Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2012/en
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by PeterSymonds in topic Confirmations - closing discussion for stewards
Question about stewards who were elected in the 2011-2 elections not requiring confirmation
[edit]It says on this page that the recently elected stewards have the option of being confirmed or not. My question is, why is it up to them? What if someone has a legitimate concern, but since the steward isn't putting themselves up for confirmation it can't be addressed? I think that a much better way of handling this would be to allow users to request confirmation on a steward which they feel hasn't done a good job. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ajraddatz. The issue here is that the stewards have only been "in office" for three months, so we decided that they should be confirmed in 2013. Stewards are typically confirmed every year, but as you know, we put a spanner in the works by hosting mid-year elections in 2011. In 2013, these stewards will have been in office for a year and three months, which is a bit longer than usual, but not by much. 2011-2 stewards are given the option to confirm if they wish, and the regular steward policies on inactivity still apply. Hope that helps. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't really help, to be honest. What if I have a problem with one of the current stewards retaining the tools? Because of this rule, that problem cannot be addressed outside of starting some emergency de-steward vote which really isn't warranted here. I would strongly suggest that this year's election committee to reconsider this rule, and change it from allowing stewards to nominate themselves to allowing users to nominate stewards that might not have the required support to continue with their role. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well... what if you have some concerns with a particular steward in March where there is no Confirmation process to start with? If there is really a concern, start a discussion somewhere, RFC or Babel could be helpful. Bencmq 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with Bencmq. You can also use stewards' noticeboard. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If those areas are acceptable for such action, then I suppose that is the best course. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with Bencmq. You can also use stewards' noticeboard. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well... what if you have some concerns with a particular steward in March where there is no Confirmation process to start with? If there is really a concern, start a discussion somewhere, RFC or Babel could be helpful. Bencmq 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't really help, to be honest. What if I have a problem with one of the current stewards retaining the tools? Because of this rule, that problem cannot be addressed outside of starting some emergency de-steward vote which really isn't warranted here. I would strongly suggest that this year's election committee to reconsider this rule, and change it from allowing stewards to nominate themselves to allowing users to nominate stewards that might not have the required support to continue with their role. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmations - closing discussion for stewards
[edit]This section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward. Other community members, please discuss in a separate section.
After considering the comments and discussions, ElectCom has come up with the following results on the annual re-confirmation of existing Stewards. All stewards are welcome to comment on the results below.
| User | Confirmed? | Tally | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andre Engels | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Avraham | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Barras | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose regarding a closed discussion. |
| Bsadowski1 | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Darkoneko | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| DerHexer | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Dungodung | yes | 5/0/0 | Some opposes regarding local srwiki issues but nothing apparently related to steward work. |
| Eptalon | no | 0/5/0 | Concerns over misuse of the CheckUser tool on dewiki and failure to recognise the error. |
| Fr33kman | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| J.delanoy | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Jafeluv | resigned | - | This user has resigned. |
| Jusjih | yes | 5/0/0 | One oppose regarding single-issue voting but nothing apparently related to steward work. |
| Jyothis | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Laaknor | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Leinad | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| M7 | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Matanya | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Magister Mathematicae | yes | 5/0/0 | Concerns over local conduct on eswiki (nothing however related to steward work). |
| MarcoAurelio | yes | 4/0/0/1 | nihil obstat |
| Mardetanha | yes | 5/0/0 | One oppose vote regarding connectivity issues in Iran but nothing related to steward work. |
| Mav | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Melos | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Mentifisto | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Mercy | resigned | - | This user has resigned. |
| Millosh | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Pathoschild | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| PeterSymonds | yes | 4/0/0/1 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Quentinv57 | yes | 5/0/0 | Nihil obstat minus one oppose without explanation. |
| Ruslik0 | yes | 4/0/1 | Some concern regarding user's respect for consensus and failure to answer related question(s). |
| Shanel | resigned | - | This user has resigned. |
| Shizhao | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
| Wpedzich | yes | 5/0/0 | nihil obstat |
Comments
[edit]- Stewards (including those who are newly-elected) may express their questions, concerns or agreement to the results below.
- I endorse the above results. Eptalon not being confirmed is the right decision but I would like to say, as one who knows him, that he is a great admin and even better editor on his home project (simplewiki). fr33kman 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I endorse the results as well. -Barras talk 13:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Endorsed. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problems for me too. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the people above. Trijnstel (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support besides being neutral for myself. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC) P. S.: See also here.
- Okay - Elfix 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No objections. --Mercy (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Visto --M/ (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed.” Teles (Talk) ███ 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. As to the question I answered to it in the January on my talk page. And regarding Eptalon, could someone remind us what actually happened? Ruslik (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I am struggling to find time editing Wikipedia with my current professional workload, I see no reason to complain over losing the steward flag. It has been a nice exercise, which left me with positive feelings. I was able to make certain changes. Thank you all for the good time. --Eptalon (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- ok here. Matanya (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- comments reflect the confirmations, it is a hard call on some non-confirmations billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Confirmations closed and implemented; many thanks for your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)