacia, and perfectly fits here. Or do you think any other of these words would have fitted better? audacious is one of the nicest words of them, which is I why I have chosen it. Because I assumed good faith also in that case where you have not asked for simple assessment, but instead wrote dozens of lines although you knew that I was and will also be busy with exams and neither could nor would answer. The only way to assist you, was to ask other ones.
As I explained now more than once: I really dislike not to help others as fast as possible, but if I'm not able to, how shall I do it? I'm not prefect, nobody is. Nor do I know everything. I try to do by best, each and everytime. I feel ashamed that I could not help you, but I couldn't. And it makes me quite sad that you cannot accept that. So kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please look up the word in a dictionary. That means "impudent" or "how dare you" - insulting language. You also have not explained why you did not first ask my permission on whether I would be okay for your forwarding my message to other stewards. I think your communication skill is not good.--Caspian blue 16:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two meanings: 1. kühn, verwegen, 2. (negative) dreist, unverfroren; the first one was meant, of course; it was even weakened with "a bit". OALD lists to audacious: willing to take risks or to do sth shocking. I was in fact shocked why you have sent me another, even longer mail, although I told you that I neither would nor could respond/help you. And sorry for not letting you know that I've forwarded your mail, that was wrong. Please I excuse that. I just wanted to assist you, although I could not do that on my own. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're bringing with the German translation since you know I'm not German. You said due to your personal matter, you can not help me "at the moment". Your way of defending yourself is "shocking" to me. I gave you a benefit of doubt, so I was in "neutral" position, but your obviously bad communication skill does not give me enough comfort to confirm you as a steward. Sorry, that is my final answer--Caspian blue 16:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't had an edit conflict I had added some links to en.wiktionary: w:wikt:kühn e.g. So apparently daring should have been used instead of adacious. So please forgive this single word. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: The precedent comment was changed after that reply.[reply]

Caspian blue, the best volunteers are the people that know how to manage their time well by finding balance between all their responsibilities. DerHexer does this well and that is one reason he is a strong asset to WMF projects. FloNight 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my assessment, FloNight although I highly respect your works at the English Wikipedia.--Caspian blue 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. FloNight 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep --Stepro 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) "could not be as active during the last year as I would have liked to"?? More activity could be unhealthy. ;-)[reply]
Keep Hexer keeps calm while others around him flame. --WiseWoman 08:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why not? --Ida Shaw 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No worries here. Ceoil 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --junafani 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --LadyInGrey 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only concern brought up is English language ability. I see no problems with it. (Heck his English looks better than mine and I'm a native speaker). JoshuaZ 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Raymond 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cecil 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Pablo X 00:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trustworthy and seems to be active enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! a lot of good work LeinaD (t) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He used oversight inappropriately in November 2009 on English Wikipedia, resulting in the Randy in Boise mess. He is an admin on this wiki, and it is his home wiki; he participated in an election to obtain the Oversight bit on English Wikipedia in February 2009, and was not appointed. Stewards are expected to avoid using their steward tools on their home wiki - that rule exists to avoid stewards being pressured from their close friends on their home wiki. In his public statement about this, he did not say who had convinced him on IRC to use oversight in this situation without first googling the phrase he suppressed.(I note that they support his continued stewardship here) In addition, DerHexer refused to provide information to the English Wikipedia Audit Subcommittee regarding the "Randy in Boise" mess, even after repeated requests. John Vandenberg 04:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know why it is important that I failed by one single vote in an oversight election where I was involuntarily pushed in, but that wiki is, in fact, not my homewiki. I first started editing on dewiki and I'm still active there whereby I just regularily edited enwiki from April 2007 to March 2008 where I called that my second homewiki and became an admin. I've made more edits on dewiki than on enwiki and would have changed the SUL information about my homewiki from enwiki to dewiki if that would be possible. But even if it would be my homewiki your conclusion is wrong. Steward policy (SP#Avoid_conflicts_of_interest) says: “Stewards should use their judgment to avoid conflicts of interest, situations where they are not impartial to the decision. Such situations should be left to neutral stewards. These include: # using steward access on any wiki where they have been blocked; # changing rights on home wikis (wikis where they are active community members), except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies).” I'm not blocked on enwiki and have not changed my rights for that oversight action because Stewards have global oversight access concerning this bug. But even if I had changed my rights I would not have done that on my homewiki (as I explained) and I also assumed an emergency action (see below) which allowed me according to the Oversight policy to act how I acted: “Local oversighters should generally handle local oversighting, when they're available. Stewards may perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki oversighting, or if there are no local oversighters available (see contact details).”

Now to that special case: I was asked by a local bureaucrat (so a trustworthy person) to remove a private information which “outed him”. I knew that bureaucrat because of my interactions on enwiki in the past, that is true, but I know many crats from many projects. We talked rarely to each other so that I would not call him a close friend and I assume he me neither. Later the involved “outed” user confirmed that request. The crats told me that the other user has sent a mail to oversight-l to let the private information be removed. That happened more than an hour ago and I was told that no one had discussed there, which is why the crat asked me what now should be done. There was also no oversight on IRC, so I acted in an emergency action where no local oversight was available which perfectly fits in the oversight policy. So it was of course no abuse, the AUSC confirmed that, and I'm still confused as to why these facts cannot be accepted. Later I was told that it was discussed, but that cannot be my fault because I haven't had access to that list (nor have it atm although it was recommented by AUSC to give stewards access to the list and I have asked for) and one person with access to the list told me that they haven't discussed it. The problematic information was: user name with “[…] Randy from Boise […]“. The “outed” user's name is in fact Randy, he felt frightened to be outed and asked others to remove it as fast as possible. Because no one (as I was told) took care of his request I made the decision to work according to the foundation's privacy policy, oversight policy §1 (“# Removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public, or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public.”) and steward policy (see above). It came out in the aftermath that “Randy from Boise” is a saying which neither the “outed” user, nor the crat, nor me, nor many other native speakers knew. I feel very sorry that I have not double-checked if that phrase could mean any other thing than outing the user. It was important in my understanding of privacy, as foundation constituted it, to remove that published information as fast as possible; and while oversight actions can now luckily be reverted, I made that decision based on the information I had. That might not have been the best one, but of course made with best faith and according to our policies. If that can be called a mistake, others have to decide.

Finally, it is untrue that I refused to provide information to the AUSC. We mailed each other, and I told them that I do not know how I can help them furthermore to look at the facts as good as possible, because I e. g. haven't had logs which could have confirmed my statement. I added, that if I could help them in any other way they should not hesitate to contact me because it was also in my interest to complete that case. I was not contacted afterwards except for a hint to the final decision. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47% of your edits are on en.wp. 48.5% of your edits are on de.wp. I hate to break the news to you, but you should consider them both to be your home wiki, as you have been heavily involved in each. You have sought advanced permissions on the project.

Irrespective of that, you should avoid being pressured into using your steward tools without even a cursory independent investigation. If you can not take a few minutes to understand the problem, then you are acting emotively and under pressure. As you know, your first suppression action didn't even fix the problem; you came back 30 mins later (IIRC) to oversight another 15 revisions (IIRC) in order to properly remove the phrase. Also, after you did the oversight, you did not send an email to the local oversight mailing list to explain why you felt necessary to step in when there are 40 oversighters on en.wp in all timezones, and to indicate that local oversighters could overrule you if they understood the problem better than you did.

Your response to the AUSC request of November 18 was evasive, and you did not respond to the follow-up AUSC email of November 19. John Vandenberg 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's in fact not true. I responded on December the 5th to arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org with topic “AW: [arbcom-audit-en] Request on ANI supression” with nearly exactly the same words as written above when the mail from November the 18th was forwarded to me. And I got no error, Mailer daemon, whatever.

I was never involved in enwiki and just quite effectively doing anti-vandalism stuff there which I now do (beside other things) on 750 projects, and according to that confirmation page not that bad. If I had known enwiki well, I would also have known that enwiki's oversights and ArbCom unwrittenly insist on reports when steward work in emergency situations (and no local ones were available) according to our policies to take care of one's user's privacy, and would not have gone to bed soon after that action. I never had to notify users on other wikis, well, I rarely do steward actions on wikis with user which have the needed local rights. But if I would not have judged it as an emergency situation I would not have done it. I seemed so obvious to me that I have not thought about googling, that it might have been a saying. Yes, I made a wrong decision, but it was reversed under premises which came out in the aftermath, I excused myself and explained the circumstances. The only thing I could do and still try to do, is asking others to accept my excuse and forgive my decision because I cannot go back in time and switch that, which I would really liked to. I have learnt many thing concerning this steward actions and would never again do any of these without letting the ArbCom (Oversights, CheckUsers) know what I've done. In fact, I would never do a steward action again on enwiki. Kind regards and again sincere apologizes, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutly trustworthy! -- Ra'ike 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C-M 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why not? --Itu 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm – sound judgement and good at interactions. . Dave souza 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drini

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: es, en (and several romance languages at lang-1 level)
Personal info: I've been serving as steward for 3 years, among several other roles, and like every year I come here to ask your comments about my steward work and comments on how could I perform my duties better. If you have comments about my other roles, they're also (as always) appreciated but I'd request you to leave them on my talk page instead. Finally, if by any chance (even if unlikely) you think I've done good work, please don't keep it to you, as I will also appreciate kind works of support.

Comments about Drini

Helpful steward, should be reconfirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent steward, needs to be reconfirmed. Katerenka (d) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for all Your work, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tireless contributor and very technically savvy, a true asset to the team. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. —Innv {ru-ws} 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirm — Jack Merridew 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory keep, another steward whose loss would be a detriment. Kylu 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ayuh. -- Avi 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup James (T C) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep MoiraMoira 07:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good steward! --Taichi - (あ！) 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent person and steward! BetoCG 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active steward, and speaks fluent Spanish. Drini is an asset to the steward team and should continue to serve the wikimedia community. Tiptoety ^talk 08:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than useful work --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Major asset. Please keep him. –Ejs-80 10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An excellent steward!! Saloca 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ChristianH 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. --Erwin 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Hexer says yes, it's OK. Marcus Cyron 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we both should go-diet , keep up your good work --Mardetanha ^talk 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm JAn Dudík 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Jusjih 04:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, although I'd like it if he used "edit summaries" more often --FiliP ██ 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh? what are those fancy strange things? es:Drini 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obelix 11:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Razor flame 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 23:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jyothis 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clone bastique ^demandez! 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Gustronico 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nixón 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, no issues. billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dreitmen 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful, active, and does a lot of work. Ottava Rima 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm. Xqt 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is strongly committed to his tasks. Confirm. Barcex 22:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Aphaia 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral hardworking stw but sometimes seems to judge according "linguistic" affinities. --Vituzzu 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, although I'd appreciate examples of biasing my steward work about linguistic affinities so I can avoid doing so in the future. es:Drini 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Whenever I witnessed Drinis activities, it was always in good circumstances. Annabel 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KveD (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep helpful and diligent steward. --Caspian blue 16:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
confirm, per cabal ;) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --junafani 00:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sulmues 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --LadyInGrey 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Excellent steward Diegusjaimes 01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep LeinaD (t) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm; great guy and excellent steward. John Vandenberg 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dungodung [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: sr, en-3, hr-3, bs-3, de-1 Personal info: Even though I've been less active in 2009 than in 2008, I think I've had enough steward actions to still be considered active. In my opinion, I've done a relatively good job in the past two years, so I'd like to keep my steward rights, if the community agrees. I'm usually hanging on IRC and most of the times I'm ready to help out. --FiliP ██ 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Dungodung [edit]Excellent steward. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Brilliant steward. Katerenka (d) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Aces in my book. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] We need more technically aware stewards like Dungodung, not fewer. Kylu 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, advanced steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I guess he can stay ;) James (T C) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Christian Giersing 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Technical knowledge; good steward work. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]keep MoiraMoira 07:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Taichi - (あ！) 07:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Bsadowski1 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good work, knows what he does. –Ejs-80 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good steward, confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we Support him! :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of the most friendly steward , always helpful , always kind , happy to have such good friend --Mardetanha ^talk 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep for sure --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Obelix 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Non-notable. bastique ^demandez! 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Keep OTRS permissions received. bastique ^demandez! 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Per reasons given on 2009 voting (by me, Synergy, NuclearWarfare, Alefbe). Dungodung's reaction was rude [4] (naming someone as "troll" just like that). This is not "always kind". I also don't like his running of CU tools (done after voting on Stewards/confirm/2009) on a recquest by a person that didn't ask the community for the opinion [5]. Dungodung reacted in less than half hour [6], without asking the requester "Do you have community consensus?". Kubura 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] supported by --Sargoth 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - anyway, there is no need for community consensus when asking for CU, it's not voting. --Dalibor Bosits ^© 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is a need for community consensus. Meta is strict here [7]. Please, see ection "Pristup alatu za provjeru". " I u ovom slučaju trebate dobiti konsenzus zajednice.". For those who don't understand Croatian [8] "You also need a community consensus (like above)". Kubura 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] That section appears, to me, to be referring to local users being given access to the checkuser tool itself rather than stating that consensus is needed to use the tool. Sukida 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] no brainer, keep. billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, helpful steward --Mercy 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. --Aphaia 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Lymantria 12:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Xqt 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - kind, reliable; excellent steward. --Sanya 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 06:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Of course. --micki ^talk 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Yes, good stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose remove per the aforementioned incivility. --Caspian blue 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, but what uncivility are you refering to? Calling someone a "troll"? Are you contesting that the said user is definitely not a troll? Thank you. --FiliP ██ 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I refer to Kubura's oppose vote. I don't see any evidence that "the person" Alefbe is warranted to be called a "troll" by you.--Caspian blue 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Have you actually looked? I think I'm allowed to call someone a troll if I think they are. Just like I'd call vandal a vandal. For example, some might disagree that Gregory Khos is a troll, but most of us do agree. Besides, please take a look at their user talk page (or some of their many contributions here on meta) and many complaints there and then tell me whether you really believe the user is benevolent and has good intentions. --FiliP ██ 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Meta Project is not bound to "one language" nor "one project". We don't know what you know. I don't still see his activities are enough to be called troll by you in my glance at the talk page. Moreover, the page is your confirmation page in 2009, and you should've not reacted like that.[9] That paints your image poorly.--Caspian blue 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, that's what you think. You're entitled to an opinion and you've presented it and I respect it. But I don't see anyone else here agreeing with you (except for Kubura). For me, this discussion is over. Have a nice day. Cheers --FiliP ██ 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Kaster 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm I don't find much weight in the incivility opposition above, but I caution that stewards are watched more heavily. Thank you for your continued service and keep up the good work! NonvocalScream 01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep helpful steward LeinaD (t) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, but concerned about using "troll" too freely (and essentially reasserting it above). Compare with how spacebirdy and Pathoschild handled that situation. John Vandenberg 06:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Effeietsanders [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Personal info: In the past while, I have not been very active, although I do think I have maintained a level of sufficient activity to be useful. I do admit however that sometimes as a result of this lower activity I do not know all ins and outs of policy and technical ways, so I need to look up more than in the past. I realize I have been a pain in the ass sometimes to other stewards when being persistant on how the rules were intended, what the agreements / conditions were when software changes were made and rights added etc, and some might consider that unproductive. I consider it guarding the principles. I would not mind a lot if my stewardship would not be confirmed, it is not something I aspire hugely, if people think I am not active enough to know the ins and outs of the technical side.Comments about Effeietsanders [edit]Has to be confirmed, too. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] may not be the most active but Effie is often our conscience (or naysayer, if you like) on the mailing list. I think not having him around to benefit from his views and insight would be a loss. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I count at least nine (depending on how you count them) rights actions, more if you also count cross-project actions such as oversights and checkusers, and a handful of adminless-project deletions. Keep per minimum activity requirements. Kylu 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not very active; but sufficient activity for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Has very limited activity two actions in last couple of months, perhaps could focus on policy making better as his outspoken views sometimes hamper work that needs to be done. MoiraMoira 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, though I hope to see him more active again. Davin 08:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I see him often around on IRC, I think he's available enough. Reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] yes! ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. I agree with Lar. --Erwin 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Active enough. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] indeed the best guardian of the principles , definitely confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 17:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, but get more active (and less bureaucratic :P) --FiliP ██ 11:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of these two requests is impossible to achieve; I won't say which one :D guillom 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, considering the above statement the second request wont make it :) And considering the time Wikimedia is already eating up right now, I doubt the first as well. Effeietsanders 11:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Do not support - Waerth 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - The most ultra bureaucrat you can meet. Only sees rules and doesn't show any compassion. Stabs you in the back to if it fits him.[reply] Keep --Jyothis 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - DustSpinner 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm bastique ^demandez! 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] available and proficient. Keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Congrats on your nomination for the most ultra hyper Wikimedia bureaucrat of 2009. So Keep. Although I'm convinced no one could beet me in this field. --Aphaia 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Excellent steward. Durova 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I specially liked this recent non bureaucratic action [10] - Taketa 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Eats, breaths and lives Wikimedia. Fontes 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Highly involved Wikimedian. --Millosh 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Annabel 07:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Anthere 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. Although I don't see enough steward activities for the last year, I hope he does well with the second term.--Caspian blue 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep of course, one of the few persons with a noticeable sense of (data) privacy protection --:bdk: 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Raymond 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove rights. (POV pushing, infringement Stewards policy#Don't decide Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity) SergeyJ 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] lolwhut? NonvocalScream 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not understand SergeyJ 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Возможно Вы желаете более развернутого пояснения. Заранее извиняюсь за размер. Моя заявка на бюрократа была отклонена. Не подумайте что меня это сильно расстроило :) Нет, я просто считаю что была нарушена процедура принятия решения. Несколько стюардов решали это на основании личного мнения. (Кто-то более корректно, кто то в приказном порядке.) Хотя это прямо запрещено правилом Stewards policy#Don't decide. Было объявлено, что есть некое мнение о минимальном числе голосов в этом случае. Не смотря на то, что месяц обратно на это совершенно не обращали внимания. При акционировании на этом внимании произошло обсуждение Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes. Но результата никакого не последовало. Никаких новых ограничений не было выдвинуто. Поэтому я считаю, что тут действовали не согласно правилам, а согласно личному мнению, наверное обо мне, в чем и проявляется (POV pushing), правда не одного, а нескольких стюардов. Я лишь по прежнему настаиваю, что данное требование о минимальном числе голосов - должно быть официально записано. Хотя лично я не считаю это необходимым, но нужно это спросить у сообщества, а не только у стюардов - и только тогда такие решения, которые были приняты в моем частном случае, могут быть легитимный. Без этого были нарушения о которых я говорю. SergeyJ 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Autotransfer. Probably you wish more developed explanatory. In advance I apologise for a size. My demand for the bureaucrat has been rejected. Do not think that it has strongly upset me :) Is not present, I simply consider that decision-making procedure has been broken. Some stewards solved it on the basis of personal opinion. (Someone it is more correct, who that in the form of an order.) Though it is directly forbidden by a rule Stewards policy#Don't decide. It has been declared that there is a certain opinion on the minimum poll in this case. Despite that back at all did not pay month attention to it. At the strengthened reference on it of attention on this attention there was a discussion Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes. But result any has not followed. Any new restrictions it has not been put forward. Therefore I consider that here operated not according to rules, and according to personal opinion, probably about me in what it is shown (POV pushing), the truth not one, and several stewards. I only on the former insist that the given requirement about the minimum poll - should be written officially down. Though personally I do not consider it necessary, but it is necessary to ask it community, and not just at stewards - and only then such decisions which have been accepted in my special case, can be legitimate. Without it there were infringements about which I speak. SergeyJ 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove rights. I confirm the words of SergeyJ. Bolo1910 08:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, per Lar. LeinaD (t) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Lolsimon 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Erwin [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Personal info: I've been a steward since last year's elections. During the past year I mostly spent time on SWMT work and the various Meta request pages. I could usually be found idling in #wikimedia-stewards as well. I enjoyed working with other stewards and SWMT members and I'd like to continue doing so this year.Comments about Erwin [edit]Excellent steward and vandalism fighter. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Brilliant steward. Katerenka (d) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, of course. Good active steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Hard worker. Confirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] continues to be helpful and available, confirm James (T C) 06:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] We definitely need him. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]keep MoiraMoira 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Taichi - (あ！) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Bsadowski1 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Full support. Davin 08:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] More than worthwhile --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 12:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Helpful, we need him!!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Technical steward , priceless , confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep JZ85 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Way to go - Freaky Fries 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, of course --FiliP ██ 11:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - DustSpinner 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] sure bastique ^demandez! 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Taketa 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving.Finn Rindahl 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] clone and keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] No doubt there. Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, good steward --Mercy 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Lymantria 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Possibly one of the best stewards. Annabel 07:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hard working user and steward. Keep. --Kanonkas 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Looks okay. --Caspian blue 05:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Cenarium (Talk) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continuing on. NonvocalScream 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep LeinaD (t) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. John Vandenberg 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]guillom [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: fr, en-3, de-1 Personal info: Hi. I am not a super-active steward (especially since I was hired by the Wikimedia Foundation) but I think my help is appreciated nonetheless. As part of my work, I am always on IRC/IM and I follow the appropriate communication channels such as the stewards mailing list.Comments about guillom [edit]Must be confirmed, very often available, very sane. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] quite inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I wish he had more time for stewarding stuff, but not having him around as a steward would be a serious loss. It's also good to have Foundation employees in the trenches working alongside us. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not as active as others, perhaps, but far exceeds the minimum activity requirements as set in the steward policy, plus is quite valued in his opinion as a steward. Keep. Kylu 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, np. —Innv {ru-ws} 05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Wish he had more time to perform steward actions... but nevertheless, confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]keep MoiraMoira 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per DerHexer. Katerenka (d) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good steward. Keep. –Ejs-80 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] yes!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm Nakor 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, indeed --FiliP ██ 11:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] who? bastique ^demandez! 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving.Finn Rindahl 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, there for emergencies, and reality. And nice to go with it. billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Obviously. Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Rather active, and that is an important attribute. Ottava Rima 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow DarkoNeko 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, no reservations. --Philippe 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep fairly active in comparison of business in his real life: Ph.D. paper defense, hiring and moving to another continent. --Aphaia 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Highly involved Wikimedian. --Millosh 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Good stuff, Cirt (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep! Always helpful. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Kropotkine 113 08:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Indeed. Popo le Chien 11:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Raymond 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, keep up the good work. NonvocalScream 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. LeinaD (t) 17:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Seems active, helpful, and sensible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep np, active enough. John Vandenberg 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Jusjih [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: zh-hant, zh-hans-3, en-3, fr-1 Personal info: Hello. Becoming a steward in December 2007, I think myself fairly active, usually granting bots, other permission changes, and checking users. Being the only Chinese-speaking steward, I look forward to continuing to serve while reachable via Meta talk page, e-mail, #wikimedia-stewards/stewards-l, and #wikimedia-checkuser/checkuser-l.--Jusjih 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Jusjih [edit]confirm. Not very active, but language skills are good, and he's around enough to justify keeping him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, good experience. —Innv {ru-ws} 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Good steward, and we need people in this language area. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, significantly exceeds activity requirements. Kylu 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm per knowledge of languages. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]keep MoiraMoira 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] yes!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - active enough and must keep b/c of language skills. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] but please be more active next year, or the next time you get a no. Marcus Cyron 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Never seen him on IRC but confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] weak confirm --FiliP ██ 11:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. For IRC chinese speaking people in general are hardly reachable via IRC, I don't know why though. --Aphaia 13:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 让他留下 bastique ^demandez! 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep we shall give him another chance -- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] A steward who still likes to maintain a real wikilife. That is valuable, and worthy of appreciation. Keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Active. Very important language skills. --Millosh 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per languages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] No issues in the history, Confirm. Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As Mardetanha, I do not recall that I saw you on IRC, but confirm, enough active. LeinaD (t) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. Jusjih is very active everywhere, and can be quickly reached by email and talk pages. John Vandenberg 05:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Kylu [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, fr-2, es-2 Personal info: I am an active steward, though on wikibreak as an editor to give myself time for school. I am typically online from 6p-2a EST and reachable via Meta, E-Mail, IRC, and can be reached via other means through trusted users in the event of an emergency. I consider my primary steward duties to be permissions, anti-vandalism work, and handling deletion and rename requests for smaller projects. (Tool results: recentlogs, luxo's tool, sulutil)Comments about Kylu [edit]Very active and helpful steward. Must be confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need her too, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Even on wikibreak, does more steward work than some stewards :( — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Quite pleasant and very competent. Definitely a good steward. Ottava Rima 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Seb az86556 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of our very best Stewards. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Obvious. -- Avi 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Why not? —Innv {ru-ws} 04:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Yup yup confirm James (T C) 06:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Great steward... though she is always on wikibreak (or AFK in IRC). Does a lot of work. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Katerenka (d) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very helpful when needed to do steward tasks. --Bsadowski1 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Polite. Keep –Ejs-80 10:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] absolutely, blizzard-stew :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm! --Church of emacs talk 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, sure. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] kylu kylu kylu , yes yes yes --Mardetanha ^talk 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] obvious keep --FiliP ██ 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] ^,^~ bastique ^demandez! 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] easy keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *purrrrrrrrrr* DarkoNeko 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --minhhuy*= 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep excellent steward. Durova 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. - Josette 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Very active.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep very active.--Caspian blue 05:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jayjg 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep thanks for your work as steward. --Geitost ^diskusjon 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Cenarium (Talk) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove rights (POV pushing, infringement Stewards policy#Don't decide Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity; detailed User_talk:SergeyJ#Steward_confirmations) SergeyJ 22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Now it is neutral. The participant, at last, has shown a constructive approach. Has created Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements. I hope that other stewards and participants will take active part in discussion. SergeyJ 16:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep stellar and humble --Charitwo 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove rights. Kylu ignored questions SergeyJ in Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity. Bolo1910 08:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep LeinaD (t) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep for sure. John Vandenberg 05:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Laaknor [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: no/nb, en-4, nn-2, sv-1, da-1 Personal info: Have been steward since last years election, sysop on nowiki and nowikiquote. Online on #wikimedia-stewards most of the day, like the people I'm working with, would like to continue as a steward.Comments about Laaknor [edit]You really impressed me with your work. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Knows where his towel is. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Really hoopy frood, yes. Keep. Kylu 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Lar James (T C) 06:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Christian Giersing 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, of course. —Innv {ru-ws} 10:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Trustworthy, good job. –Ejs-80 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] absolutely :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm also. − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Helpful , knowledgeable , always available on the IRC , always ready to help , so sure confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep JZ85 08:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep ... and thanks for your help, several times (: --EivindJ 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, of course --FiliP ██ 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Helpful in impressive availability. --Aphaia 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - DustSpinner 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] why not? bastique ^demandez! 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] easy keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm -- CactusWriter 16:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, always willing to help --Mercy 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow =^_^= DarkoNeko 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Active, friendly, and helpful. Ottava Rima 15:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Xqt 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm of course --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep og mange takk for jobben. :-) --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep SergeyJ 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. Laaknor ignored my question in Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity. Bolo1910 08:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your questions was answered by Kylu, and was not ignored. Your question was asked on a public page, and anyone can answer that. If you had asked on my usertalk, I would be required to answer. Laaknor 10:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure, confirm. LeinaD (t) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. Active and helpful. John Vandenberg 05:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Lar [edit]Lar will be a member of the Ombudsman Commission for the coming year. This reconfirmation is your chance to comment on Lar's contributions over the last year, and will apply to him regaining the steward tools at the end of that term.logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, de-1 Personal info: I became a steward after the December 2007 election. I also hold admin rights on en:wp, Commons, and Meta (I gave it up on en:ws), 'crat on commons and meta, CU on en:wp, commons and meta, and oversight on Commons. I think I've been fairly active at the various steward tasks, and I have plans to continue doing so. I welcome your feedback.Comments about Lar [edit]Note: I've addressed some concerns raised here. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Helpful fellow. Please confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Seb az86556 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Even though there has been some problematic disputes between Lar and myself in the past, he has always shown that he is highly competent and a valuable asset as a Steward. Ottava Rima 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep — Jack Merridew 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] See below talk page for further posts from me offering examples of appropriate stewardship efforts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Active, helpful, and knows his building-bricks. Kylu 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] kewl Jack 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm as Worstest.Steward.Ever. (j/k, now leg(g)o of my leg, oh that hurt!). -- Avi 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, Have never seen a steward related issue and definitely worth keeping around, to bad he's leaving for a year ;( James (T C) 06:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good steward; no steward related issue as James says. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Helpful fellow; best to have him around. Katerenka (d) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I had something planned for this - what was it now useless, unhelpful, indifferent Nope it's gone - must be ok then I guess...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll add to this having read up the page again. Strongly confirm. I see people who do not like Lar. Maybe there are some issues on en wp - let's face it - anyone active on en wp usually has some issues there. However I fail to see issues with Lar as a steward which is what this is about. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good sense of humour. Keep –Ejs-80 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, of course --Church of emacs talk 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] outstanding ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] For me much too much jobs, sorry, no. Marcus Cyron 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm for sure --Mardetanha ^talk 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Against confirmation. Likes to act as judge, jury and executioner. Lycaon 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Against confirmation. Has consistently shown that he focuses on specific users whom he doesn't like. Causes drama and plays wikipolitics, seeing everything as his side verse everyone else. There are also other unresolved issues. JoshuaZ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Against confirmation, per JoshuaZ's "unresolved issues"; pattern of inappropriate behavior which creates a hostile environment for female contributors.Proabivouac 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reconfirmation. Has extremely militant and unreasonable BLP views as expressed in recent RfC discussion at en-wiki[11]. I cannot trust his judgement. Nsk92 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] E.g. this comment here[12], where he says that removing a prod "without fixing" the article should be blockable. What if prod was placed incorrectly? Who decides if the article "is fixed"? And what about forwarding an article to an AfD for a substantive discussion? Basically, a narrow-minded militant ideologue, with a potential to drive off a great many long-term contributors from Wikipedia. Should not even be an admin, let alone a steward. Nsk92 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] comment - I see several grudges. Could you please back this up with more substantial information, and make a clear case so that it can actually be considered? The current wordings are mainly opinions and not substantiated. Effeietsanders 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Those editors who are active at en-wiki surely know what I am talking about. But here are some details. In mid-January of this year a small group of admins with particularly militant views regarding BLPs went on a unilateral deletion spree: they started a mass out of process deletion of "unsourced and unwatched" BLPs without any regard to deletion policy, without using any of the established tools, like CSD, PROD, and AfD and without any discussion with other users. There was a big bruhaha at en-wiki regarding this, with a big wheel-war, blocks, massive panic etc. See the details at these ArbCom pages:[13][14]. Lar was a part of the group involved in these mass out-of-process deletions, see his deletion log for Jan 21:[15]. Later on he aggressively defended this position (see his statements in "BLP deletions" ArbCom request and his comments in the subsequent RfC[16]. Unfortunately, the ArbCom at en-wiki refused to reign in these mass out-of-process deletions and we are still dealing with the fallout of this affair. Anyone who is willing to engage in such reckless disregard of established process and of consensus, such as what Lar did in the mass BLP deletion episode, does not deserve any position of authority. Like I said, he should not even be an admin, and certainly not a steward. Nsk92 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the information, I think most people here are not active enough on enwiki to get this kind of information from the top of the head. Just to be totally clear, this is an enwiki matter only? Are there any aspects that were affected by his steward tools, status or otherwise? Is there any indication this is likely something to play up cross-wiki when Lar remains steward? Do you think he would use his steward buttons/authority in that discussion? Or is it that you personally don't trust/like him any more, and therefore want his position removed? Effeietsanders 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Primarily the latter. I do not trust the judgement of someone who has abused his position of authority at en-wiki in such a reckless and disruptive way. Nsk92 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] See below for a cross-wiki example. Durova 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Greatly helped. Good luck w/ your new hat. --Aphaia 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] restore post ombudsman. bastique ^demandez! 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep - also when low activity is expected: there is more to being a steward than just the technical actions, we need him as he is very valuable on the list as well. my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. oscar 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] remove - Steward is probably one of the positions that require the most trust out of any on WMF wikis. After the BLP fiasco explained above, and Lar's extreme and almost fundamentalist viewpoint regarding it, I cannot in good conscience say that I trust him with the position. I know of no instances of steward abuse, but he has already supported use of sysop tools against consensus (and with an air of contempt for the community) on en.wikipedia, so I can't rule out the possibility that he would use his steward tools in promoting that agenda. The Wordsmith 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - reconfirmation per JoshuaZ and the BLP issues.--Sandahl 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - Drama monger—almost all of his edits are outside of the main namespace; largely inactive, very few mainspace edits—little evidence that he's really there to contribute to building an encyclopaedia; engaged in disruption in the recent BLP kerfuffle; carries old disputes into new venues—his response to my criticism about his disruptive deletions was to attack intelligent design and global warming editors; misrepresents himself—despite his attacks on an AGW-cabal, he still passes himself off as an "uninvolved" admin in the current climate change probation. Not suitable for such a position of trust. Guettarda 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. One of the most rude people I've met on enwiki. Also, commonly ignores policy and pursues his own vision of Wikipedia instead. Pohta ce-am pohtit 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per request below, here are the kinds of articles Lar has been deleting on sight or proposing for deletion after the community outcry put an end to the former practice: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. The argument is that they are "unsourced", but most external links in those articles work, and many are en:WP:RS. Note that all these diffs are selected from an extremely narrow time window. Check his logs for way, way more, and also see the evidence of Nsk92 above, who is a very respected editor on en:WP:WPM. Here is an admin commenting that "those deletions are clearly out of process" (emphasis his); this comment refers to a different set than those above, but in similar circumstances. Following deletion procedures is now "policy wonkery" according to Lar. After being cautioned that some of those articles did have sources, his reply was "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." To another user that points out that a source was listed as "further reading" instead of "references", Lar replies: "Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it." Later on en:WP:ANI, he pretends that was never an issue: "All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit." Obviously, the usual en:WP:DEL deletion process is now replaced by an admin who decides by himself what sources are acceptable. Presumably, he should just decide who gets the admin bit and who loses it; why bother with such an ineffective community?! Pohta ce-am pohtit 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support Totally trustworthy; note that any of the bad-faith-looking opinions opposing above should be ignored unless accompanied by diffs. --Guinnog 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, strongly. An extraordinarily helpful and clueful member of the community, a real asset. Some of the opposes may say more about the opposers than about Lar. --Tryptofish 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support. BLP views are irrelevant to stewardship, despite what the opposers of the BLP movement may argue. Give an example of abuse of stewardship. Hmm, don't think there are any. Lara 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. BLP issue shows Lar has a poor understanding of policy, consensus, and when and where he can use the tools. All of these are critical for Stewards. Plot Spoiler 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm: Don't see any issues with his stewarding. I've always thought the steward-only vote for reconfirmations was rather silly, but some of the comments on this page make it pretty clear why it's necessary. --MZMcBride 02:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Fine with me. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Excellent record as a steward. Cla68 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, despite the wild animals that he keeps. Civil, helpful and considerate. billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] How did you know I was a wild animal? ;) - Josette 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm -- CactusWriter 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoow DarkoNeko 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per JoshuaZ and Guettarda. Also he is a very active contributor to WikipediaReview, I remember in the past there were allegations of conflict of interests and security concerns... Alex Bakharev 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm BLP has nothing to do with sterwardship, go fight your inclusionist fight elsewhere. Coffee (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - Lar is doing a fine job. JamieS93 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reconfirmation, per Joshua and Nsk92 and the fact that I simply no longer trust Lar. He was once someone I considered a trusted wiki-friend but I've seen way too much inappropriate behaviour, back-rooming and wikipolitic games in recent years and do not trust him with positions of trust. It's really just boils down to a simple matter of trust. Sarah 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reluctant oppose due to being brought before arbcom, and BLP issues. I, personally, would never stand for Steward because I am a divisive and controversial figure; such people should not be stewards even though - on the whole - their actions are to project benefit. It is, regrettably, a position where one must be above and beyond suspicion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. See talk page for reasons and discussion. Durova 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Strange issues on en.wp don't have do to anything with his good work as a steward. --MF-W 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - tired of irrelevant allegations that have nothing to do with him being a steward. - Josette 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, no major issues with use of steward tools. enwiki actions are unrelated to stewardship and I don't see Durova's issues as a big deal. NW (Talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, as one of the most solid people on the project. Larry is truly one of the good guys. Also, the fact that several people I hold in quite low esteem don't like him speaks well of his character as well. As NW states, Durova's "issues" just aren't that big of a deal. Unitanode 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Lar is one of the few true grownups I can count on in wiki, he may ruffle some feathers on occasion, but that's because he does the right thing and he's usually right far more often than he's wrong. Lar is very trustworthy, I have not ever seen him abuse his position (most people that he has to discipline in some fashion have thoroughly deserved it, IMHO!) plus he has a level head and a good sense of when to use a carrot and when to use a stick. If he speaks critically of someone's behavior, it usually means that person needs to take a good look at themselves. The drama folks above really only illustrate my point; Lar will do the right thing even when it isn't the thing that makes him popular. That is always needed in any leadership position. Montanabw 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove per BLP. And I vaguely recalled some privacy concerns caused when Lar was using the Checkuser tool. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] So there were; see (for example) the last version of Talk:SlimVirgin-Lar before blanking:[23]Proabivouac 08:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, thanks for the link. Couldn't keep track of many things in detail with so many issues and dramas around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The more relevant link, of course, is this one: en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar, particularly the findings of fact and remedies, in which SV was admonished for stirring up trouble in inappropriate ways, and I was exonerated of any wrongdoing. But of course, that's a less useful link if (like Proabivouac apparently does) one has the goal of continuing a smear campaign after one's blackmail attempts fell flat, because it undercuts one's narrative rather inconveniently. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Lar, I have kept away from this, but if you're going to misdescribe what happened, then obviously I'll have to correct it, so you might want to reconsider your summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd invite anyone to read the link I gave to the case summary, and draw their own conclusions. You were admonished, I was cleared, and Proabivouac continues to try to libel and blackmail people to this day. I'm open to rewording, feel free to mail me a suggested change if you like, but those are the salient points. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course. Besides being the steward, his active meta-steward involvement is very important for other stewards. --Millosh 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove per BLP concerns, Wikipedia Review involvement, and issues raised by User:Durova. —Ynhockey 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I am not sure what to say here... A lot of people are clearly having personal griefs and give arguments that don't seem relevant to me. However, it also seems some of the arguments actually make sense. I don't know yet what to think of this. I hope everybody will give relevant arguments, and no more "per XX". Also, make clear what exactly the arguments are and what the relevance is. Thanks. --Effeietsanders 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Against confirmation - due to serious concerns about demeanor and inappropriate behavior, as raised above in comments including those by Ynhockey, Alex Bakharev, Sarah, Durova, Pohta ce-am pohtit, Nsk92, Lycaon, and JoshuaZ. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - has performed well as steward. Let's not use grudges from other roles to poke at someone. Stanistani 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - I don't see any connection between steward duties and BLp activities on enwiki. Kevin 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Over time as a steward Lar has proven helpful, very effective and (as others have said) a solid user and a mainstay. I have not seen complaints about his activities as a steward. I was on the committee that looked at the alleged misuse of tools (from 1st half 2008) and I do not have any current residual concerns nor have I heard substantive claims of any of it happening in the nearly 2 years since the actions took place (apologies to those who hold strong views on it, and declining to rehash the debate here). Regarding the more recent issues over BLP and general interaction/conduct, whether Lar was right or wrong, it's worth noting the local ArbCom endorsed his and others' recent actions on BLP. That aside, I have not been tracking Lar's conduct nor do I know how much general conduct traditionally speaks in steward reconfirmations. But in terms of pure trust to perform the steward functions and use the steward tools, my impression is that any lessons have long since been learned and do not seem to provide reasons for concern as of 2010. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. FT2, thanks for explanation. I've been searching to find if any of the objections are related to Lar's stewardship. I would like to remind those who are opposing that: (1) Being a steward is not, in fact, a big deal. Misusing steward permissions leads to removing rights and possibly to a legal action against a [former] steward. As Lar didn't abused his implicit power on some smaller project and as he is a very useful steward -- the only reason which should matter in his case is abusing permissions. (2) Last years we have lack of stewards and Lar is one of the active ones. Besides that, his overall influence into stewards dynamics is very positive. -- So, if he doesn't deserve to have permissions at en.wp or if it would be problematic to give to him some different kind of trust, please raise that issue at the appropriate place(s). Otherwise, the situation looks like that someone can't be a forster because of his behavior in supermarket at the moment when we don't have enough foresters. --Millosh 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Proabivouac responded to this comment at 08:02, 17 February 2010. It then devolved into a dispute that has gone off topic and was moved to Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar#Dispute_between_Proabivouac_and_Lar. If anyone wishes to continue the dispute, please keep it to the talk page. Ottava Rima 17:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. His arrogant behavior is unbecoming for a steward. Ruslik 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep There might be issues, but they don't relate to being a steward at all. It's up to enwiki to decide what to do with him over on enwiki, not take it out here. Majorly talk 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. RMHED 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Retain - Lar is by far among the most thoughtful and dedicated people I have run across over the past few years in the Wikimedia community. The fact that he's completely open about his opinions (when appropriate) makes him even more of an asset, not less. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm and the person closing should note that many of the oppose voters are grudge settling on a matter that has nothing to do with stewardship. This is minority of people who are unhappy with BLP enforcement on en.wp (and incidentally on the wrong side of the local arbitration committee) and they are spilling it over here.Scott MacDonald 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. What happens in enwiki, stays in enwiki. --Tinz 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. I've worked closely with Lar on CU issues in the past year and believe he posses the dedication, judgment and skills required to retain the steward bit. --Versageek 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm A good guy, trustworthy, thoughtful. Concerns remain as to his possible misuse of lego, but he seems fine with the tools. Ceoil 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, good job as a steward, most of arguments against deal with local conntent disputes, which have nothing to do with stewardship — NickK 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Iain99 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Because I want to do rude things involving Lego with him. Or because his actions and behaviour across various WMF projects and beyond (including the Wikipedia Review) is up to and above the required standard. Also a charming dinner companion, I'm told. George The Dragon 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Privatemusings 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --InkSplotch 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. --Túrelio 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reconfirmaion per Sarah, specifically; "I've seen way too much inappropriate behaviour, back-rooming and wikipolitic games in recent years and do not trust him with positions of trust." Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Appears to be helpful in steward activities. The fact that after months of stasis there is a battle brewing on en:wp on BLP and Lar been active in that rather than stepping back has very little to do with that. Other comments as to his views on BLP policy, his communication style, and perceived "politicking" might or might influence his legitimacy and effectiveness in policy discussions and implementation on en:wp, but also are of limited relevance to being an effective steward. Martinp 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep i don't really understand how the BLP issues prevent him from carrying out steward duties. Themfromspace 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Will Beback 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Specifically, I am concerned about his non-neutral interactions with users and with his extensive involvement with the banned users who hang out at Wikipediareview. Stewards should be beyond reproach. Lar, though perhaps a valued contributor, is too entangled in politics, including the BLP issues, to hold a key position that requires neutrality across multiple projects. Will Beback 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Kind and caring person, great administator and Steward. --Mbz1 12:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strong support. --FollowTheMedia 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Neutral I trusted him but his perspective and actions for the ongoing BLP issues disappointed me. He is not that responsive either.--Caspian blue 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - concerns raised by editors such as Sarah and Durova are worrisome. I don't expect anybody to have a crystal clear record, but concerns raised by editors I trust are making me suspect there is something to them, I am afraid. --Piotrus 04:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - I've seen you do great work on en:wikipedia. I've also seen other actions that cause me too much concern to support.--Cube lurker 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - per Alex Bakharev and Sarah, despite the fact that Lar will eventually get his revenge for this, both off-wiki and on-wiki. Or perhaps because of that. And as an additional point, while my own concerns are unrelated to the BLP drama on en-wiki, it is quite disappointing to read a number of commenters here pretending that the concerns raised regarding that are by people who are "not happy about policy". Rather, it is clear to me that those raising this issue are entirely supportive of policy, but quite concerned about very specific behaviors. The astonishingly disrespectful distortion that anyone who opposes Lar's confirmation is opposed to policy, is, in fact, typical, and part of the problem.Jayjg 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm the Legoman. I approve his BLP stand. Bishonen 09:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC).[reply] Confirm, helpful steward. --Mercy 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Pohta ce-am pohtit, JoshuaZ and others. This kind of wikilawyering and wikipolitics are precisely the types of role models that will bring Wikipedia to its knees. --Leifern 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose A drama queen who helps friends but has vendettas against anyone who somehow rubs him the wrong way. I do not consider Lar trustworthy (yes, he can be kind and caring, but in my experience that is either a facade or simply unreliable), and he has been a source of far more trouble than he is worth. The comments provided by JoshuaZ and Durova are compelling (and come from two people who are far more trustworthy and have done far more to promote the encyclopedia and the integrity of its workings). Slrubenstein 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, sadly. Although Lar is obviously hardworking, I don't believe he has shown the character required for a position of such trust. Quadell 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, per JoshuaZ, Sarah, Durova, and others -- too involved in Wiki-politics and drama IMO. Khoikhoi 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sad oppose. To get the negative issues over with, I too believe Lar has a tendency to be vindictive against those who disagree with him. [24] and [25] looks like jumping at BLP ghosts instead of anything substantial, and dragging the issue of flagged revisions into the mix does no favors either. Starting this WR thread with the sentence "There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some." also seems a tad arrogant. I will concur with his supporters who point out that Lar is a helpful fellow, but it appears we will be getting an influx of new stewards now. Sjakkalle 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note: Three stewards resigned within the confirmations yet[26], at least five (without Lar) will—afaics—fail (User:Pathoschild/2010 steward confirmation statistics), and only eight to ten new ones will be elected[27]. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose this to me looks like a personal attack. Furthermore, a steward should be a leader and uniter of a 'broad church' and healer and voice of calm in times of difficulty. Instead we get this divisive comment, among others. Yes, we needed to do something about BLP, but am really unimpressed with behaviour in the last few months. Casliber 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Polargeo 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I confirm. User has superior understanding of BLP, which is and ought to be a Foundation priority. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Rama 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strongest possible oppose stewards should not defend editors for calling other editors "trolls"[28] Administrators and Stewards should not thank[29] editors who stated they have "utter contempt" for "community consensus",[30] "a consensus of idiots does not override good sense",[31] "I am indifferent to any such moronic consensus",[32] and "a basket case, morally bankrupt, community"[33] (Editor later blanked these comments and defended his deletions)[34] Lar not only thanked this editor, he actively helped this editor delete several notable articles,[35] which led to an arbcom and then an unprecedented amnesty. This bullying editor should not be an admin, let alone a steward.Okip 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Raymond 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Of all the stewards up for reconfirmation, Lar is the one I interact with the most. He's the one I've gone to in the past (won't now due to the Ombudsman role) if I have questions or issues, as he's almost always available and is incredibly knowledgeable. I'm not particularly moved by some of the diffs I've seen above; some of it is grossly being blown out of proportion (I'll admit that I didn't look at every link, though). I trust Lar, which is all I really care about in this matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - Not at all convinced by the oppose comments, many of which rely on a personal interpretation of events that could be taken differently with a little good faith; Lar handles this and other elevated positions well. Shell Kinney 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Confirm² for I think that we're commenting about his steward word. Wikimedians usually fulfill several roles and we should keep in mind that they're not the same. Maybe on enwiki he's had problems. So perhaps he should be sanctioned there (perhaps). But as steward he's been flawless and therefore he shouldn't be denied the confirmation. To make the example a bit more extreem, this is like saying he shouldn't get confirmed as stewards000 because he made a bad judgement on FA discussions. As a matter of fact, he shouldn't be "stewarding" on enwiki, so saying "I disagree on his BLP views therefore I vote oppose as steward" is a non sequitur. Please do focus on the issue at hand. We're evaluating his steward work, not his enwiki community behaviour. Sometimes this kind of issues make me believe I do the right thing trying to edit as little there, as people get very sensitive and use anything against you). es:Drini 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - per above posters who addressed his extreme rudeness and abuse of CU tools. I have unfortunately encountered both myself. Crum375 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Let me add that, since some people mention BLP as an issue, I happen to share Lar's view about BLP. Unfortunately, the way he behaved while presenting his view alienated many editors and made that position harder to defend, so I stayed out of the debate. Crum375 11:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Remove I'm aware of two incidents related to Lar's handling of private information which in light of the other concerns expressed above suffice for me to oppose this reconfirmation, though I'm open to reconsider if satisfiable explanations are given. en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: here it's helpful to make some digging beyond the final decision. Regarding en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Breach_of_privacy, I cite the proposed finding: "Lar disclosed data derived from page logs, in circumstances in which none of the situations permitting disclosure applied. This constituted a breach of the privacy policy.". This was supported by three arbitrators, none opposed, but couldn't pass because arbitrators found it was not within their jurisdiction to rule on privacy policy violations (instead, it was up to the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission...). Nonetheless, arbitrators passed a remedy (link): "The Committee reminds all operators of the CheckUser tool that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times." (passed 7 to 0). From this, it seems clear to me that arbitrators found the handling of private information by Lar in this matter 'suboptimal', to the point of breaching the privacy policy, even if the uses of the checkuser tools themselves were found within acceptable range of CU discretion. From reading Newyorkbrad's additional statement, I can see it was not excessively 'bad' but still concerning. Plus, the characterisation of the situation by Lar above doesn't seem genuine at all, in any case misleading. I've stumbled across another incident, to which I've seen no satisfactory explanation and that I find quite concerning. This happened here (scroll down to the suppressed edits): Lar, while in dispute with David Shankbone, posted on his talk page, and got responded but the whole discussion was removed and suppressed (oversighted) by Keegan. It seems to me that stewards should know when not to post material that may need to be oversighted or even might lead to a conversation requiring oversight. I'm especially concerned because it's been pointed out that Lar is involved in multiple interpersonal or political disputes, and those two incidents happened during such disputes. I feel our projects need less disputes of this kind, and stewards, due to their position and access, should be above them, and while this is not always possible, certainly not furnish them. Cenarium (Talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would strongly urge all who have concerns about the first case to read Newyorkbrad's statement that Cenarium has kindly linked to. Carefully and completely. Then draw their own conclusions. I stand by whatever I have said about this case, from the very beginning when SlimVirgin was bruiting accusations about in myriad places, to this very day, including the remarks I made further up this page. As for the other matter, with my steward bit turned off, I can't refresh my memory of who said what, but what I recall suggests that I spoke flippantly, which cascaded matters, and the net result was that a fair bit of stuff from a number of people needed to be removed. I regret that, but we are none of us perfect. I don't consider it a major incident but it was an imperfection. That editor does not bring out the best in people, sometimes. That's not an excuse, just an observation. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oppose Per Pcap, Nsk92 - his behavior during the recent BLP fiasco on en:wp is dismaying, vituperative, and fanatical in nature. Other checkuser abuses mentioned in this thread finalize it for me. RayAYang 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strong oppose as I trust neither his judgment nor integrity based on various actions on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. The rude, dismissive, self-righteous attitude to those disagreeing with him, as evidenced by his comments during the BLP dramafest on enwiki, in my view, makes him unsuitable for this position. This has nothing to do with his deletions or his views on BLPs. Tim Song 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support Minds can differ on this BLP nonsense. Those differences don't somehow render the his judgment vis a vis the tools suspect in the least. Protonk 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm Lar is a trustworthy contributor whom I believe has struck a fair balance on the fine line which sometimes arises between professional, politically correct conduct and decisive action and honest opinions. The projects need people who are able and willing to think through and act in difficult cases, and are able to do so autonomously when and as required, and yet are able to moderate their own emotional involvements and retain an appropriate distance. Both classes of behaviour are not always politically advantageous, and at least some of the opposition above strikes me as rather petty hair-splitting arising, especially to the extent that many of them appear to have no bearing on the role of stewardship. I support Lar not because we've always agreed, but because we've disagreed and been able to talk through the disagreement as adults. Stewardship isn't a "congressional" seat: We shouldn't choose people based on how much we agree with them on 'issues'. Narrowing the position to functionally inert baby-kissers would do us no good, nor would we do well to only accept candidates who have been aggressive enough to drive away everyone they've every disagreed with. --Gmaxwell 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm No issues with prior history as a steward. An asset to the team. Thank you for continuing to volunteer. NonvocalScream 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, per Cenarium, Cert, Durova, et al. Questionable CheckUser actions, and demeanor towards those he disagrees with are concerning. Blurpeace 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm I have found Lar to be approachable and extremely helpful with cross-wiki questions. Opposing due to BLP issues etc on en-wiki is a bit bizarre considering he does not routinely act as a steward there, and it is his actions as a steward that are under consideration here. Pablo X 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Blurpeace, et. al. Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per the numerous previous users citing ENWP BLP issues. Distrust on one's home wiki is not becoming of a steward and hardly appropriate for an ombudsman. If non-steward actions are irrelevant then Thekohser should be getting a lot more support for his candidacy. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose not because of disagreement over the BLP issue as such, but because of his arrogant manner in discussing it and in replying to questions and making comments generally. One of the least pleasant people to deal with of all established Wikipedians. Such matters are very much pertinent. DGG 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose! For anyone who isn't opposed to this person, PLEASE, look at some of the links Okip has provided. I've noted his person's behavior in the past, and don't believe they should be trusted with any position of power or the tools that come with it. Dream Focus 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reconfirmation. Lar has clearly lost the community's trust: the opposes are neither few nor petty. It is quite possible to act in both good faith as well as intemperate scorn for the community. Lar needs to take a break from the tools and refocus, and the community seems to be articulating quite clearly that such a break should not be considered optional. Jclemens 05:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Since a suppression of mine has been brought up in this conversation, call me neutral. The suppression that took place involving David Shankbone was based on a complete misunderstanding which devolved into matters that fall within the privacy policy. Both parties made a reasonable request to redact the conversation, and as such it was removed. Please don't put too much weight into that issue, tempers flared and both parties achieved a resolution. In my opinion, Lar has done well as a steward and also has not used his capabilities to abuse the system or gain an upper hand, nor used it as a measure of status. I think he does admirably in separate the UserGroup from his day to day interest in the projects. Keegan 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm The opposes aren't convincing. AniMate 06:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Lar's views have become increasingly extreme, particularly those related to BLP. Thus far he has largely been able to keep those views separate from steward work. It is my hope that stays that way (or better yet, a slight decrease in the fervor given to certain matters). Lar is one of the most well intentioned and helpful editors around, and I'd like to keep him around. Prodego ^talk 06:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strong confirm Hmmm. I see quite a number of opposes from people with obvious axes to grind, and several very contentious attempts to re-write the history of what has happened on the English Wikipedia. It's inevitable that someone of the experience, committment and visibility of Lar will become occasionally involved in high-profile issues, and that that will bring an opportunity for a few disgrunted users to make their point. However, no-one can be a great Steward without addressing the hard issues. That's what they are paid for (haha), and Lar should be commended for taking his duties extremely seriously and for not ducking issues that he must have known would earn him no brownie points. MichaelMaggs 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, good work as steward. LeinaD (t) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Lar has become a polarizing figure on the English Wikipedia. That's illustrated well here, with several supporters alleging that opposers must be harboring grudges, rather than just expressing what might be legitimate concerns. Supporters have talked about how helpful Lar can be. I'm one of the people he used to be helpful toward—and I supported him for steward in 2007—but he turned on me suddenly shortly afterwards for reasons that were never explained, and that's when I experienced a different side to him. He began to attack me on- and off-wiki. He tried to turn people against me. He supported Poetlister—a middle-aged man with multiple sockpuppets on the English WP masquerading as young women, who tried to out me because I'd pointed out they were socks—for bureaucrat and CU on Wikisource, though he knew about the serial sockpuppetry. He would turn up with snarky comments until it reached the point where I was reluctant to speak out on any issue in case he arrived with an insult. He checkusered me. He supported editors who opposed me on content issues regardless of the rights or wrongs, including banned ones. I'm not the only person he has done this kind of thing to—I have seen him be rude to good people in a way that nothing could really justify and that has left them deeply upset. Now the BLP issue has alienated a whole new bunch of editors. I broadly support Lar's stance on BLP, but I feel the way he has pursued it may have turned people who could have been persuaded into opponents.Stewards should operate above the fray. I think Lar needs to choose whether to be involved in the management of the project or its politics, because those roles are often incompatible. And above all I'd say to him, please realize that the people you target are often just as loyal to the project as you are. I'm also sorry about having to post this, and I hope it doesn't start up trouble between us again. I was sorely tempted to stay away, but I didn't feel I could justify not saying anything because of concern about consequences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Does not seem suitable for this role. Colonel Warden 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Blurpeace. Jaakobou 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Something doesn't sit right with me to support Lar. Perhaps it is my ridiculous xenophobic attitude towards giving Wikipedia Review participants, (no matter how explanatory they are about contributing there), too many tools. It's pretty much impossible to be in Lar's position and not infuriate or at least agitate one or perhaps many more people, so perhaps it's best to let someone else take over this role and let Lar get back to something more fun. I want to add that it is odd though that Lar has more opposition here than other Steward reconfirmations I have seen.--MONGO 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per most of the above. Xavexgoem 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I thought I was in a tiny minority re Lar until I saw the comments on this page. Tim Song and DGG put it succinctly. (FWIW I share Lar's views on BLP and would in fact go much further toward cleansing the project of marginally relevant BLPs, so it's unrelated to that issue.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris 06:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Nsk92. Bolo1910 06:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I haven't closely followed the en.wp BLP saga, but at the end of the day that is an en.wp issue, and if Larry has lost the trust of the en.wp community, I believe that he is open for recall there. Until there has been a vote of confidence on en.wp that says otherwise, it is inappropriate to say that he has lost the confidence of the community based on a small subset of motivated en.wp's turning up here. In regards to stewardship, Larry is quite inactive (especially if we discount the high count of rights changes for en.wp and Commons, where are wikis he is active on), yet he supported global sysops. Sorry, but that is a hot-button issue for me, as you know - as a result, I oppose reconfirmation at this time and recommend that he stand for reconfirmation next year. A lot can change in a year, and he will be in a position to give assurances then about whether or not he intends to be active or not in 2011 as a steward. John Vandenberg 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per SlimVirgin and Durova FeloniousMonk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. I have some concerns about his judgement and tendency to abuse process. MSGJ 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 'Remove, very abrasive interactions with those he seems to have preconceptions about, domineering and tends to dismiss reasoned argument. I've not paid close attention to the BLP issue, and like Lar favour removal of bios unless there is clear well sourced motability. However, his judgement appears to be poor. . . Dave souza 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Sensible and trustworthy user. And the link to get to other pages has exceeded limits, so the only way for me to get to other confirmations is to go through the entire list and find their pages one by one. SandyGeorgia 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Leinad [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: pl, en-2 Personal info: Hello friends, I would like to continue helping the community as a steward. I became a steward in 2009 and my work focused on fighting vandalism - mainly locking/hiding abusive user accounts and blocking IP addresses. Also, I spent a lot of time on SRP. I'm often available on #wikimedia-stewards and other IRC channels, where users can ask me for help. Thank you for your attention and I hope to meet with some of You at the next Wikimania in Gdańsk! LeinaD (t) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Leinad [edit]Your accessibility and responsibility impressed me. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. Hard working good guy. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Best keep him around. Kylu 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, no problems. —Innv {ru-ws} 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Keep. Christian Giersing 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Lar. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Barras ^talk 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm! --Church of emacs talk 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] absolutely helpful ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Confirm, very helpful. − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. JAn Dudík 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Peek — bastique ^demandez! 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Taketa 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep. billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sometimes a person doing a thankless job deserves to be thanked, and you can consider this one such happening. Thanks for the hard work and be sure to keep it up. Ottava Rima 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] sure, confirm --Mercy 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Xqt 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Kanonkas 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for your continued service. NonvocalScream 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Viatoro 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. John Vandenberg 05:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Teukros 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]M7 (M/) [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1 Personal info: Steward since December 2006, I work with the requests on SRP and I am reachable on meta or via mail. I hope can help the wikiprojects more this year. Thanks.Comments about M7 [edit]Very quick on SRP etc. Helpful steward. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, good steward with big experience. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Very helpful. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quick and active. Kylu 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Christian Giersing 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure, confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Katerenka (d) 09:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep, great experience. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm strongly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very active steward. Keep. --Bsadowski1 09:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] un'istituzione ormai ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Effective, experienced. Thanks for your work. –Ejs-80 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep! period - εΔω 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] absolutely — bastique ^demandez! 23:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, without any doubt.--Marco 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 10:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, please --Mercy 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. without a doubt. Annabel 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Anthere 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Guidomac 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep LeinaD (t) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. nearly 500 permission changes! John Vandenberg 05:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Mardetanha [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en , Fa, Az , Tr-2 Personal info: i would like to continue my job as steward , i was one of active stewards during the last year . If community trusts me I would be happy to serve another one year period as steward.Comments about Mardetanha [edit]Excellent steward as expected. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Great work, definitely reconfirm. Katerenka (d) 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, yes, please. —Innv {ru-ws} 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Most definitely reconfirm. Has been great! ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm — Jack Merridew 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quite active, needs more cowbell though. Kylu 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Kylu James (T C) 06:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] We need Mard. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Even if I was one of no-voters on his election, he has done more than a great job last year. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Useful --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very good steward, confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm please! ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep JZ85 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, of course --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] او را نگه دارید -- bastique ^demandez! 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep-- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] excellent value. keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, helpful steward --Mercy 21:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. --Philippe 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Keep him--آرش 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep I didn't forget his timely presence on it.source, when noone was around to help. - εΔω 11:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I am very happy to see that I didn't make mistake last year :) --Millosh 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Amir 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, I don't see any problems — NickK 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, no doubts --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good work and active. I trust Mardetanha as a steward, thus my keep. --Kanonkas 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure (also testing yakamoz :-). -- Mentifisto 17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course. :-) PeterSymonds 21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Stepro 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very nice and very helpful. Definitely what a steward should be. Ottava Rima 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Khoikhoi 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove rights (POV pushing, infringement Stewards policy#Don't decide Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity) SergeyJ 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continuing on. NonvocalScream 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course! A lot of good work. LeinaD (t) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Great steward! John Vandenberg 05:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Wayiran 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]mav [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, es-1 Personal info: Steward since 2004. 2009 activity was mainly related to commenting on or granting bot requests and setting sysop flags. I've also been active with processing SWMT deletion requests. I was often on the Steward channel on IRC during the first half of 2009. If confirmed, I plan to be on call more often on IRC in 2010.Comments about mav [edit]confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeppers. ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Good job for several years--> keep. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Bot lover , confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep --FiliP ██ 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Waerth 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] k? bastique ^demandez! 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Plot Spoiler 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, nice commitment billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, np. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. He became more active since last year; so he kept his promise :) --Millosh 13:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Anthere 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Jayjg 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continued service here. NonvocalScream 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep and as a bonus has been seen more often around en.wiki Featured Article candidacy pages :) Casliber 10:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Trustworthy, helpful, sensible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. John Vandenberg 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Mike.lifeguard [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, fr-2 Personal info: Hello again, all! Since my election, I've had a few periods of reduced activity - however this is judged by my own standards which are, admittedly, much higher than most. Even during these time periods, I've been among the upper half of steward activity measures, and I see no reason that will change in the forseeable future. I've been particularly involved with #cvn-unifications, and can be found on a regular basis in #wikimedia-stewards/stewards-l and private assistance channels like #wikimedia-admin, #wikimedia-checkuser/checkuser-l. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Mike.lifeguard [edit]Very excellent steward and active helper on all areas one could imagine. Thank you for joining us. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not everything... I'm not as comfortable doing SRB stuff as other tasks I do more often :) — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Definitely confirm. Katerenka (d) 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] thanks for all Your work, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Seb az86556 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] A wonderful person to talk to and very helpful when it comes to jobs that only a Steward can handle. Ottava Rima 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hard worker. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...it'll be a sad, sad day when he retires, though I might suggest taking a break once in a while? Kylu 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] No breaks for the weary! -- Avi 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Active steward. Confirm. Techman224^Talk 04:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excellent steward! --Holder 06:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Avi, spectacular steward who we can not lose James (T C) 06:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Too active for my liking. ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Definitely keep. --Bsadowski1 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, one of the most active stewards. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep strongly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep There is no reconfirmation request needed IMO. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excellent work --Church of emacs talk 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Άψογος, very helpful and active, keep him slave of our communities. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 12:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] yes please ;)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excellent steward and oversighter, keep! − Elfix × talk (fr) 13:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of the most active stewards out there on pretty much any steward area. Always willing to help out. --Erwin 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, but for me too much jobs. Marcus Cyron 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] commenting about mike is very difficult but to make long story short i can never think of wiki without him --Mardetanha ^talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. JAn Dudík 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Definitely keep. Nakor 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Good work. Obelix 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep JZ85 08:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] nobrainer keep --FiliP ██ 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Stefan64 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, sure. —Innv {ru-ws} 11:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Keep Christian Giersing 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - DustSpinner 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] green + circle sign bastique ^demandez! 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] supported by --Sargoth 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Taketa 13:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep. Taking wikibreaks is totally acceptable. Life is worth enjoying in between wikitime. billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Destroy any hope of him leaving ! Keep him, keep hiiim ! Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] per FiliP, definitely a nobrainer keep :P Finn Rindahl 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, always willing to help --Mercy 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *hasseloffed purrr* DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. --Philippe 00:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. Xqt 20:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. without a doubt. Annabel 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. --Túrelio 13:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --KrebMarkt 08:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] clearly Keep --Stepro 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --LadyInGrey 03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Jayjg 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Geitost ^diskusjon 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Remarkably good and helpful in his comments and steward work. Cenarium (Talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm This one was difficult for me. I have a bias in that Mike and I have had some disagreements over steward related items. Mainly I believe stewards should execute requests to remove sysop rights when sysops go on vacation, holiday, or break. But, that does not really outweigh all the good. Not by a long shot. Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Thanks for your help in dealing with vandals -- Bojan Talk 02:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep licensed steward, unlicensed lifeguard --Charitwo 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Great steward, he is everywhere. LeinaD (t) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --micki ^talk 20:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose His behaviour on Global sysops leaves a lot to be desired, where he (and a few others) were badgering everyone who held an opposing view, including many people who he was unable to communicate with due to difference of languages. Only after a few people pointed out it was bad form, he removed some of them. He went on to label the opposition as "faulty reasoning"[36], oblivious the large quantity of support voters who also appear to also misunderstand what the vote was about. John Vandenberg 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Millosh [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: sr (hr, bs, sh), en-3, ru-2, cu-2, mk-2, sl-2, bg-2, be-1, uk-1, ry-1 Personal info: I am not perfectly active because of my other Wikimedian duties (NomCom, ChapCom, LangCom as well as some other organizational issues). However, whenever I am able, I am online at #wikimedia-stewards channel and ready to handle requests. Usually, I am trying to cover tasks which are not so regularly covered, like keeping night shifts (early morning in Europe and night in Americas) is. I am giving my mandate to the community: if there are at least 30 votes in favor of removing my steward rights and 50%+1 majority, I will resign.Comments about Millosh [edit]Should be confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Has been instrumental in resolving some thorny issues. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Significantly exceeds minimal activity requirements, often has valued insights. Mandatory keep. Kylu 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good steward; confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep One of users which I can say that Wikipedia is more than just a part of his life. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] my favorite steward and wikipedian , so confirm--Mardetanha ^talk 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, np. —Innv {ru-ws} 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) keep, but become more active! --FiliP ██ 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Who is this masked man? bastique ^demandez! 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here is one more to make sure that it would be hard to find that 50%+1 against you. :) Keep up the good work. Ottava Rima 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, please. I hope you'll become more active. --Mercy 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Superb. Durova 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Sargoth 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --micki ^talk 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] remove Loss of trust, & looking at right logs user is basically inactive (a handfull of rights changes around the votings). --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Abstain Please increase your activity level or remove the access. This is the only thing I find pause with. NonvocalScream 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep LeinaD (t) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Active enough. John Vandenberg 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nick1915 [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: it, vec, en-2, es-1, fr-1, la-2 Personal info: Hi! I became a steward in 2007, I also hold admin and 'crat rights on it.wikt, vec.wp and meta. Usually active on SRP and several other global actions, I've taken a wikibreak last autumn, due to university matters. I'm reachable via mail, meta and irc (#wikimedia-stewards, #wikimedia but also active in "service" channels, like #cvn-unifications etc.). I hope my work is appreciated, even if I know I'm not the most active ;)Comments about Nick1915 [edit]Has to be confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] thanks for all Your work, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Nick around as a steward, please. Kylu 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] No one better nick Nick. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep Christian Giersing 07:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, able steward. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yep --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, good steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Nothing against this user. Confirm. –Ejs-80 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. ChristianH 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Friendly and helpful , sure confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] oh, yes --FiliP ██ 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Brao butél, da tégnarselo streto (very rough English translation: "Good guy, Keep him"). - εΔω 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) LOL!--Marco 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 10:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course! We need him ;-) !--Marco 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 10:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 让他留下 bastique ^demandez! 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, having some life is no sin, in fact occasional breaks should be seen as maintaining sanity. billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, helpful steward --Mercy 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keeep. The steward. --Millosh 13:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, although I'm still wondering why 81.109.92.172 was blocked for one test edit. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mostly I'm not used to block anyone for one test edit, but I've already seen this kind of gibberish somewhere (identical), and 2 hours block was just for prevention--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply] Keep --junafani 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, thank you for the service. NonvocalScream 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. Nick1915 ignored stewards consensus in Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#Ventusa.40ka.wikipedia. Bolo1910 09:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] True but I'm also very proud to be a troll target like my colleagues --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm LeinaD (t) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. John Vandenberg 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]oscar [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: nl, en-4, de-4, fr-3, es-2, it-2, sv-1, tr-1, af-1, la-1 Personal info: Steward since 2005, former board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, former founding and first chair of the Dutch Chapter (association). Formerly very active on dutch projects as administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser and edit filter manager. I voluntarily resigned there in September from my many responsibilities to focus on different things. I would appreciate to stay on as steward, but tend to work with intervals of less activity in between, since my responsibilities outside Wikimedia may sometimes take quite some time as well.Comments about oscar [edit]basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps it'd be best if you concentrate on other things. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Active, see global auth log. Keep, as he exceeds minimum activity requirements. Kylu 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep, Oscar has good experience and gradually keep activity (see comment from Kylu). —Innv {ru-ws} 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Have valued his counsel before. I think we urged Oscar to be more active last year. Meets requirements, so reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Helpful and around when asked with cross wiki vandals source of knowledge and wisdom. MoiraMoira 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oscar isn't inactive... several locks last year. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep no matter he's less active for a certain period. Davin 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive. Doesn't need the tools, but became active again in the last days. Something like neutral. -Barras ^talk 12:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, though I would like to see more activity. --Erwin 13:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm - plenty active per policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] barely active but i prefer to see him as steward --Mardetanha ^talk 18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, not so inactive, especially when considering the multilingualism.--Jusjih 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, per Pmlineditor. JZ85 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Still does great work - Freaky Fries 08:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, but I'd like to see some more activity --FiliP ██ 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Waerth 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - he is simply the best![reply] Keep --Jyothis 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - per Wearth. DustSpinner 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] happy to keep, would like to see skills kept, if there is the intention to maintain a sufficient activity. Only the steward can know what are their intentions and what they really should be doing. billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, good steward --Mercy 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would definitely like to see more activity Finn Rindahl 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *musically purrrrrrrrrr* DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Lymantria 12:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not very active, but I don't see how the benefits of demoting him outweigh the benefits of keeping him. We need stewards, and I doubt the election will elect enough to keep us steady until 2011. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would like oscar to be confirmed because his talents are necessary. However, I hope he will be able to save some time to use them and help out, as it would be a shame to have them go to waste. Inactivity does not bother me as a lack of ability or outright abuse would. I can understand why others would be concerned. However, I would state that if, in the future, he cannot find the time that he should voluntarily give up stewardship and then reapply when he is able to devote time to it again. Ottava Rima 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - good steward - Taketa 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Active and important member of the steward community. --Millosh 13:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Good worker not only directly visible, but also in the background. It is a pleasure to work together with him. Annabel 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Anthere 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Kanonkas 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Will Beback 09:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, good steward --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Jayjg 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep Activity level is high enough that that is not an issue. No other issues have been presented. JoshuaZ 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Geitost ^diskusjon 02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm I have no issue. Thank you for the continued service. NonvocalScream 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. LeinaD (t) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. He seems active enough, he is sensible and helpful, and the multi-lingualism is particularly useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, activity is high enough in my opinion. Lolsimon 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm as evidently has excellent abilities and good judgement. . Dave souza 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Pathoschild [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, fr Personal info: I have been an active steward since 2006. I wrote the standard bot policy and maintain the global bot list, coded various tools (such as StewardScript, StewardBot, Synchbot, stewardry, and crossactivity), wrote much of the steward handbook, coded and maintain most of the templates used on steward pages (including this one), idle in #wikimedia-stewards^connect for emergencies, and perform various steward tasks as shown in the Meta logs and recentlogs. See my user page for information on my non-steward contributions.Comments about Pathoschild [edit]I love you … okay, just a joke. ;) Excellent steward, very helpful on all areas. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P. S.: The raised issue weighs heavily. How long was that page visible? There are not just mirrors and index robots which can visit articles … It would have been much better to work with a non-public list to get the job done, imho. It's hard to excuse that decision and I cannot even see one here. I'd really appreciate if you could internali(z/s)e what was made wrong and why, excuse yourself then and undertake that you will never to do a similar thing again. Otherwise I could not support you with a good feeling.[reply] DerHexer, another user, and I had a long discussion about the list on IRC. He asked me to summarize that discussion here. We concluded that an editable list provided a record of the otherwise invisible oversights, and allowed collaboration on processing the listed names (for which a private IRC channel was set up). However, a public list was not a good way to do this; better alternatives would have been a private wiki, the stewards mailing list, or a private spreadsheet file. It is obvious now that the public list was an error in judgement, for which I sincerely apologize. —Pathoschild 01:38:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC) That's fine at least for me. I will continue supporting. —DerHexer (Talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Exceptional steward, incredibly knowledgeable; confirm. Katerenka (d) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] thanks for all Your work, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. I'm not quite in love with you but otherwise DerHexer stole the words out of my fingers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] very good steward, has to be confirmed --Church of emacs talk 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Competent, available, and a valuable asset. Ottava Rima 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, per all other comments ;-) —Innv {ru-ws} 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Another steward without which the projects would asplode. Keep. Kylu 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keeper. -- Avi 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Enslave him! --Jyothis 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] We all love him. Great toolsmith, unflappable, tireless contributor, and manages to put up with Shanel. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excellent steward! --Holder 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] psh, I'm not joking I do love you ;) /me fights shanel.... loses :( tireless steward who apprently doesn't actually sleep. James (T C) 06:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Too lazy. ;) Excellent steward; echo James. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very good and active steward. Of course: reconfirm. --Bsadowski1 07:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Foundation will do what it wants, but I don't trust this user. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quintessential. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good job. –Ejs-80 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep If not he, who then?! --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] useful, helpful... what else? :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] ..., versatile, always coming up with useful tools/scripts, ... --Erwin 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done great things as a steward. Techman224^Talk 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] helpful and friendly but please promise not to go for long wiki-breaks , when i can't find you on irc , lots my questions get unanswered --Mardetanha ^talk 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep Nakor 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Obelix 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of our most active stewards. Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, without a doubt --FiliP ██ 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Stefan64 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Half human, half robot... one great steward - εΔω 22:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Promote to quality image. bastique ^demandez! 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oversaturated, but maybe promote to valued image. Definitely a Keep as it is within scope and in use at several projects. Finn Rindahl 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Favorite steward, definite keep. Razorflame 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Christian Giersing 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - DustSpinner 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] supported by --Sargoth 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Plot Spoiler 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] tag as copyvio of shanel. —Dark ^talk 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, in fact chain him down. In high regard billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] hasn't done enough work yet... which is why we MUST keep him ! Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] remove so the rest of us can do something too! ;) Laaknor 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *javascriptally purrrrrrrrrr* DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Thanks very much. Lymantria 12:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Xqt 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] speedy: redundant image of Shanny. --Aphaia 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] pretty obvious. --Egmontaℨ♤ 11:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]I want to explicitly and strongly reconfirm after the latest comments. Although it is obvious that Pathoschild made a mistake (I however think that before the mistake was identified, very few people would have predicted that this was actually a mistake, and indeed he was wise enough to have the page noindex'd) I find no reason for him not to be a steward anymore. Not to confirm someone is not a punishment for something they did or didn't, it's a matter of trust and I see no reason not to trust him, he is more experienced after that mistake, he acknowledges it with maturity and above all he has done a ton of work in this very matter protecting sensitive information. For me this makes him a highly trusted veteran steward that will offer much help in the future protecting sensitive personal data. --Egmontaℨ♤ 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per all the above keeps. Durova 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Changing to neutral per Fran Rogers and Alison. Alison's privacy ought not to have been compromised at all, and certainly should not have needed proactive followup on her part afterward. Cannot maintain support in light of that. It can overshadow a thousand superb handlings of smaller matters to make those mistakes on a matter that required law enforcement intervention. Durova 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep — Jack Merridew 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. We would have many problems without his active work on steward tools. --Millosh 13:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Annabel 07:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep Clearly helps out general coordination and clear benefits to keeping as a Steward. Edit: The concerns raised concerning private information below are very serious. They seem to be a very deep problem, and while I'm still favoring keeping, I'm very close to switching to oppose. I have to strongly wonder what Pathoschild was thinking in putting this info in a publicly accessible location. JoshuaZ 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Will Beback 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] definitely Keep --Stepro 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Responsible for leaking large amounts of personal information (addresses, phone numbers, ...) by maintaining lists of hidden (for a reason) SUL accounts in a now-deleted "sandbox" that's now irreversably mirrored on external sites. Stewards are entrusted with the most intimate data on Wikimedia projects; slip-ups like these are wholly unacceptable (particularly if they happen repeatedly; see below). Fran Rogers 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Correction: the personal information was restored; it's still there in the page history. Lovely. Fran Rogers 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] After a discussion with Pathoschild on IRC, I found that he restored the local copies of the list on Meta by mistake on February 11. So this was not just a one-time mistake. Fran Rogers 07:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello Fran. I sincerely apologize for the mirrored information, which occurred due to an oversight regarding spam mirrors not retaining the __NOINDEX__ directive. Globally hidden accounts were not oversighted at the time, and I was using the list to bulk-oversight them on all wikis. I have oversighted the sandbox revisions, and am contacting the operators of the mirror domain to have the mirror updated or removed. (I do understand why you oppose my steward access.) —Pathoschild 07:49:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm still concerned you might make another mistake like this again with private information - especially considering your restoration as recently as February 11, ten days ago, when you mistakenly restored the deleted copies of the list here on Meta. Our stewards need to treat private data with the utmost security, especially when designing and using software that manipulates that data. Fran Rogers 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've also been informed of another incident in late January where Pathoschild uploaded locked-account data to the toolserver, and the personal info and defamatory claims within ended up as top results for a person's real name in Google before they contacted Pathoschild to remove it. Fran Rogers 11:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose for the same reason as Fran Rogers. harej 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fran, Pathoschild StewardBot is basically the only way the stewards were able to keep up with the oversighting of such abusive usernames. You are not really accomplishing anything by opposing this request. Say he was not reconfirmed. The issue with such usernames being made available to the public would only be increased. And confirm on that basis. NW (Talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note: There's also a gadget for that issue: MediaWiki:Gadget-hideuser.js. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is now. But you made that just six or eight months ago, I do believe. And Pathoschild's script is still far more efficient than anything else's. Plus, Fran, do you honestly believe that no steward has ever made any mistake? With the volume of work that Pathoschild does, it isn't totally unexpected for there to be a few errors. There would have been no matter who did it; that's simply human nature. NW (Talk) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was at least earlier stable than Pathoschild's one. However, both things are useful. And each steward can use the one which he prefers. So I where I can do that on my own and not by bot. But both scripts will not be anylonger needed when vvv's bugfix gets online. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] NuclearWarfare, it's understandable that stewards are only human, and humans make errors. But this chain of mistakes seems to indicate that Pathoschild is irresponsible at handling data even when others ask him to be careful. He was asked to keep his lists of sensitive data off Meta because Google was picking up and prominently displaying damaging information on there; so he moved it to his wiki pathos.ca, only to be informed Google was picking it up again; so he moved it to the Toolserver, only to be informed yet again that it was ranking high in Google for persons' names. And now, less than two weeks ago, he undeleted the copy on Meta again. That is at least four strikes, after each of which he was informed of his mistakes, but he still repeats them; a professional programmer would likely be looking at termination. He just doesn't seem to understand that peoples' livelihoods and reputations could be jeopardized by his mishandling of data. Fran Rogers 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some of the listed names were sensitive—which is why I moved the list to increasingly private locations—but not private. The names listed contained information taken from public sources, like the personal résumé you maintain on your personal website and indexed by Google. Furthermore, the names were available from MediaWiki itself at the time the list existed—I was using the list to remedy that problem. Google never indexed my sandbox page, because it contained a __NOINDEX__ directive. The problem occurred when a spam mirror copied pages from Meta, then stripped __NOINDEX__ directives to increase its page hits. The undeletion of the sandbox did not increase the list's visibility, since the revisions were deep in its edit history. While I am sorry that the list was indexed, and I am certainly more wary of indexing now, I do not agree that livelihoods and reputations were at risk—certainly no more than they were by their user pages being indexed (another problem only resolved relatively recently) or the original sources being indexed. —Pathoschild 05:33:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) That my own information is on the lists is beside the point; while my own contact information is readily available (though I find it rather intrusive that you linked it in this discussion), there are dozens of other folks' names and contact information on that list for which this isn't the case, and I personally know of two other users this has seriously impacted. Fran Rogers 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pathoschild, even setting the list issue aside, there's now the matter of you digging up links to my résumé with my home address and phone number and posting them above to prove a point (which are now thankfully oversighted). Is this really conduct becoming of a Wikimedia steward? Do you think all of the above would have supported you if they knew you were willing to do something like this? Fran Rogers 06:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pointing to your public home page is hardly a privacy violation, especially since it (and your résumé) are the second search result for your name, and you link to it from your enwiki user page. —Pathoschild 12:18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, I have a very high opinion of our stewards in general and of Pathoschild in particular -- the accomplishments and endorsements listed above are sure signs of a vibrant career as a volunteer in the WMF sphere -- but I'm also more than a little concerned by the apparent thought process that seems to have led to the posting and later restoration of what sounds like very sensitive information, and that by someone who is specifically tasked with accessing, safeguarding and protecting that very same sort of data on a regular basis. It seems like a no-brainer that we should strive to avoid publicly posting or reposting information that may have been used, or may continue to be used, in systematic harassment or outing of upstanding community members. Perhaps this can't be fully discussed in a public setting, but if it is possible to do so, I'm sure I'm not the only one who might appreciate a slightly more complete explanation of how and why that information wound up on a WMF site. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello Luna Santin. The user names listed were publicly available at the time from MediaWiki's automated lists, Toolserver tools, and some of their user pages. Many of the names had been publicly available for many months. I created a temporary, __NOINDEX__'d list of these public user names so that I could perform bulk oversight using StewardBot. Hundreds of these attack names disappeared from every wiki (and their mirrors) during this process. While the page never appeared in search engines due to the __NOINDEX__ directive, a problem occurred when a spam mirror website copied pages from Meta and stripped __NOINDEX__ directives to increase its search engine rankings. That mirrored page appeared in search results, and quickly led to the disappearance of the original list. Only a single page was indexed, instead of the many indexed pages that appeared before I began oversighting; I have contacted the owners of the domain to have the mirror page updated or removed. I do sincerely apologize for the indexing of a copy of the list due to my oversight. —Pathoschild 12:32:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The personal information about me (which is on that site and searchable through Google) was never made public willingly. I was outed on several websites after dealing with a certain banned user. Moreover, I do not agree with the way that you cavalierly refer to a list of account names like "<real name> rapes little kids." "<real name> = child molestor," "<real name> is a supporter of pedophilia," "<real name> has Asperger's syndrome," and "<real name> was abused by his Parents," which you posted to the wiki, as not having the potential to cause those individuals harm. Surely that's not what you are actually saying? Dominic 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello Dominic. Indeed, that is not what I am saying. The user names were already published by MediaWiki's automated lists and their user pages. Many of these were top search results, because of Wikimedia's high search engine ranking. (For example, some real names still match a few old mirrored user pages from those days in top results.) These highly visible names virtually disappeared as a result of my oversighting project; the mirrored list itself is typically so far back in search engine results that it's hidden by Google's "omitted some entries very similar to the n already displayed" feature. If all goes well, that too will disappear soon. I agree the names themselves are detrimental, and I'm sorry a mirror of the list was indexed; however, my actions greatly reduced the visibility of these names. —Pathoschild 14:02:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Most of these were one-off vandal accounts with no user pages, as you must know. They would not appear in search engines. You keep apologizing that the page was mirrored by another site without admitting that it was wrong for you to have ever posted any personal information regardless, a classic non-apology apology. You seem to be saying that there would have been no issue publicly posting the personal information if it were never indexed, even though that would mean that it would still be highly visible to Wikimedia's trolls and stalkers. I don't buy that posting these account names publicly was in any way necessary in order to suppress them. There is no reason that couldn't have been left on one's own hard drive. Dominic 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I recognize that the incident was poorly handled, and my apology is sincere. I would proceed differently given the choice, but that is not possible. If I respond to your comments, it is to clarify rather than justify what happened. The list served as a record of my actions as I proceeded, since oversighting is invisible on most wikis. As I processed usernames, they were removed from the list. The list was __NOINDEX__'d, in the obviously mistaken expectation that it would not be indexed. I felt the transparency outweighed temporary publication, since the user creations were already publicly logged by MediaWiki, and such lists were already made public by Toolserver scripts. —Pathoschild 02:44:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Keep --Kaster 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I've kept away from all the meta steward's elections/reconfirms this year, but have to comment. I really must concur with what Dominic is saying above; we have processes and policies for dealing with this stuff on enwiki, and the Oversight team works hard to ensure that defamatory usernames, etc, are redacted as quickly as possible to prevent the very problem that is being detailed here. As it is, there are two mirrored pages still up that cannot be removed - I've tried, and it's going to happen. You can see them here; [link removed] [link removed] And while I can understand how it happened, etc, this is the end result of keeping sensitive data in a place where it's publicly accessible. I contacted Pathoschild last September to point out this issue & he responded rapidly. However, I found myself having to go back again in mid-January with the exact same issue. Some of the contents of those pages relate to my full name, the full name of someone I had to report to the police, and some particularly nasty comments. Go find them yourselves :/ Either way, I'm particularly annoyed that these comments are now indefinitely on-line. It goes without saying that I'm annoyed by the perp, too, and would dearly love to name him in full here. But the failure of a steward to handle sensitive information just compounded the problem. Pathoschild has done some incredible work over the years on here - I've seen it myself countless times, but his failure to readily acknowledge the gravity of this issue concerns me greatly - Alison ^❤ 04:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also, please tell me that this data is still not publicly indexible here, squirreled away somewhere? At the very least, encode it so it's not human-readable - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Insert gratitious plug for either GnuPG or Truecrypt here. -- Avi 05:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The list is no longer public. —Pathoschild 05:10:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Keep --LadyInGrey 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, very helpful steward, trustworthy. − Elfix × talk (fr) 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I feel I must point out that Pathoschild is generally very conscious of making life difficult for vandals & trolls, and in particular dealing with vandalistic usernames requiring revision deletion. Indeed, he's been annoying me to no end by refusing to make public the source code for his StewardBot :D In light of this general awareness and his conscientious handling of such matters, I have to conclude that while posting usernames about to be oversighted on a public wiki (or any of the other locations) was clearly an error in judgment, keeping him around is a net benefit for our projects. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep For someone so incredibly lazy, this guy is a machine and a valuable asset to the entire project. --Charitwo 04:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. In light of the mistakes, which I do not believe PC will repeat, I believe that his continued service here is worthwhile. Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure, a lot of good work (and tools). LeinaD (t) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --micki ^talk 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Argh; the oversight log is private for a reason! That mediawiki (and wikis in general) publishes libel and private information immediately is not a feature, and it should never be used as an excuse for another person republishing the same information. It is a well known problem, and all tools which harvest data from the live logs should be concerned about contributing to & exaserbating this fundamental design problem. Still, I am confident that pathoschild is 100% part of the solution, so confirm and hope it doesn't happen again. John Vandenberg 07:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep - my only !vote this year. Yes, he's made mistakes here and there. However, he's one of the hardest-working stewards and plays a largely thankless but vital role for all the projects here. He's clearly demonstrated here that not only has he understood and acknowledged the gravity of what happened, but also took extraordinary steps to correct it. It doesn't get better than that - Alison ^❤ 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]Followup [edit]I spoke with the domain registrar and site operators. The mirror has been updated to the latest revision without the list. The names should disappear entirely from search results within the week. (Another steward has oversighted Alison's links above.) —Pathoschild 00:14:02, 03 March 2010 (UTC)Thank you so much for doing this. I really appreciate it. Thank you - Alison ^❤ 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]Redux [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en Personal info: Yes, I've been inactive for quite some time now. And the reason is because I've had to move since starting a new job, and this job requires quite a lot of traveling. The reason why I had not added a statement until now, something I never skip doing, is somewhat illustrative of my present situation: I have spent the last 3 weeks in Central America, where I had very, very limited access to the internet. Just got back, and found out that the reconfirmation had already started. As for the future, obviously I don't expect to keep this pace for much longer. I should be able to settle down, possibly in Brazil's capital, Brasília, where I'd be able to dedicate more time to Wikimedia, Wikipedia and other projects. But realistically speaking, that should still take one or two months. Being that I would still be able to return to work, I will not resign, since this is voluntary work and being overwhelmed by our jobs is just something that can happen to anyone. I will make no excuses. I am inactive for the time being, and have been inactive in the recent past because I was simply unable to be active. I will come back, provided I am not removed following this reconfirmation. Furthermore, since I see there are already people making remarks concerning my intervention in the previous reconfirmation, I will state right now that my intervention in this reconfirmation will be limited to adding this statement and answering any questions from the community, as long as they are directed to me personally, and not to the Stewards in general. I will not vote, I will not participate in the Stewards discussions regarding the results. If I feel that there is clear consensus to remove me, regardless of what I have just stated and regardless of any answers I may provide over the course of this reconfirmation, I will remove the flag myself -- after the poll closes, as my final execution of community consensus, and not as a resignation. And should this be my last days as a Steward, I will say only that it has been a great experience, and a pleasure to have worked in this capacity. And, of course, thank you for your patience and the trust that has been bestowed upon me over the last few years. Redux 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Redux [edit]Not anylonger active, no statement, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Also per Majorly.[reply] Inactive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As above... — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Now that there's a statement: Remove. Redux says it best: "Yes, I've been inactive for quite some time now." Indeed you have. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I have to point out that Majorly's assessment of the closing of last year's reconfirmations is completely accurate, as is Anonymous Dissident's. The community's will was overruled, and to this day I am thoroughly ashamed I watched it happen without doing more to prevent that outcome. This was mainly due to "older" stewards throwing their weight around - you can read the page and see . While that was inappropriate, I lacked the will to stand up to that intimidation. I very nearly resigned because of this. I hope this year's modified closure process will result in the community's opinion being enacted as best we can. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] That is an spectacular misread of both the reconfirmation process and last year's events. I'm sorry you felt intimidated somehow. Had I noticed that, I would have encouraged you to participate more actively in the discussion page, although you were actually one of the few who did participate more actively where the Stewards were in fact supposed to be discussing the process. That being said, however, you are now implying some level of bad faith, or some kind of "plot" from some of the Stewards to defend their peers. I must take exception to that. At this point, I will refer you to my more detailed comments below. I really don't get why it seems to be that difficult to understand that the reconfirmation was not, and still is not, an election. The current rules state pretty much the same as last year's did in terms of it being the Stewards' job to take into account comments from the community and making a decision in light of their understanding of the job. Now, 96% of the time, the job means enacting community consensus without applying judgement regarding what local communities have decided. There is, however, the other 4%. And the reconfirmation is part of that. This is what was agreed with the then-Head of the Board of Trustees, which, I might recall, are the ones empowered to promote and remove Stewards. Originally, both the reconfirmation and the Steward elections were "advisory elections" to them. Then it was agreed that the reconfirmation wasn't going to be an election at all, and that the body of Stewards would be encharged of making a decision as a team, with input from the community (the public reconfirmation). We don't get to change that without the Board of Trustees' say-so. And frankly, most of the Stewards, if not all of them, agreed at the time that this was the only format that would allow Stewards to be able to perform during the year without worrying about being "political" enough to survive repeating elections. Forgive the bluntness, but in order to be able to do this job, you will need to be able to think outside the proverbial box when the job requires it, however rare that might be. Redux 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm amused by your persistence in claiming that what you did was right and that we're misrepresenting the events. How many more will it take to convince you? This type of stubbornness is yet another trait I'm dismayed to see in anyone with a position of authority. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Amused"?? I would appreciate it if you would keep the sarcasm in check. I said in the beginning I would provide answers if they were required. Not liking the answer is your prerrogative. And from the position of a Steward, having people disagree with something you do is pretty much part of the job. That's one of the points I have been making. Another one is that precisely because a decision a Steward makes, however in good faith, can dissatisfy people on one level or another, we cannot have yearly "reelections" for the current Stewards, and hence the format of the reconfirmation. In this particular case, I made the decision I thought was appropriate and in line with the rules, and I made it in good faith. That is the promise I must keep as a Steward, not that my decisions will always please everyone or even, for the sake of argument, that they will always be right. I don't believe I made a mistake, but if I did, it was while trying to do the right thing. That is the only realistic promess anyone can make. If there are people who think I should have acted differently, I will listen to their suggestions, and if there is agreement that we should handle the reconfirmation differently, and if we have the Board of Trustees onboard with that, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Redux 15:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] When I said I was ashamed to have done less than enough last year I meant it. You should be ashamed too. I should have stopped you from dismissing community input, but you shouldn't have done so in the first place. In fact, all stewards should be shamed - we failed the community. Sadly, the only recourse the community has to rectify that failure is these reconfirmations, creating something of a catch-22. I'm afraid I can't say anything further that's civil at the moment. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm fine with you having a different understanding of the reconfirmation or even the role of the Stewards in the reconfirmation. I think you are wrong, you think I'm wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, your comment above is incredibly, and I mean, incredibly beligerant ("I should have stopped you", "I can't say anything further that's civil"??) and not at all what I would expect to hear from a Steward. You are out of line and you need to revisit what it is that it means to be a Steward of the Foundation — and mind that: we are Stewards of the Foundation. In any event, being that the reconfirmation has ended, I believe there is no point in discussing this further here. Redux 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Remorseful remove as inactive. Kylu 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive. no statement - remove. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hardly any activity and no statement, so I'm afraid I must say remove. --Erwin 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would definitely like to see more activity. Taking Anonymous Dissident's comments and your statement and comments into account I wonder whether you will become more active, but in the end only time can tell. For now I say confirm per Oscar. --Erwin 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid I'll have to say remove. We need active stewards and a promise like this isn't enough. --Erwin 13:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] sorry but remove , on the ground of inactivity --Mardetanha ^talk 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] very low activity, weak not-reconfirm --FiliP ██ 11:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive, remove. Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. Last 50 edits stretch back to his attempts at last year's confirmations to convince us inactivity is not a good reason to strip people of access. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reaffirming remove vote. I'm sorry, but you said very similar things last year, including that you had "begun returning to activities". You have not been active as a steward for more than two years now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, and realistically speaking it is always a possibility that we might plan to do certain things (e.g., return to full activity, and so on) and in the end we can't quite make it. At this point, I predict I should be able to be more active in a couple of months, but that is not written in stone either. That being said, however, and as I mentioned in response to Carry's comment, it would be better if I, or any of us, could provide some kind of prior notice when we intend to take a leave of absence (or when we need to extend one). Beyond that, we cannot be worrying about filling quotas. The best and only promise I can make is that I never intended to leave or abandon my work as a Steward. But unintended absences are, at least for me, a fact of life. Redux 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good faith Keep but please notify us when you expect to disappear again. We worry! bastique ^demandez! 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, I should at the very least have e-mailed the Foundation Office about this. But since those things are usually not planned, we can sometimes lose track of how long it's been since we were actually active. It might take comments like "remove per inactivity" for us to actually go back to the contributions history and realize just how long it's been. At least that is what happened to me. Duly noted. Provided I'm not removed now, I will make it a point to post notifications should I ever have to take prolongued leaves of absence in the future. Redux 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep after statement :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep - clear statement. my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). oscar 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] neutral, though comfortable with a wikibreak, as long as their is a serious self-review at a realistic timeframe of what their commitment allows, and is made for the community's benefit. billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, despite statement I have to say remove per inactivity. Finn Rindahl 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per statement. Cbrown1023 talk 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. He's definitely trustworthy, and I would be happy on taking his word on his future contributions. Per Oscar as well. NW (Talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Absence explained satisfactorily and my experience with Redux is that I trust him in that as his life and work settle down, he will return to higher levels of activity. -- Avi 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep After statement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. If what you are saying is true, we all should give you a second chance. I hope you enjoy here in Brazil. Be more active on pt.wikipedia too. Good luck.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Next time, you should keep a satellite phone with yourself, so you can be prompt enough :P --Millosh 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, for next time. —Innv {ru-ws} 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Keep and wish you better connection :) --Aphaia 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove Sorry, you're basically inactive and each year it seems we get empty promises of more activity. Thanks for your work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reaffirm vote per this. Stewards do not overrule the community. Sj should have been removed last year, the vote was clearly in favour of that. For another inactive steward to overrule that is very inappropriate. Majorly talk 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excuse me? Sorry, but I'll address this as if it was a question, although I'm fully aware that it wasn't. However, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of reconfirmation. It is not a reelection. It is the Stewards' job to take community input under advise in deciding how to proceed regarding the Steward body. Those were the rules last year, and I was doing nothing but abiding by them. Furthermore, the decision is hardly unilateral, and I did not overrule anyone. Any Stewards disagreeing with the interpretation I gave to Sj's case were free to, and indeed should have brought it up in discussion, and a consensus would have emerged. And should it have been to remove Sj, that's exactly what would have been done, and it would have been I who would have been overruled, rightfully so. If the Stewards, who were charged with evaluating the reconfirmation results from last year, had felt that I should not have had a voice in the discussions because of my level of activity then, I would like to think that they would have brought it up, and this would have been dealt with accordingly. In addition, a comment amounting to "I support removing you because I disagree with something you did in the past as a Steward" is precisely why the reconfirmation cannot be treated like a simple reelection. Obviously, people are going to disagree with any given decision I might make as a Steward. That is just part of the job. However, if the job requires that I make a decision, and in that case it did, then I will make it. In the case of Sj's thread, you may not recall this, but it was, along with a few others, left open for someone to make the final evaluation and close it. For one reason or another, there was no one making the judgement call that was required to provide closure to a process that had been going on for more than a month. So I made the call, which was in full accordance with the valid rules concerning the 2009 reconfirmation. And I closed a lot of the threads in that reconfirmation, I should add, and not only Sj's. If there is any criticism that might help me to better perform the job, I'm certainly all ears, and indeed I welcome it — as I did when I noted in response to Carry's comment, in this reconfirmation, that we should not take leaves of absence without some kind of notification. But what I would consider inappropriate is not to make constructive remarks when they could have been made in that spirit, and then wait until a perceived opportunity to retort by "voting" to remove, in a matter of speaking. Redux 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can try to justify your decision till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that you overruled 17 of the 18 voters at Sj's 2009 confirmation, right after having been inactive for more than a year yourself. It was a very poor show indeed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The 2009 reconfirmation was not a vote. The community was supposed to give input so that the Stewards could make a decision regarding their peers. Nobody was overruled, all the rules were followed. There's no need for me to repeat was is written in my previous comment above, so please refer to it. This, however, is the first negativity I'm hearing about Sj's decision, and that includes the Steward body. As I mentioned before, there are a number of avenues through which people can comment on a particular decision, or the entire process (in this case, the 2009 reconfirmation, in case people were unhappy with the rules in effect). If you feel that I, personally, made a mistake in closing Sj's reconfirmation, this could have been brought up to me directly, or within the scope of proposing an overhaul of the reconfirmation process. However, for the sake of argument, even if we were to work with the hypothesis that a mistake was made, "remove because, as I see it, you made a mistake" is also not appropriate. This is, yet again, a good example of why a Steward reconfirmation is not an election. With only a few exceptions, usually pertaining to unauthorized release of privileged information, we do not remove people because of a mistake. This was also discussed in the 2009 reconfirmation, referring to a couple of other Stewards. Furthermore, and again, the decision regarding Sj was not mine alone to make. The other Stewards acceeded to it, either explicitly or tacitly. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, they could have overruled me. Redux 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] You immediately disappeared when the reconfirmation was closed (as you appeared when the last and this confirmation started; but I assume good faith and trust your statement concerning your job). How could we disagree with your decision then? Also many stewards in fact were dissatisfied with your closures because you ignored all open (!) discussions on steward-l concerning this issue and all opposes (by stewards) in that reconfirmation by deciding all on your own in a confirming way. Should we have overruled you? Without discussing it with you? Without being able to quote a rule which should have prevented you from doing so? (Afaics there's no rule for ignoring discussions [in that case]. Luckily for this time a commitee of at least three users will do that in a consensus based way.) … I for myself came back from university and saw that all critical confirmations were closed by you without consensus, neither on mailinglist nor onwiki, and was not able to intervene because of the given facts. As I spoke for removing in each case I of course did not agree with you. You might disagree with me, too, but I rated that behaviour as quite uncooperative and misleading … —DerHexer (Talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, most of the Stewards made one or two comments on the discussion threads and then abandoned them completely, not returning to either review or reaffirm their positions in light of ongoing discussions, of which I was participating. As a rule of thumb, when discussing highly visible topics, I do not engage in discussions off-wiki (ie, via e-mail or instant chat). As far as I know, that is normally frowned upon, and sometimes viewed as even unethical — as a matter of fact, I recall this was actually a topic of discussion during the election in which I was appointed a Steward. In 2009, only a handful of the Stewards were actually involved with the discussions right up to the end on the actual discussion page. I'm rather surprised to learn that many Stewards were discussing this on other avenues and never intervened on the actual discussion page, which the community was following — I kept waiting for more input on some of the more polemical, close-call threads, but there was no more relevant discussion on them, except for a couple of back-and-forths between a few of those Stewards who were actually more involved there, but without any new input, those had ceased to bring anything new or relevant to the discussions. I didn't close any of the threads out of the blue. Furthermore, I noticed explicitly that, taking into account the reconfirmation itself and the Steward discussions, the entire process was already dragging too long, and we needed closure to it (new Stewards had already been appointed and still there was no conclusion to the reconfirmation process). And still, with the exception of Lar, no one was doing the actual closing of the discussions. I actually didn't want to close any threads except the clear-cut ones, but in the end, it was extremely unfair to have that process drag on for an unlimited period of time — something that doesn't happen in any other instance regarding elections, reconfirmations, etc.. So I closed them, because no one else was doing it. And in doing it, I took into account the current discussions on the actual reconfirmation page. Even if I had been following any private listings on the reconfirmation, I would not feel comfortable taking them into account in closing the process, because it was a public process, and even if Stewards were the only ones allowed to comment, the discussions were not supposed to be private, unless privileged information had to be exchanged, which was not the case. And in that regard, I must note that "public" only applies to pages on the Meta-Wiki. However, if the Stewards are adopting a new posture regarding such discussions, and this has, on at least some level, the agreement of the community — which I don't believe it does, but please correct me if I'm wrong — then no problem, I will start participating in off-wiki discussions when dealing with similar situations (but not on this reconfirmation, since I said I wasn't going to take part in the Steward discussions). Like I said, I'm all ears to any criticism and/or suggestions that might help the job. Redux 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove My thoughs are that two years of inactivity is a very long time on the internets and that you might by this time be out of touch. Ceoil 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep After statement. Mwaldeck ^msg 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove for inactivity, but with thanks for service in the past. Jonathunder 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Please with caution with regards to activity. Give back the tools if you don't need them. Thank you for your continued service! NonvocalScream 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove and come back when you have time again. I'm not convinced for this year. --Geitost ^diskusjon 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inactive, in last 2 years you made only a few steward actions. Remove. LeinaD (t) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. Jayjg 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Rdsmith4 [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, es-3, it-3, la-2, ar-1 Personal info: I have been regularly, if not always voluminously, active this year on SR/P. As always, I am frequently available on IRC to monitor the SUL unification log (a popular target of vandalism this year), to answer questions, and to handle requests, especially urgent ones. If confirmed, I will continue my steady availability to the global Wikimedia community as a source of assistance and a manager of crises, a role I believe to be just as valuable as the more visible forms of steward activity that are usually the focus of confirmation discussions. I remain interested in the ever-developing role of the stewards in the Wikimedia community, and I expect that role to change as the Wikimedia projects mature and the needs of their communities change. Accordingly, I appreciate any suggestions or criticisms of my stewarding, and I look forward to discussing issues concerning the future of the stewards as they arise throughout the year. Finally, since I was first elected in 2006 I've been longing for a chance to use my knowledge of Latin to do some stewarding at la.wikipedia, or at least to process a request in Latin. My chance has not yet come along, but (rather like the Cubs) this could be the year. :-) — DanComments about Rdsmith4 [edit]confirm. Not active all the time, but very knowledgeable and thoughtful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Activity exceeds minimum standards as set in policy, keep. Kylu 02:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Per Julian, value his counsel. Per Kylu, active enough. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Kylu. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per Kylu --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep --FiliP ██ 11:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, yes, please. —Innv {ru-ws} 12:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Keep Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, one of the old ones. — bastique ^demandez! 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Trusted and active. Pohta ce-am pohtit 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep; per ^. − Elfix × talk (fr) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Certainly. Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Kylu. --Millosh 13:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm No issues. Past experience make me very comfortable. Thank you for continuing. NonvocalScream 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. LeinaD (t) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Yes, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. John Vandenberg 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC) p.s. have you considered la.wikisource ... ;-) [reply] Keep . . Dave souza 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Shanel [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, fr-2 Personal info: I am a semi-active steward because I am a student, but I am regularly available in #wikimedia-stewards^connect to help users and handle emergencies. I mostly block or lock users, and perform the occasional checkuser investigation or other task. I would like to continue doing so. See my user page for my other contributions.Comments about Shanel [edit]Reconfirm, of course … —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Brilliant; reconfirm. Katerenka (d) 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Regularly available in the channel and mailing list (and my favourite steward ♥). —Pathoschild 01:13:56, 07 February 2010 (UTC) quite inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not concur. Although she was not hyper-active, Shanel worked in each area and especially in Special:Log/globalauth/Shanel. Moreover she's available on IRC and assists there, whereby also not all actions are logged. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. Active enough, and completely awesome. —Dark ^talk 02:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, why not? —Innv {ru-ws} 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Not extremely active, but meets minimal requirements. Plus, Pathoschild might get us if we remove her. Keep. Kylu 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] If only to keep Pathy happy... Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not as active as some but always online and available for emergencies. James (T C) 06:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Definitely confirm (maybe per Lar? :P ). Pmlineditor ∞ 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reconfirm. Very nice steward. :) --Bsadowski1 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Foundation will do what it wants, but I don't trust this user. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep (Maybe per Pmlineditor :)) --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be a worse wiki-world without Shanel :(--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep our Shannie! --FiliP ██ 11:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Pathoschild bastique ^demandez! 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, is a delight to work with. The rose with a thorn in her side. ;-) billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Definitely. Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *purrrrrrrrrr* DarkoNeko 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Active enough, quite friendly, and very helpful. Ottava Rima 15:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep fairly available. --Aphaia 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep :) --Millosh 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Annabel 07:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Egmontaℨ♤ 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Will Beback 09:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] helpful steward, keep --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Khoikhoi 01:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep sexy, efficient, and has is fond of cacti and glomping --Charitwo 04:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continuing in this capacity. NonvocalScream 05:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. LeinaD (t) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep: active enough. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Active enough. John Vandenberg 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Shizhao [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: zh, en-1, ru-1 Personal info: Hello, all. I serving on the ombudsman commission in the last year. I would like to continue working as a steward.Comments about Shizhao [edit]No statement does not look very convincing to me. Do you really want to help us again? I'd appreciate it. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, user's steward status was on hiatus while serving on the ombudsman commission, so did not have access to the tools. Kylu 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wasn't listed till less than 48 hours ago, I am sure he will put up a statement. Reconfirm based on 2008 contributions (why I'm going for reconfirmation now, rather than later, so people remember :) ) ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per Kylu; confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep Per above --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Neutral for now. I'd like to see a statement. - Confirm. --Erwin 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Marcus, he wasn't active during the last year because he was in the ombudsmen commission. Ombudsmen are not supposed to be active as steward or CU/OS during their term. --თოგო ^(D) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Then he has to give back the buttons for this time and start now a new try. Hanging on the buttons helps nobody. Marcus Cyron 12:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] wait to see statement , otherwise remove otherwise keep :) --Mardetanha ^talk 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Kylu.--Jusjih 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] weak keep --FiliP ██ 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to ask for information regarding how involved Shizhao has been in the work of the OC over the past year. I'm currently under the impression that he more-or-less disappeared from doing that work. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As well, I want to be sure that the comments from last year are taken into consideration here. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, given that my impression of not being involved hasn't been contradicted, and the concerns raised in the RFC and again at last year's half-confirmation haven't been so much as addressed (much less resolved), I'm going to say Remove. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Since you have been on the ombudsmen committee, it makes sense you have little/no activity. Assuming you will read up on the changes etc in the manual, I think it makes sense to let you be confirmed. Effeietsanders 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Welcome back -- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 让他留下 — bastique ^demandez! 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] has to be keep after the punishment of Ombudspeopleseses. ;-) WB. billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, though I'm in agreement with Mike-lifeguard. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, experienced steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. OTRS Chinese queue received a ticket concerning improper removal of certain political views that is against Shizhao's believes (aka POV-pushing). In addition, Shizhao ran a CU request at home wiki (which should be avoided) AND Spacebirdy deemed it as no reasons given for running this check. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I am, actually, puzzled by the fact that Shizhao didn't get back his steward permissions after his mandate as Ombudsman. --Millosh 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] He was given a pass on last year's confirmation, despite serious concerns being raised, including concerns about his use of steward/checkuser tools. He can't have another pass this year. So here we are. Sadly, none of the information I've requested has materialized. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep An experienced and active steward is an asset.--Aphaia 09:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Geitost ^diskusjon 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove. SergeyJ 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove DerHexer and Lifeguard have my pulse. Thank you for your service. NonvocalScream 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As FiliP, this year you show that you deserve to be a steward. LeinaD (t) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove per NonvocalScream. Bolo1910 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Effeietsanders. Shizhao been a valuable steward before becoming a member of the Commission, and he'll surely be one again. --MF-W 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove per NonvocalScream. Jayjg 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sj [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: en, de-2, es-1, fr-1, sw-1 Personal info: Hello! I have been a steward since 2005, working mainly on small-wiki and bot support. I am an admin also on English, Swahili, and Nahuatl wikipedias, and reachable by mail and meta. I am often on the stewards and cvn-unifications channels and started our noticeboard last year. I hope to continue to be helpful as a steward, but am not so active at the moment thanks to Board and Foundation work.Comments about Sj [edit]Reconfirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thought leader despite less activity than I would prefer. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm of course --Church of emacs talk 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, though I would like to see more activity. --Erwin 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Marcus Cyron 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, but I'd like to see more activity --FiliP ██ 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep without a shadow of a doubt. my compliments with the way you succeed in combining wmf board-membership with stewardship! oscar 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, we just need him-- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] really. bastique ^demandez! 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, no fuss, quiet achiever. billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course. --Philippe 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Keep per Billinghurst; very well put, Billinghurst. :) Durova 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Kept the promise and became more active as a steward. Glad to see that :) --Millosh 13:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] What is the point of this farce? The candidate has no respect for the community nor do his fellow stewards who interpreted two years of almost total inactivity as an irrelevant factor in the last two confirmations. This is insulting and ridiculous. --JayHenry 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just a question: In which way low activity insults you or the community? —DerHexer (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, perhaps he should have been removed per last time... I see that's a clear consensus to remove, but for some reason he wasn't. When the community elects you to do a job, it's only decent you do it. Sj did, for a while, but then got busy elsewhere and should really have handed the steward bit in a long time ago. Majorly talk 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] We stewards talked about how to hande inactivities on steward-l but one steward ignored that and closed all confirmations. We apparently did not want to make trouble and accepted that; also because of being chronically understaffed. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] You just answered your own question then about how this is a ridiculous and insulting farce of a process. --JayHenry 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I'd not call that insulting. And of course not all steward appreciated that behaviour as you assumed here. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] But none of you did anything about it. The community unanimously said he should be removed. The community was unilaterally overridden and you sat by and did nothing. sj cares so incredibly little about the community that he didn't even bother to write a statement. Of course that's insulting, because it shows exactly what the stewards think of the community - zilch. I've been here a long time and, yes, I do find it insulting to have my views completely ignored on a whim. --JayHenry 22:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Statement is in clear view on the contrary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is it somehow unclear that my statement is about last year? --JayHenry 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] My point: this process is insulting because last year there was total consensus to remove and SJ couldn't even be bothered to write a statement. The Stewards don't care what the community thinks and reappointed him anyway. This is a joke. --JayHenry 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not the stewards: Talk:Stewards/confirm/2009/en#Sj —DerHexer (Talk) 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Whatever, I really appreciate Sj's frequent comments on steward-l and I do not want to miss them, even if he's not the most active steward. Not all steward actions are logged, and especially not all on meta.[reply] I do not agree that this is a "ridiculous and insulting farce of a process" Rather, it's one that has been carefully constructed to remove (or at least reduce the influence of) political and grudgeholding sorts of input... That is why it is a two phase process. The community gives input, in the form of praise or concern, plaudits or issues, and the stewards as a body evaluate what to do. Last year's community portion of the confirmation raised a lot of concerns. During the second phase those concerns were evaluated and addressed by the stewards, and by Sj. The question now is, has there been a change for the better sufficient to merit reconfirmation in the community's view? Rehashing last year's confirmation may not be the most productive thing to do. Speaking as a steward with visibility to nonpublic discussions, it's my view that Sj is a valuable member of the steward community, as I said on the 7th. I don't want to lose his insight and contributions behind the scenes. As I said on Anthere's reconfirmation, being a steward isn't just about bit twiddling, though that's an important part of it. It's also about thought leadership, internally (among other stewards) and externally (among the entire WMF community). Sj has that in spades. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strawman. Nobody last year had political or grudgeholding input. Not one single person. I have no problem with sj, I have a problem with this bogus process, but, as with all processes whereby powerful users protect each other, it is never the place to discuss it, never the time, etc. Honestly, if you're going to completely ignore a unanimous consensus decision from the community, just don't ask for input in the first place. I brought it up here because I hadn't realized, until I saw this confirmation discussion, that the stewards didn't care at all what the community thought. I don't care if you reappoint SJ, but why put us through the charade of asking for our input when you don't care at all what we think? That you labeled last year's 100% honest input as "political" and "grudgeholding" tells us all we need to know about the value you place on opinions from non-stewards. --JayHenry 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] JayHenry, I have a great deal of respect for you, you are a careful and considerate wikimedian who has made many insightful comments in the past that people tend to take heed of, for their own good. But when you call this process "bogus", "ridiculous" and other pejorative terms, that's not at all helpful, I don't think. If you look across all the steward reconfirmations, there was lots of political and/or grudge-holding input last year, which is what I was referring to. There's even more of that this year, unfortunately. But all input is considered carefully. If you look at the steward discussion for sj you won't see the concerns raised brushed aside lightly. Sj was grilled about his intent, and it wasn't a shoo-in by any means. He made a commitment and he's met that commitment. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove Basically inactive, and has been since 2006 pretty much. Thanks for your hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Not everything is quantifiable. Why are some here being so insulting? Can't we just be professional about this? --WiseWoman 08:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree. My idea of professional and non-insulting, however, is an environment in which the views of longtime contributors are not disregarded. Now, it is true that in many professions it is the prerogative of the bosses to simply ignore the views of their underlings. Think of the "suggestions box" that the boss tosses in the garbage without reading. Our views are like those slips of paper to the stewards. I suppose it may be professional in that sense, but I struggle to see how it's something other than insulting. --JayHenry 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] JayHenry, I want to personally apologize for allowing the confirmations last year to be run in the manner you describe. I tried to ensure the community's intent was carried out, but I failed. I wasn't alone in that attempt, but I can only speak for myself. As stated elsewhere, I am ashamed of that failure. I also want you to know that while it is true that powerful users protect each other, I am not and will never be in that camp: I will always defend users (or not) on the merits of a given situation, or do my best at least. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep While he is technically not very active, there are clear benefits to him continuing to have the Steward rights. Clearly can be trusted. The level of inactivity necessary for it to become a fundamental argument for removal is much more than this. (Minor disclaimer: I've interacted a lot with the user in real life so may have a biased opinion). JoshuaZ 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Billinghurst. Jayjg 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Remove per Mike.lifeguard. Jayjg 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] As last year, remove due to his lack of involvement as a steward. One can only assume that being a board member will exacerbate this. I feel obligated to point out that Sj has not followed up in any meaningful sense on his promise from last year to work on an improved process for making judgments about inactive stewards. I'm afraid I cannot disagree with JayHenry's assessment of this process in any meaningful sense either. I only hope our modified system this year will ensure the community's wishes are respected. Please see my comments on Redux's confirmation page as well. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. A bit inactive. Please with caution to your activity and please remove if inactive. Thank you for your service. NonvocalScream 05:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, but I would like to see you more active in steward actions. LeinaD (t) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm as sound and trustworthy. . Dave souza 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thogo [edit]logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement<Simplified Chinese not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>English: Languages: I prefer writing in de and en, but I can read some more languages. Personal info: Hi all. I would like to continue working as a steward. I wasn't that active over the last year, because of a lot of work in RL, which will not become less in the future (I hope), but I'm available on IRC on a daily basis and ready to help with emergency cases and also with some regular tasks. I want to (ab)use this statement to say thanks to all fellow stewards and to quite some more people who help the stewards with cross-wiki vandal fighting and maintaining the request pages for the nice collaboration with all of you! --თოგო ^(D) 10:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Comments about Thogo [edit]The next one which I have to love ;) … very helpful stewards. Reconfirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P. S. Boring confirmation, btw. ;-)[reply] Hard worker, knowledgeable guy. Easy confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, please; reconfirm. Katerenka (d) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support, one of the ones with the most non-flexible backbones, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good steward, confirm! :) --Church of emacs talk 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course, good steward. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Per birdy - something we need more of! — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Required confirmation, one of the most active. Kylu 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per birdy, et al. -- Avi 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course! Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Excellent steward! --Holder 06:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per above, great steward who we need more of. James (T C) 06:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Meh confirm. ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 07:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Christian Giersing 07:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep MoiraMoira 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per Birdy and Mike. --WizardOfOz ^talk 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cost-effective. Saved us a lot of trouble on fiwiki one time by emergency desysopping an admin who sadly went berserk. Reconfirm. –Ejs-80 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] we Support him :)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Erwin 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Lukas9950 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes because I know and trust him. But with stomach ache. In my eyes too much jobs and in the last time not so cool as before. I hope ist will come back. Marcus Cyron 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] very well experienced , very friednly , very very available on irc , very kind , so very confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Nakor 01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep.--Jusjih 04:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] keep, another nobrainer. --FiliP ██ 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Stefan64 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep! M.L 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Make him work. bastique ^demandez! 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Razorflame 07:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Jyothis 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] კიფ without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] supported by --Sargoth 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] gold star. keep billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm, always willing to help --Mercy 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] mreow ! mreoooow *german accent mreow* DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. --Philippe 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very active and good at the job. Ottava Rima 16:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Xqt 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Egmontaℨ♤ 10:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The steward. --Millosh 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep great work. --APPER 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. --Tinz 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] confirm. --Túrelio 13:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --Kanonkas 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Deror avi 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] definitely Keep --Stepro 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --WiseWoman 08:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --junafani 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Raymond 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Cenarium (Talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep -- Cecil 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --SergeyJ 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Charitwo 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm. Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 05:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course! Very friendly and helpful steward. LeinaD (t) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] reconfirm. John Vandenberg 03:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep absolutly trustworthy! -- Ra'ike 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Itu 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep C-M 21:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Confirm as well recommended for trustworthiness. . . Dave souza 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]