Jump to content

Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2025

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 days ago by EPIC in topic Final decisions (by stewards)
This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2025 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards)

[edit]

Confirmation discussions will remain open from 28 February 2025, 21:00 (UTC) till 06 March 2025, 21:00 (UTC). This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).

This page is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward.

The summaries below provide a very strict overview of the most relevant confirmation comments.

Stewards: Please leave your comments right below the boxes after reviewing the actual confirmation comments and your understanding of relevant policies. You may summarize the confirmation discussions in individual comments, but no overall summary is given.

Status Candidate Notes
   Confirmed
Ajraddatz Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Albertoleoncio Consensus to confirm
   Resigned
AmandaNP Did not run for confirmation
   Confirmed
AntiCompositeNumber Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Base Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Bsadowski1 Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
DerHexer Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Elton Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
EPIC Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
HakanIST Clear consensus to confirm
   Resigned
Hasley Did not run for confirmation
   Confirmed
Hoo man Clear consensus to confirm
   Removed
JJMC89 No consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Johannnes89 Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Jon Kolbert Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
MarcGarver Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Martin Urbanec Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Masti Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Melos Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Mykola7 Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
RadiX Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Sakretsu Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Schniggendiller Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Sotiale Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Stryn Clear consensus to confirm
   Resigned
Superpes15 Resigned during confirmations
   Confirmed
Tegel Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Vermont Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Wim b Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Xaosflux Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
Yahya Clear consensus to confirm
   Confirmed
علاء Clear consensus to confirm
Results

Ajraddatz

[edit]

Keep Keep: 93 (nuanced contributions to discussions/highly compentent/constructive in debates/good work/positive interactions/helpful/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Albertoleoncio

[edit]

Keep Keep: 68 (valid explanation for activity levels/has remained active on home wiki/no concerns about quality of actions/per others/no comment)
 Weak keep: 14 (willing to improve activity/moral keep/unless they provide they will be active in future/per others/no comment)
Remove Remove: 20 (low activity/only 86 steward actions/unconvincing explanation about what they plan to do as a steward/per others/no comment)
Neutral Neutral: 2 (hope for increased activity)


Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

AntiCompositeNumber

[edit]

Keep Keep: 91 (sensible/competent/thoughtful/highly active/knowledgeable/helpful/good work on the Wikimedia Discord/per others/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0


Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Base

[edit]

Keep Keep: 76 (acceptable activity levels/valuable work/helpful/trusted/remove vote not convincing without evidence/no indication of trust issues or misconduct/per others/no comment)
Remove Remove: 1 (Concern about communication style/cooperation)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bsadowski1

[edit]

Keep Keep: 77 (thanks/valuable work/positive interactions/helpful/active/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

DerHexer

[edit]

Keep Keep: 103 (good work despite barwiki case/helpful/great user/valuable knowledge/present/active/recognized mistakes/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Elton

[edit]

Keep Keep: 49 (helpful/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

EPIC

[edit]

Keep Keep: 112 (active/quick actions/good work but should take concerns into consideration/helpful/rapid scrutineering of enwiki elections/no comment)
 Weak keep: 1 (lenient about mistakes during first year)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 2 (homewiki actions/incautious work/per others)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

HakanIST

[edit]

Keep Keep: 65 (helpful/useful work/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hoo man

[edit]

Keep Keep: 54 (activity levels improving/helpful/knowledgable/useful/no comment)
 Weak keep: 3 (low activity but no controversies)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 1 (low activity)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

JJMC89

[edit]

Keep Keep: 30 (other party’s behavior prior to Feeglgeef case was erratic/helpful/lenient during first year/not concerned enough to remove/good work/per others/no comment)
 Weak keep: 3 (pending response to concerns/per others/no comment)
Weak Remove Remove: 2 (lack of response/no comment)
Remove Remove: 26 (poor collaboration/poor communication/poor handling of Feeglgeef and enwiki OS cases/too many controversies/lack of accountability/per others/no comment)
Neutral Neutral: 2 (good work despite concerns/no comment)

  • Remove with regret and on the slightly weaker side. Regardless of how much I’ve appreciated JJ’s work and think the concerns could have been properly addressed by them, the community has made it clear through their concerns that they think several of JJMC89’s actions, the lack of communication around those actions and the poor collaboration with others have been problematic, as with other concerns raised in the confirmation. With that being said, with 30 keeps to 26 removes (as well as one leaning remove), there simply is no consensus to confirm at this time. EPIC (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove - despite my own opinion, I do not think that JJMC89 has demonstrated consensus of the community to continue as a steward. I hope that they are doing well and that incapacitation was not the reason for the lack of participation in the confirmations. Would reconsider my opinion if we hear from them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Stewards should be accountable for their actions and open to receiving criticism from the community. They should actively engage with the community to address concerns, respond to feedback, and ensure transparency in their role. There is no community consensus for them to continue as a steward. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove. It is always regretful when someone loses a bit of the community's trust and we end up in this situation. However, trust can be re-established so standing for election in a future year should not be ruled out if you deal with the concerns raised during the confirmation. Good luck. MarcGarver (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, regretfully. The community has spoken. Stewards need to be accountable just as any other functionary, and not responding during confirmations (despite being asked for a response) is the bare minimum. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove with regret - per MdsShakil. AramilFeraxa (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, regretfully. No consensus to confirm as a steward. ~ Yahya (talkcontribs) 16:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, a pity, but there is no consensu to keep. masti <talk> 19:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, due to lack of consensus. I find it strange that he has been inactive since the voting began, which implied to the participants that he chose not to answer their questions. Being questioned is part of our role, but the lack of responses is not. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 23:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove No consensus to retain due to lack of response to questions. I will miss having JJMC89's skills, input, and experience around, and I also express hope that their sudden disappearance was not caused by something worse. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove regretfully, no consensus to keep, and the questions and concerns were not addressed. I also hope this sudden disappearance is not something worse and hope to see them returning. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove lack of consensus to retain. — xaosflux Talk 12:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Regretfully, Remove. I myself would vote as weak keep: I think it is quite reasonable to get lost in enwiki procedures as they are vastly different from the majority of other wikis and are notorisious for being uber-bureaucratic; basing on Legoktm's review of the security tickets concerns I do not feel like there was any breach of security made by JJMC89, stewards are entitled to have their own opinions; the RFP situation linked in the discussion is unpleasant though so this is something I would ask the user to do better. Were I strongly in support of the user keeping the rights I would consider overruling the wider community consensus, but unfortunately in this case I feel like there is no choice but to agree with the majority. --Base (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove no consensus to keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove. Regretfully. --❄️Mykola❄️ 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove. with regret. --Daniuu (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Johannnes89

[edit]

Keep Keep: 101 (no concerns/great first year/rapid scrutineering of enwiki elections/very helpful/good job/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jon Kolbert

[edit]

Keep Keep: 58 (glad to see them continue/helpful/thanks/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 1 (inactivity on Commons)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

MarcGarver

[edit]

Keep Keep: 47 (helpful/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Martin Urbanec

[edit]

Keep Keep: 83 (responsive/helpful/home wiki removal was in good faith/single incident/concerns insufficient for removal/responsible/per others/no comment)
 Weak keep: 1 (seems OK)
Remove Remove: 2 (poor handling of Wikidata incident/controversial rights removal on home wiki/giving different users different treatment/lack of responsibility for controversies/per others)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Masti

[edit]

Keep Keep: 72 (learned from last year’s concerns/fantastic work/helpful/improvements from last year/per others/no comment)
Remove Remove: 1 (poor attitude in discussions)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Melos

[edit]

Keep Keep: 61 (great first term/active/helpful/competent/no comment)
Remove Remove: 1 (granting of an iswikisource adminship request)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mykola7

[edit]

Keep Keep: 75 (thanks/rapid scrutineering of enwiki elections/helpful/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

RadiX

[edit]

Keep Keep: 61 (valid reason for inactivity/recent activity sufficient/brilliant steward/issue shouldn’t warrant opposition/sorry for loss/helpful)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 2 (no recent activity/no comment)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sakretsu

[edit]

Keep Keep: 53 (helpful/no comment)
Strong Keep Keep: 1 (no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Schniggendiller

[edit]

Keep Keep: 62 (helpful/friendly/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sotiale

[edit]

Keep Keep: 71 (good SRCU work/helpful/kind help/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stryn

[edit]

Keep Keep: 55 (net positive despite activity levels/recognizes low activity in statement/helpful/per others/no comment)
 Weak keep: 2 (seems OK/per others)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tegel

[edit]

Keep Keep: 71 (helpful/good work/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Vermont

[edit]

Keep Keep: 83 (of course/squirrel/professional/efficient/helpful/wonderful work/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wim b

[edit]

Keep Keep: 38 (not concerned about lock situation/concern insufficient for removal/sufficient activity/helpful/single mistake/isolated incident/no comment)
 Weak keep: 4 (no comment)
Remove Remove: 4 (poor handling of lock situation/lack of responses/low activity/net negative/per others/no comment)
Neutral Neutral: 3 (per others/due to concerns raised)

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Xaosflux

[edit]

Keep Keep: 73 (definitely/easy keep/good VRT work/thanks/great wikipedian/useful work/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yahya

[edit]

Keep Keep: 72 (great first term/rapid scrutineering of enwiki elections/helpful/no comment)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

علاء

[edit]

Keep Keep: 97 (competent/last year’s concerns unjustified/good activity/no concerns/thanks/helpful)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Note
You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or to confirm/remove all at once. EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

All stewards running for confirmation

[edit]
Note
Should you be decided to drop your comment here, please don't forget to add Confirm all or Remove all to your text. The discussion below applies to all stewards listed in the sections above, except the one commenting. Thanks, EPIC (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Confirm all, abstain from DerHexer for obvious reasons. — Yes, there are one or two which are close calls, but for me they are okay, too. I'm pretty sure that the concerns about communication will be taken serious by JJMC89, his technical support is very much appreciated. Albertoleoncio's activity is okay, another chance is a fair option for me. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Confirm all, abstain for myself of course. I agree with DerHexer, although I also understand the arguments for not calling the weak majority of !votes for JJMC89 a weak consensus. --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply