Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To everybody[edit]

This is a public acknowledgment to all other fellow Stewards, including those who left. I am usually concise, so this time I will just mention that I am grateful to you for every time that you have preceded me in one of your action, and that I hope not to have bothered you if I have done the same. It is a pleasure to know that I can be of use, and that you will be at hand whenever I am busy or absent. A special "thank you" for those who managed to be in S.F. this year, and a "see you soon" to all who didn't make it. A great admiration for those who gave our little community much efforts in doing additional tools for managing things, connecting tools and troubleshooting errors. I owe you much, really. --M/ (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe...[edit]

...there should be a "keep all" section - or a script with a button that does that in each section. I'd like to vote Keep Keep to all of them, but I don't feel like doing this in a few dozen sections manually. ^^ --თოგო (D) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Commentary on the vote to confirm MarcoAurelio[edit]

I moved the following exchange to the talk page, since such a specific topic isn't really appropriate on the main page. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ehm, no. Regardless of the merit of these comments, the confirmation pages are also for discussion about the points which were brought. --MF-W 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Final decisions (by stewards)[edit]

The summaries below only provide a convenient overview. Stewards should review the actual confirmation comments and their understanding of relevant policies before commenting.

Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. 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 section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward.

Each discussion below starts with a summary of the confirmation comments. Coloured and underlined names have notes attached; move your cursor onto the names to show the notes, or refer to this legend:

  • Agrees with this point, but favours confirmation.
  • Agrees with this point, but opposes confirmation.
  • Agrees with this point, but is undecided about confirmation.
Status Candidate Notes
   Confirmed
Ajraddatz Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Avraham Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Barras Concerns about the steward-OC double role, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Bennylin Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Bsadowski1 Few concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
DerHexer Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Einsbor Few concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Hoo man Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Jyothis Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Linedwell Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
M7 Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
MarcoAurelio Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Mardetanha Concerns about use of oversight tools, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Matanya Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
MBisanz Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Melos Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Mentifisto Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
MF-Warburg Clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Pmlineditor Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Resigned
Pundit His statement was an acknowledgement of his decision to resign from the steward role after the end of the confirmations.
   Confirmed
QuiteUnusual Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
RadiX Concerns about activity (and unhappiness about announced long absence), but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Ruslik0 Concerns about communication, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Savh Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Shanmugamp7 Nihil obstat.
   Resigned
Snowolf His statement was an acknowledgement of his decision to resign from the steward role after the end of the confirmations.
   Confirmed
SPQRobin Concerns about activity, but clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Stryn Nihil obstat.
   Removed
Taketa Removal due to too many community concerns about activity, mistaken actions and usage of the tools.
   Confirmed
Tegel Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Teles Clear consensus to confirm.
   Confirmed
Trijnstel Nihil obstat.
   Confirmed
Vituzzu Clear consensus to confirm.

The 2016 Steward Election Committee has come to following conclusion:

  1. Taketa is to be removed (3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral);
  2. Snowolf and Pundit are to be removed due to their announced resignation (5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral);
  3. All other stewards are to be confirmed (5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral).

Ajraddatz[edit]

99 users commented on Ajraddatz' confirmation, or 25.7% of participating users. Final revision r15395304.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    66 agreed (33 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Syum90, RadiX, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, 1989, BRPever, Infinite0694, Alan, Armbrust, HakanIST, Euphydryas, Kurtis, Atcovi, White Master King, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Legoktm, Danny B., Eurodyne, Kolega2357, Rxy, Epìdosis, Eumolpo, Vincenzo1492, Teles, Uğurkent, MoiraMoira, Avraham, Zerabat, Shivanarayana, Érico, Itti, INeverCry, Ghilt, Arkanosis, Devwebtel, PokestarFan, Green Giant, Quenhitran, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Bennylin, BeeCeePhoto, Courcelles, Mh7kJ, Matiia, Wpollard, Zyephyrus, Matěj Suchánek, Jmvkrecords, FrankyLeRoutier, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Vonoserbizky Spartacus, MBisanz, Kapçak, DARIO SEVERI, Taichi, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity
  • sufficient/good/high activity; helpful
    12 agreed (87 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Stemoc, Wikitanvir, NahidSultan, बिप्लब आनन्द, Pmlineditor, Einsbor, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Trijnstel, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    10 agreed, 1 seconded (88 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Riley Huntley], Miniapolis, Jianhui67, NickK, Allen2, Trijnstel, Taketa, Billinghurst, Timk70, Snaevar
  • trusted user
    3 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Philosopher, Jan Kovář BK, Taketa
  • "heard all good about this guy"
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Juandev
  • knowledgeable
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Ejs-80
  • contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • unspecific "per above"
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226
Concerned
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Hindustanilanguage
  • no babel info in the statement
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 neutral "comments" (1 without reason, 2 because of knowing nothing/not enough about his steward work).
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat for confirmation IMHO. —MarcoAurelio 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Mardetanha talk 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; high support, no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. No relevant concerns whatsoever, IMO. RadiX 02:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. einsbor talk 07:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Clear cut. Bennylin 02:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Avraham[edit]

69 users commented on Avraham's confirmation, or 17.9% of participating users. Final revision r15390172.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    30 agreed (39 didn't mention this).
    Widr, Polimerek, Vituzzu, Armbrust, Pharaoh of the Wizards, White Master King, Az1568, Eumolpo, Guerillero, Kolega2357, Marcelo Victor, INeverCry, Philosopher, Green Giant, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Bennylin, Courcelles, Jusjih, Zyephyrus, KTo288, Jo-Jo Eumerus, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, 분당선M, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, .js
  • hopes that Avraham will become more active
    7 agreed, 6 seconded (56 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12[RadiX], Miniapolis, Wikitanvir[NahidSultan], Billinghurst[Jianhui67, Teles, Érico], NickK, Charitwo, Barras[Shanmugamp7]
  • sufficient activity / became already more active
    6 agreed (63 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Ajraddatz, Trijnstel, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    4 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226, AryanSogd, Taketa, Snowolf
  • trusted user
    2 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Altamel, Taketa
  • "big help" when active
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Kurtis
Concerned
  • inactivity / concerns about activity
    13 agreed, 9 seconded (47 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst[Jianhui67, Teles, Érico], Steinsplitter[DCB, Richardkiwi, CaZeRillo], NickK, Stemoc, Natuur12[RadiX], Uğurkent, Miniapolis, Laurent Jenny, Wikitanvir[NahidSultan], Hedwig in Washington, Snowolf, Charitwo, Barras[Shanmugamp7]
  • no reason given
    2 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    6AND5, Vadgt
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (67 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs[Kusurija]
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • "has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards"
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • "concerns" about neutrality
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Severino

  • 1 neutral "comment" (without reason).
  • Confirm.MarcoAurelio 18:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus to confirm Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • confirm Mardetanha talk 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The positive feedback from among community members surpass some concerns with activity. RadiX 02:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity, but it is shared by a significant number of users. --MF-W 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus, please listen to the activity concern. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm same as Matanya. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm while concerns about activity were raised, there is consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - The inactivity issue is mentioned by several people but even those tend to confirm Avi. So there seems to be a clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, agreed with Barras. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Concerns regarding activity. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, like Trijnstel and Barras. einsbor talk 07:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Bennylin 02:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Only a few concerned by inactivity.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Barras[edit]

106 users commented on Barras' confirmation, or 27.5% of participating users. Final revision r15388837.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    60 agreed (46 didn't mention this).
    Herbythyme, Syum90, RadiX, Natuur12, Brainswiffer, Agruwie, Emergency doc, Vituzzu, Infinite0694, Alan, Armbrust, HakanIST, White Master King, -jkb-, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Legoktm, Andreas Werle, Danny B., Eurodyne, Laberinto16, Jianhui67, Rxy, Luke081515, Vincenzo1492, Teles, MoiraMoira, Yeza, Thibaut120094, Charitwo, Kolega2357, Widr, Marcelo Victor, Bernard, Érico, Darwinius, Ah3kal, Itti, BeverlyHillsCop, INeverCry, Arkanosis, Devwebtel, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Gordonrox24, Taichi, Microchip08, Courcelles, Berlin-George, Matiia, Zyephyrus, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Theo10011, MBisanz, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity
  • good steward/good work etc.
    9 agreed (97 didn't mention this).
    BRPever, Osiris, Billinghurst, Bennylin, Rax, NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Snowolf
  • commenter has no problems with steward-OC double role
    4 agreed, 2 seconded (100 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, NickK[Green Giant], Avraham, Guerillero, Pmlineditor
  • trusted user
    5 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Rax, Trijnstel, Antigng, Taketa
  • is able to stay active as a steward despite being an OC member
    2 agreed, 3 seconded (101 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754[Miniapolis, Riley Huntley], NickK[Green Giant]
  • trusted user
    3 agreed (103 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar, Philosopher, Rus793
  • good user on simplewiki
    2 agreed (104 didn't mention this).
    Fylbecatulous, PokestarFan
  • competent, helpful
    2 agreed (104 didn't mention this).
    GeoTrinity, Tufor
  • kind to(?) the commenter
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226
  • still active editing
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Etamni
  • opposed 3 proposals at Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Holder
Concerned
  • because of the steward-OC double role (COI)
    5 agreed, 3 seconded (98 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Stemoc, Odder, CaZeRillo], -revi[Odder], Rax, DerekvG. Snowolf
  • concerns about activity
    2 agreed (104 didn't mention this).
    Laurent Jenny, Uğurkent
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • alleged "pro-vandalism attitude"
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Hindustanilanguage
  • opposed 3 proposals at Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (105 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Some might not like it, but WMF decided to remove the incompatibility of OC members, and Barras is just following policy and I've not noticed any wrongdoing from him with regards to this. The other oppose reasons are unrelated to steward activities. No reasons not to confirm IMHO. —MarcoAurelio 18:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - the OC/Steward COI issue was decided by the WMF, and is unrelated to his steward work. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Raised concern had be solved by WMF and has nothing to do with user Mardetanha talk 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Confirm. WMF has already stated that the Steward-OC double role is not a issue anymore, and Barras was proved to manage both roles wisely, IMO. Besides, no relevant concerns were raised. RadiX 03:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm though I don't like the double role. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. It is a valid reason to oppose confirmation because of the steward-OC double role. WMF has not "solved" this concern, it has caused it by allowing stewards to become OC members without resigning. But that doesn't mean that users are not allowed to prefer the old situation. However, here this is the only valid concern and not shared by a high number of users. --MF-W 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm outstanding steward, concerns where solved by WMF. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Double role is okay for me. Bennylin 02:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus. OC issue could be discussed in another moment.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bennylin[edit]

79 users commented on Bennylin's confirmation, or 20.5% of participating users. Final revision r15390242.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    21 agreed (58 didn't mention this).
    Vituzzu, Teles, Widr, Érico, INeverCry, Ryan Ajie, Melos, GZWDer, Jusjih, Zyephyrus, DerekvG, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Cybularny, .js, Billinghurst, Liuxinyu970226, Jianhui67, Matanya, Pundit, Jo-Jo Eumerus
  • activity is ok
    7 agreed, 2 seconded (70 didn't mention this).
    RadiX, NickK, Avraham[Shangkuanlc], Trijnstel[Bonaditya], Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Ah3kal
  • useful language skills
    8 agreed (71 didn't mention this).
    Avraham, Snaevar, JarrahTree, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Ah3kal, La femme de menage, Snowolf
  • late statement doesn't matter / should not lead to removal
    6 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
    Jianhui67, NickK, Green Giant, Courcelles, Barras, Nguyentrongphu
  • good steward/good work etc.
    4 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Ajraddatz, Taketa, Snowolf, Meracritus
  • diversity is important
    2 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Cekli829, Ruslik0
  • trusted user
    1 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • no concerns about his actions
    1 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    NickK
  • "we need more people"
    1 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    Pratyeka
Concerned
  • inactivity
    11 agreed, 1 seconded (67 didn't mention this).
    Stemoc, Riley Huntley, Az1568, Wikitanvir, Ochloese, Jni, CaZeRillo, Ruslik0, Natuur12, Rschen7754, MarcoAurelio[NahidSultan]
  • did not create a statement before the start of SC
    7 agreed, 4 seconded (68 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Steinsplitter, Armbrust, Jsharpminor], Hedwig in Washington, Wikitanvir, MF-Warburg, Ajraddatz, Kurtis, MarcoAurelio[NahidSultan]
  • no reason given
    9 agreed (70 didn't mention this).
    Atcovi, White Master King, SQL, Meracritus, DCB, Informationswiedergutmachung, GeoTrinity, Timk70, Lt2818
  • unspecific "remove per above"
    2 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Herbythyme, Uğurkent
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 6 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • I need time to review this in depth and I abstain for now. —MarcoAurelio 18:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Per M7 and QU, I'm going for a weak confirm here. I don't think there's consensus to remove, although the activity issues are valid, but not strong enough for me to vote removal at this time. —MarcoAurelio 15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove with regret. I personally want Bennylin to stay on, but there is a critical mass of people opposing based on inactivity (which is essentially what the lack of statement is). Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    Keep. As I said in my first comment, I personally want Bennylin to stay on - all of my interactions with him have been positive, and I remember him being particularly helpful on a few issues over the last year. If my colleagues do not feel that a critical mass of people are opposing him based on inactivity, and indeed he is active enough per policy, then I am more than happy to take the majority view. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • confirm though the raised concern about inactivity is legit and valid but I think given the number of keep voters, user deserves second chance Mardetanha talk 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Activity is on the low side, but can always be removed for inactivity per policy if it continues. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • None of the "remove" reasons has convinced me. Instead, I find that many of the "keep" comments are highlighting good reasons to allow Bennylin to continue his work, even if in the low stats. Also, considering the number of people, consensus is around 2/3, and over if discounting "blanket remove(s)" as usually is done in those cases. --M/ (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per M7. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per M7. Melos (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Per M7. Even though there is a bunch of legit concerns on activity, I think there is no consensus to remove. RadiX 13:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity (general/SC-related), but it is shared by a significant number of users. --MF-W 21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stewards policy#Loss of steward access states: "[S]ince stewardship is typically a position likely to get into trouble and since the steward group can easily control itself, the confirmation itself will be done by other stewards.…Stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered." I have reviewed the opinions posted by the community, and while I understand their concerns, I would prefer to retain Benny's steward status, as he has not fallen below mandatory activity requirements, and his language knowledge is especially valuable in that the languages he knows are those which are less helped by automatic translators. Not every steward has to be a Snowolf or a Tegel and be online all the time. We function as a group; we support Wikimedia projects as a group, and my cost-benefits analysis is that Benny still contributes enough and in needed areas to be reconfirmed per his wish to continue volunteering. -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm weight in keep reasons much heavier. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm Several users raised (valid) concerns about inactivity. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - I see a very weak consensus to keep him as steward. A whole lot of users wishes him confirmed. So remove reasons are due to inactivity (more than 150 actions in the last term, not much, but still ok). Confirmation statement came late, but it came. That can simply happen due to real life issues. The remove reasons are less heavy weighted here, so I think confirming is ok. -Barras talk 12:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Concerns regarding activity. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm. MBisanz talk 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm, einsbor talk 07:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. I see valid concerns about inactivity. Sadly, this confirmation started with an inclination for the removal and the single fact that he did not create a statement may have played an important role on that, while others supported even with no statement yet. After the statement is created, there is a clear change on that inclination tending to a more supporting one. That goes against the also valid argument to keep regarding the language skills and the good work he does overall. —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bsadowski1[edit]

81 users commented on Bsadowski1's confirmation, or 21.0% of participating users. Final revision r15388843.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    52 agreed (29 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Infinite0694, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Miniapolis, Druddigon, White Master King, Az1568, Legoktm, Liuxinyu970226, Ah3kal , Danny B., Eurodyne, Etamni, Jianhui67, Rxy, Vincenzo1492, Teles, MoiraMoira, Uğurkent, Avraham, Kolega2357, Widr, Érico, -jkb-, Charitwo, Green Giant, Henryk Borawski, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Gordonrox24, Bennylin, Chenzw, Microchip08, Courcelles, Matiia, Zyephyrus, DerekvG, 분당선M, Theo10011, Pablo000, Timk70, MBisanz, DARIO SEVERI, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity, Trijnstel
  • active
    7 agreed, 1 seconded (73 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754[Armbrust], Wikitanvir, NickK, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Snowolf
  • fighting LTAs
    6 agreed, 2 seconded (73 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754[Armbrust], RadiX, Billinghurst, INeverCry, Jo-Jo Eumerus, MarcoAurelio[Pmlineditor]
  • no concerns about his actions
    4 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, NahidSultan, NickK, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    3 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    Atcovi, Stemoc, Taketa
  • helpful
    2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Barras, Shanmugamp7
  • always around when needed
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Osiris
  • trusted user
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
Concerned
  • low activity
    2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar, Laurent Jerry
  • no babel info in the statement
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • five years is long enough
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    LavaBaron
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 4 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat, confirmatur. —MarcoAurelio 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - inactivity concerns were the only opposes related to steward work, and there is clearly consensus to keep. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 20:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat, IMO. RadiX 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus. SPQRobin (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. "Low activity" could be a valid reason for opposing, but not here when both of the users who mentioned it don't even opine in favour of not confirming; and when actually several more users mentioned the (high) activity. --MF-W 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. einsbor talk 07:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DerHexer[edit]

195 users commented on DerHexer's confirmation, or 50.6% of participating users. Final revision r15390188.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    155 agreed (40 didn't mention this).
    Infinite0694, Syum90, Andreas Werle, Toni Müller, Helfmann, RadiX, Natuur12, Fctberlin, Agruwie, Brainswiffer, Emergency doc, Widr, Susann Schweden, Vituzzu, Sally Meyer, Koenraad, BRPever, Agricolax, Alexander Gamauf, Mh7kJ, Mario-WL, Pimpinellus, Bubo bubo, Armbrust, Petronas, 1971markus, Asio otus, Wassertraeger, Geolina163, Didi43, Ajraddatz, Murma174, Riley Huntley, Miniapolis, Impériale, Emptywords, Kurtis, White Master, Betterknower, Regiomontanus, Stemoc, Reinhard Kraasch, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Legoktm, PaulaMeh, Jbergner, Dnepro.., Ah3kal, Wikitanvir, Danny B., Eurodyne, Laurent Jerry, J.Dygas, Herbythyme, Pankoken, WS ReNu, Billinghurst, Lutheraner, Jianhui67, Rxy, Epìdosis, Luke081515, Vincenzo1492, Freddy2001, Schelmentraum, Florianschmidtwelzow, XXnickiXx, Teles, MoiraMoira, Uğurkent, Emes, DCB, Man77, Plani, WolfgangRieger, Partynia, Kolega2357, Cvf-ps, Alraunenstern, Darwinius, Peter Gröbner, Itti, Code, AnnaS.aus I., Ali1610, Jan Kovář, AleXXw, Aude, BeverlyHillsCop, INeverCry, Sänger, -jkb-, Ghilt, Ejs-80, Snaevar, Philosopher, MARKELLOS, Arkanosis, Shivanarayana, Green Giant, Quenhitran, Melos, GeoTrinity, Matanya, Ana al'ain, GZWDer, Matthias Süßen, Bennylin, Informationswiedergutmachung, Horgner, Steschke, HIMBA, Chricho, Seidenkäfer, Microchip08, Courcelles, Berlin-George, CaZeRillo, Matiia, Taivo, Mglaser, Slökmann, Jusjih, Nioger, Zyephyrus, Martin Kraft, Aspiriniks, Jmvkrecords, HakanIST, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Nhfflkh, 분당선M, Schwalbe, Theo10011, Biha, Kacir, AFBorchert, Einsbor, MBisanz, Elmie, Olaf Kosinsky, Aquilinae, Holder, DARIO SEVERI, Wagino 20100516, Artmax, Mailer diablo, S.Didam, Cybularny, Quiddity, Enzian44, Érico, .js
  • good work/great user; even contributed to Wikiversity
    13 agreed (182 didn't mention this).
    NickK, Tilman2007, Alexanderps, Tony1, Meno25, Marcus Cyron, Marshallsumter, NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Mellebga, Timk70, OrbiliusMagister
  • trusted, reliable; competent
    11 agreed (184 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Altkatholik62, Smial, Udo T., Shisha-Tom, Alexanderps, Rax, Taketa, OrbiliusMagister, Hégésippe Cormier, Ireas
  • helpful (on de.wiktionary)
    9 agreed (186 didn't mention this).
    Susann Schweden, Caligari, Yoursmile, Sionnach, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Mellebga, OrbiliusMagister, Pmlineditor
  • (very) active
    7 agreed (188 didn't mention this).
    Gereon K., Avraham, Trijnstel, NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Pmlineditor
  • experienced/reasonable steward
    6 agreed (189 didn't mention this).
    Altkatholik62, Rschen7754, Rax, Meno25, Barras, Pmlineditor
  • no concerns/no issues
    4 agreed (191 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Cadfaell, Hedwig in Washington, Jo-Jo Eumerus
  • excellent job with SUL finalisation
    1 agreed (194 didn't mention this).
    NickK
Concerned
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (194 didn't mention this).
    Gerold Rosenberg
  • "issues with how the confirmations went"
    1 agreed (194 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754
  • unresponsive
    1 agreed (194 didn't mention this).
    Kusurija
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (194 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 unspecified "neutral" comments (2 without reason, 1 because of not knowing enough about his steward work).
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat, no opposes related to steward work. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Clear-cut case here. RadiX 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; high support, virtually no concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Only 1 potentially relevant oppose reason. --MF-W 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm no concerns. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Our most popular stewie :) Bennylin 02:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Einsbor[edit]

77 users commented on Einsbor's confirmation, or 20.0% of participating users. Final revision r15388986.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    53 agreed (24 didn't mention this).
    NahidSultan, RadiX, Natuur12, Polimerek, Vituzzu, Wieralee, BRPever, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, White Master King White, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Wikitanvir, Michał Sobkowski, Andrzei111, J.Dygas, Ptjackyll, Luke081515, Cybularny, Teles, MoiraMoira, Uğurkent, Micpol, Avraham, Kolega2357, Stanko, Widr, Maire, Ghilt, DCB, Devwebtel, Mo Cuishle, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Torrosbak, Courcelles, Matiia, Jusjih, Zyephyrus, Plogeo, Cynko, FrankyLeRoutier, Jo-Jo Eumerus, MarcoAurelio, 분당선M, Pablo000, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity, Érico
  • good activity
    7 agreed (70 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Rschen7754, NickK, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    5 agreed (72 didn't mention this).
    Trijnstel, Barras, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • no (significant) concerns
    5 agreed (72 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Jianhui67, NickK, Ankry, Ah3kal
  • helpful
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Shanmugamp7
  • trusted user
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • helped process enwiki Arbcom elections faster than usual
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Altamel
Concerned
  • low activity
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (75 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst[Green Giant]
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    DerekvG
  • has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • should be more active on plwiki
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Emptywords
  • one communication issue
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Vogone
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus to keep, even with inactivity concerns. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Activity concerns were not too relevant. RadiX 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The people who brought potentially valid oppose reasons do support confirmation. --MF-W 21:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no concerns. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoo man[edit]

110 users commented on Hoo man's confirmation, or 28.6% of participating users. Final revision r15395304.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    73 agreed (37 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Infinite0694, Gereon K., Natuur12, RadiX, Agruwie, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Armbrust, 1971markus, Geolina163, Didi43, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Miniapolis, Atcovi, White Master, Regiomontanus, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Legoktm, Andreas Werle, HakanIST, Wikitanvir, Danny B., Herbythyme, Pankoken, Billinghurst, Epìdosis, Luke081515, VINCENZO1492, Florianschmidtwelzow, Teles, MoiraMoira, DCB, Kolega2357, Holmium, Uğurkent, Widr, Itti, AleXXw, Aude, BeverlyHillsCop, -jkb-, Sänger, Arkanosis, Green Giant, Melos, Shivanarayana, Matanya, GZWDer, Krenair, Horgner, Microchip08, Courcelles, Berlin-George, Helfmann, Matiia, Mglaser, WS ReNu, Matěj Suchánek, Martin Kraft, Jo-Jo Eumerus, DerekvG, DangSunM, Tpt, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Elmie, Wagino 20100516
  • good steward/good work etc.; helpful
    10 agreed, 1 seconded (99 didn't mention this).
    Jianhui67, Avraham, Rax, NahidSultan, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa[MarcoAurelio], Timk70, Einsbor, Eurodyne
  • "tech user"/good engineer
    7 agreed, 1 seconded (102 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Rxy, Trijnstel[MarcoAurelio], Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa[MarcoAurelio], Pmlineditor
  • friendly/nice
    5 agreed, 1 seconded (104 didn't mention this).
    Rax, Trijnstel[MarcoAurelio], NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Eurodyne
  • active
    4 agreed, 1 seconded (105 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Shanmugamp7, Taketa[MarcoAurelio], Pmlineditor
  • trusted
    3 agreed, 1 seconded (106 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Taketa[MarcoAurelio], Ireas
  • no concerns/reasonable actions
    3 agreed (107 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Rschen7754, Bennylin
  • finalised SUL
    1 agreed (109 didn't mention this).
    NickK
  • contributed to many wikis
    1 agreed (109 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
Concerned
  • no babel info in the statement
    1 agreed (109 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • no contributions to en.wikiversity since 2013
    1 agreed (109 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (109 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 "neutral" comments (2 without reason, 1 because of not knowing enough about his steward work).
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Clear-cut case. RadiX 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the concerns are relevant. --MF-W 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Obvious result. Bennylin 02:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jyothis[edit]

68 users commented on Jyothis' confirmation, or 17.7% of participating users. Final revision r15395309.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    44 agreed (24 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, White Master, Atcovi, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Danny B., Billinghurst, Rxy, Luke081515, VINCENZO1492, Teles, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Widr, Aude, Green Giant, Melos, Shivanarayana, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Jusjih, Jo-Jo Eumerus, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, DangSunM, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Bennylin, Wagino 20100516, Viswaprabha, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Quiddity, Pmlineditor, Taivo, Érico
  • good activity
    7 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Jianhui67, NickK, Avraham, Trijnstel, Barras, Snowolf, Fotokannan
  • good steward/good work etc.; helpful
    5 agreed (63 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Wikitanvir, Avraham, Adv.tksujith, Snowolf
  • no concerns/no issues
    3 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Wikitanvir, NickK
  • trusted
    2 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Taketa, Fotokannan
  • experienced steward
    1 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    RadiX
  • friendly
    1 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir
Concerned
  • no contribution to en.wikiversity since 2011
    1 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • power-obsessed
    1 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    AryanSogd
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 4 unspecified "neutral" comments (3 without reason, 1 because of not knowing enough about his steward work).
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus. SPQRobin (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the concerns are relevant. --MF-W 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm according to consensus. Bennylin 02:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Linedwell[edit]

82 users commented on Linedwell's confirmation, or 21.3% of participating users. Final revision r15388984.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    51 agreed (31 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, RadiX, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Infinite0694, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, White Master King, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Laurent Jerry, Billinghurst, Jianhui67, Rxy, MoiraMoira, Uğurkent, Widr, Schlum, Arkanosis, Remy34, Green Giant, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Mattho69, Courcelles, Matiia, Do not follow, Jusjih, Suprememangaka, Housterdam, FrankyLeRoutier, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, 0x010C, Kropotkine 113, Einsbor, Elmie, Yodaspirine, Wagino 20100516, La femme de menage, ContributorQ, Quiddity, Pmlineditor, Érico
  • no concerns
    9 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Rschen7754, NickK, Avraham, Thibaut120094, Trijnstel, NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Teles
  • good activity
    5 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    NickK, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    3 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Taketa, Raphoraph, Snowolf
  • trusted
    3 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Taketa, Hégésippe Cormier
  • helpful
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Barras
  • francophone
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Taketa, Thémistocle
  • legible to continue (sic)
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir
Concerned
  • has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 20:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus. SPQRobin (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the concerns are relevant. --MF-W 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

M7[edit]

89 users commented on M7's confirmation, or 23.1% of participating users. Final revision r15389022.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    68 agreed (21 didn't mention this).
    Herbythyme, Infinite0694, Syum90, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Aplasia, Armbrust, RadiX, Ajraddatz, Euphydryas, Miniapolis, White Master, Nicolabel, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Dimitrij Kasev, Wikitanvir, Laurent Jerry, Etamni, Pracchia-78, Jianhui67, Rxy, Eumolpo, Teles, MoiraMoira, L736E, Sciking, Kolega2357, Shivanarayana, Uğurkent, Widr, Archenzo, Alexanderps, Pegasovagante, INeverCry, Triquetra, Ghilt, Green Giant, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Gordonrox24, M&A, Courcelles, Meno25, Matiia, Jusjih, Nioger, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, DangSunM, Theo10011, NahidSultan, Zyephyrus, Nungalpiriggal, MBisanz, Elmie, Bennylin, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity, Riottoso, Érico
  • active, responsive; hard-working
    6 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    NickK, Avraham, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • experienced steward
    5 agreed (84 didn't mention this).
    NickK, Ejs-80, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Pmlineditor
  • worthy/good steward
    4 agreed (85 didn't mention this).
    AryanSogd, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Taketa, Snowolf
  • no concerns/no issues
    4 agreed (85 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Rschen7754, Trijnstel, Barras
  • nice, friendly, kind
    4 agreed (85 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst, OrbiliusMagister, Trijnstel, Shanmugamp7
  • trusted
    3 agreed (86 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar, Harlock81, Taketa
Concerned
  • activity concerns
    1 agreed (88 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • no contribution to en.wikiversity since 2008
    1 agreed (88 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (88 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 unspecified "neutral" comments (1 without reason, 1 because of not knowing enough about his steward work).
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. No serious concerns. Overall good work as a steward. RadiX 20:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus. SPQRobin (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Oldest soldier still fighting Mardetanha talk 19:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The only relevant concern is from Snaevar, who however supports confirmation. --MF-W 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

MarcoAurelio[edit]

99 users commented on MarcoAurelio's confirmation, or 25.7% of participating users. Final revision r15391106.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    63 agreed (36 didn't mention this).
    Maragm, Infinite0694, RadiX, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Petronas, Armbrust, Taichi, Murma174, Miniapolis, Euphydryas, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Billinghurst, Rxy, Epìdosis, Luke081515, Vincenzo1492, Teles, MoiraMoira, L736E, Sciking, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Bernard, La Mantis, Itti, Jan Kovář BK, Marcelo Victor, Aude, -jkb-, Ghilt, Arkanosis, Quenhitran, AryanSogd, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Krenair, Rax, Courcelles, Ciberprofe, Matiia, Jusjih, Nioger, Matěj Suchánek, Jmvkrecords, FrankyLeRoutier, DerekvG, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, Pafsanias, Accipiter Q. Gentilis, Turbojet, MBisanz, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity, Érico
  • definitely/of course/(one of the) best steward(s)/excellent user etc.
    18 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Herbythyme, Syum90, Yeza, 6AND5, Ajraddatz, White Master King, Jianhui67, NickK, Snowolf, Einsbor, Bennylin, Laura Fiorucci, Green Giant, Trijnstel, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Theo10011, Taketa
  • (very) active
    8 agreed (91 didn't mention this).
    Pmlineditor, बिप्लब आनन्द , Avraham, Rschen7754, Wikitanvir, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, NahidSultan
  • trusted
    4 agreed (95 didn't mention this).
    Ah3kal, Ejs-80, Snaevar, Taketa
  • no concerns
    3 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Raystorm, Jo-Jo Eumerus
  • helpful
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Pmlineditor
Concerned
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (97 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs[MariusM]
  • Declined an allegedly valid CU request
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    MariusM
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (98 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. RadiX 20:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus to confirm. IMO the CU request was invalid and should have been declined, and the issue was not supported by anyone else. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm clear cut consensus Mardetanha talk 19:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm obvious consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, concerns raised are not relevant. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Bennylin 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mardetanha[edit]

84 users commented on Mardetanha's confirmation, or 21.8% of participating users. Final revision r15391653.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    57 agreed (27 didn't mention this).
    Infinite0694, Syum90, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, RadiX, Armbrust, Miniapolis, White Master King, HakanIST, Gharouni, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Danny B., Laurent Jerry, Billinghurst, Jianhui67, Rxy, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Widr, Darwinius, Jan Kovář BK, Aude, Calak, INeverCry, -jkb-, Ghilt, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Matiia, Taivo, Jusjih, Hamid Hassani, AzorAhai, Arian_Ar, Ebrahim, مهرنگار, کامران, Ochilov, Jmvkrecords, Jo-Jo Eumerus, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, 분당선M, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Elmie, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Quiddity, Pmlineditor, Érico
  • trusted user
    7 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Jagro, Cekli829, Alexanderps, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Hégésippe Cormier
  • good steward/good work etc.
    5 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Cekli829, Avraham, Meno25, Taketa, Snowolf
  • always/often around to help
    5 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Trijnstel, Barras, Shanmugamp7, NahidSultan
  • active
    4 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Shanmugamp7, Taketa, NahidSultan, Snowolf
  • useful language skills
    4 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Trijnstel, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • No concerns
    3 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Hedwig in Washington, Wikitanvir, Ah3kal
  • س چی
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    Raystorm
  • Helped process the ArbCom elections on en.wiki faster than usual
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    Altamel
  • Helpful
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    NickK
  • positive reply to concerns
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    Teles
Concerned
  • Concerns about OS actions on Wikidata
    2 agreed (82 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Ajraddatz
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs
  • not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (83 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter

  • 1 neutral "comment" without reasons.
  • Confirm. The concern raised wrt. OS at Wikidata looks resolved, and Mardetanha answered to the questions regarding this. It seems all agreed it was an urgent action, thus policy-endorsed. Mistakes (wrt. the use of the tool, hidding the summary or the revision) can happen, specially if the tool hasn't been used for a while and one's in a hurry. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Despite some issues that seem to be properly addressed already, as MA said. Consensus to confirm, IMO. RadiX 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus to confirm, though I am still concerned by the actions. Oversight actions are rarely so urgent, they can be revdel'd and dealt with later. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, despite some concerns raised. SPQRobin (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. I believe the explanation, and we all make mistakes sometimes. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The concern about the OS action is really very relevant. But if only 2 users share it (thereof 1 in favour of confirmation) ... --MF-W 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm concerns have been addressed. Bennylin 02:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus. Also agree with MarcoAurelio.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Matanya[edit]

63 users commented on Matanya's confirmation, or 16.4% of participating users. Final revision r15389017.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    41 agreed (22 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, RadiX, Vituzzu, Armbrust, Miniapolis, White Master, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Legoktm, Danny B., Laurent Jerry, Billinghurst, Rxy, Teles, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Widr, Aude, INeverCry, -jkb-, Ghilt, Taivo, Melos, GZWDer, Krenair, Courcelles, Matiia, Trijnstel, Jusjih, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity, Érico
  • sufficient/good activity; fast responses
    10 agreed, 2 seconded (51 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter[Riley Huntley, Hedwig in Washington], Rschen7754, Jianhui67, NickK, -revi, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • good steward, sound steward/good work; helpful
    7 agreed (56 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Nahum, Jianhui67, Barras, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Snowolf
  • trusted
    3 agreed, 2 seconded (58 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter[Riley Huntley, Hedwig in Washington], Taketa, Pmlineditor
  • no concerns
    2 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    NickK, Avraham
  • careful
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir
  • valuable technical expertise
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Snowolf
  • nice
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    NahidSultan
  • contributions to Wikiversity in the past year
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Severino
  • contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 1 neutral "comment" without reason.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 20:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm clear consensus Mardetanha talk 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are valid. --MF-W 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no concerns. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Bennylin 02:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

MBisanz[edit]

69 users commented on MBisanz's confirmation, or 17.9% of participating users. Final revision r15388982.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    37 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Vituzzu, Liridon, Armbrust, Pharaoh of the Wizards, White Master King, SQL, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Laurent Jerry, Jianhui67, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Holmium, Uğurkent, Widr, INeverCry, Charitwo, Philosopher, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Taivo, 분당선M, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, Drmies, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity, Shanmugamp7, Érico, Wikitanvir
  • hopes that MBisanz will become more active
    2 agreed, 2 seconded (65 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754[RadiX, Riley Huntley], Miniapolis
  • willing to do difficult renames which require steward rights
    2 agreed, 2 seconded (65 didn't mention this).
    Legoktm[Guerillero, NahidSultan], Barras
  • active / not only active in renaming
    4 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Teles, Avraham, Taketa, NahidSultan
  • good contributions at the steward meeting in San Francisco 2015
    3 agreed, 1 seconded (65 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst, Teles, Trijnstel[Pmlineditor]
  • "still contributes in the steward role overall" / "provides valuable perspective"
    2 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Ajraddatz, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Tony1
  • RL
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Hedwig in Washington
  • stewards with moderate activity are needed
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    NickK
  • contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • global renamer rights would be sufficent
    2 agreed, 4 seconded (63 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Steinsplitter, DCB, CaZeRillo, Timk70], Barras
  • inactivity / concerns about activity
    5 agreed, 1 seconded (63 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Ajraddatz, MF-Warburg, Stemoc[Herbythyme], Snowolf
  • Concerns about unfamiliarity with checking user group rights on local wikis
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Vogone
  • "has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards"
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • English-only
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 1 neutral "comment" without reason.
  • Confirm. The majority of the community favours confirmation of MBisanz. —MarcoAurelio 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. In spite of the "global renamer would suffice" argument, those who commented in favor have pointed out that he is willing to do difficult renames which require steward permission, and he is also active in other stuff as well. RadiX 20:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - renaming is still part of steward work IMO. Consensus present to confirm. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Several valid concerns, but probably not shared by a critical mass of users. --MF-W 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per majority. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, some concerns raised, but consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - There are some concerns, however, the vast majority of the community wishes him confirmed. Consensus seems clear to me. -Barras talk 12:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus. Per Marco and MF.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Melos[edit]

67 users commented on Melos' confirmation, or 17.4% of participating users. Final revision r15389016.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    48 agreed (19 didn't mention this).
    RadiX, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Aplasia, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Euphydryas, Miniapolis, White Master, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Dimitrij Kasev, Billinghurst, Pracchia-78, Jianhui67, Epìdosis, Rxy, Eumolpo. MoiraMoira, L736E, Teles, Kolega2357, Sciking, Shivanarayana, Uğurkent, Widr, Archenzo, Triquetra, Harlock81, Matanya, GZWDer, Syum90, Luigi.tuby, Courcelles, Matiia, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, 분당선M, NahidSultan, Zyephyrus, Nungalpiriggal, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, DARIO SEVERI, Quiddity, Pmlineditor, Érico
  • active enough: helpful
    9 agreed (58 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, NickK, Trijnstel, Barras, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Taketa, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • no concerns/reasonable actions; good work
    6 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, NickK, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Taketa, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • useful insights
    2 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, Avraham
  • trusted
    2 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Trijnstel, Taketa
Concerned
  • contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards/no contributions to en.wikiversity since 2011
    2 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar, Marshallsumter
  • no babel info in the statement
    2 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih, OrbiliusMagister
  • not visible
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Hedwig in Washington
  • activity concerns
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 "neutral" comments without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Only possibly relevant oppose reason is the one by Snaevar. --MF-W 22:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mentifisto[edit]

57 users commented on Mentifisto's confirmation, or 14.8% of participating users. Final revision r15388981.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    35 agreed (22 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Emergency doc, Vituzzu, BRPever, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, White Master, Kurtis, Az1568, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Billinghurst, Jianhui67, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Widr, INeverCry, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Gordonrox24, Mh7kJ, Courcelles, Matiia, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Érico
  • active enough
    7 agreed (50 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, Trijnstel, Barras, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • useful/sound/good work
    5 agreed, 1 seconded (51 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, Avraham, NickK[NahidSultan], Taketa, Snowolf
  • no reason to remove/no concerns
    2 agreed (55 didn't mention this).
    RadiX, Shanmugamp7
  • trusted user
    2 agreed (55 didn't mention this).
    Infinite0694, Taketa
Concerned
  • not as active as in the past/not noticed in the past
    6 agreed, 1 seconded (50 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Hedwig in Washington, Wikitanvir, Steinsplitter, NickK[NahidSultan], Barras
  • no longer active on wikis/no contributions to en.wikiversity in over a year
    2 agreed (55 didn't mention this).
    Laurent Jerry, Marshallsumter
  • English-only
    1 agreed (56 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (56 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 unspecified "neutral" comments
  • Confirm. There are some concerns with activity, but those who raised this favors confirmation. —MarcoAurelio 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Some concerns with current activity. However, there is consensus to confirm. RadiX 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus to confirm, despite activity concerns. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity, but only 3 users think removal is warranted because of it. --MF-W 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - While there are activity concerns, there is a clear consensus to confirm. -Barras talk 12:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, not the most noticable steward, judging from the number of participating votes. Bennylin 02:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

MF-Warburg[edit]

102 users commented on MF-Warburg's confirmation, or 26.5% of participating users. Final revision 15391655.

Favourable
  • no reason given / ok / good job / trusted
    83 agreed (19 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Herbythyme, Steinsplitter, Cadfaell, Infinite0694, Syum90, Maragm, RadiX, Mh7kJ, Natuur12, Krol111, Brainswiffer, Emergency doc, Vituzzu, BRPever, Bubo bubo, Armbrust, 1971markus, Geolina163, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Murma174, Miniapolis, White Master, HakanIST, Az1568, Osiris, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Andreas Werle, Danny B., billinghurst, Jianhui67, Rxy, Vincenzo1492, MoiraMoira, DCB, NickK, Yogesh Kavishwar, Shisha-Tom, Kolega2357, Cvf-ps, Widr, Ah3kal, Itti, Ali1610, Jan Kovář, Aude, INeverCry, -jkb-, Ghilt, Snaevar, Sänger, Arkanosis, Quenhitran, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Horgner, Rax, Courcelles, GeoTrinity, Matiia, Do not follow, Marcus Cyron, Pedantin9, Nioger, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Elmie, Yodaspirine, Wagino 20100516, बिप्लब आनन्द, Vadgt, Pharaoh of the Wizards, S.Didam, Pmlineditor
  • You do a good job, though I believe you could be more friendly with words.
    4 agreed, 2 seconded (96 didn't mention this).
    Teles[Trijnstel], Barras, Shanmugamp7, Eurodyne
  • Trusted, active, does good work.
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • Active enough and actions were reasonable.
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754
  • active and dedicated steward.
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Snowolf
  • No question. His activity is sufficient in and of itself, but I can speak from personal experience in saying that I think he delivers significant value to the stewards as regards our internal discussions. MF-W and I may not always agree, but I value his perspective and advice, and look forward to his thoughts on issues. His continuation as a steward would be a clear benefit to Wikimedia, in my opinion.
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Avraham
Concerned
  • No contributions to en.wikiversity in over a year!
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • for opposing 2 proposals at Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • for inactivity to several queries such as User_talk:MF-Warburg#Western_Balochi_language - we expect some reply - not a passive attitude.
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Hindustanilanguage
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (101 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; high support, no valid concerns. Thank you very much for creating these overviews! SPQRobin (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. Concern by Hindustanilanguage more likely in revenge for voting against his steward election, as he opposed all of the initial stewards that did not support him. Thanks too for making these! Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, agree with Ajr re. the Hindustanilanguage concern. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no concerns. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, but still need to address the concerns. Bennylin 02:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pmlineditor[edit]

60 users commented on Pmlineditor's confirmation, or 15.6% of participating users. Final revision r15389011.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    42 agreed (18 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, RadiX, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Druddigon, Miniapolis, White Master King, Az1568, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Etamni, Billinghurst, Jianhui67, Luke081515, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Widr, Uğurkent, -jkb-, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Gordonrox24, Microchip08, Courcelles, Matiia, Jusjih, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Ah3kal, Quiddity, Érico, Trijnstel
  • (relatively low activity, but) still active enough
    8 agreed (52 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, NickK, Barras, Taketa, NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.; helpful, friendly
    3 agreed (57 didn't mention this).
    Taketa, Snowolf, NahidSultan
  • no concerns
    1 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Shanmugamp7
  • speaks Bangla
    1 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir
  • trusted
    1 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
Concerned
  • Concerns about activity and the closing of a request with an unanswered question at SRGP as successful
    2 agreed, 1 seconded (57 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter[Vogone, Hindustanilanguage]
  • has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
    1 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 neutral "comments" (without reason).
  • Confirm.MarcoAurelio 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Overall good work as a steward, despite some minor concerns about activity and the way he handled a request at SRGP. Clear consensus to confirm, anyway. RadiX 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. One relevant concern, but too few people who support not confirming because of it. --MF-W 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual[edit]

67 users commented on QuiteUnusual's confirmation, or 17.4% of participating users. Final revision r15389009.

Favourable
  • no reason given / ok / good job / trusted
    56 agreed (11 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Herbythyme, Syum90, Infinite0694, RadiX, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Armburst, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, Atcovi, White Master, Kurtis, Az1568, Osiris, Hedwig in Washington, Liuxinyu970226, Wikitanvir, Laurent Jerry, MoiraMoira, Teles, Avraham, NickK, Mahir256, Kolega2357, Uğurkent, Quenhitran, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Matiia, Trijnstel, Jusjih, Nioger, Jmvkrecords, FrankyLeRoutier, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, NahidSultan, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Mailer Diablo, Pmlineditor, Quiddity, DARIO SEVERI, Shanmugamp7, Érico
  • Not as active as in the past but still active enough and remains involved in the community.
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754
  • easy, another wise wise head
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    billinghurst
  • A user with discernment
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Jianhui67
  • Sufficiently active, benefit to steward corps, no reason to consider removal
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Avraham
  • One of the few stewards that enforce the global inactivity policy
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • Contributions to en.wikiversity within a year!
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • Clearly a net-positive to us stewards and also active and helpful.
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Barras
  • active and sound steward.
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Snowolf
Concerned
  • Putting obstacles in the way of small Wikipedias.
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Holder
  • There are cases of serious harassments and stewards do nothing about it. In fact, they are OK with it.
    1 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 19:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RadiX[edit]

69 users commented on RadiX's confirmation, or 17.9% of participating users. Final revision r15388894.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    37 agreed (32 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Vituzzu, மதனாஹரன், Infinite0694, BRPever, Sfic, Armbrust, Atcovi, White Master King, Az1568, Laurent Jerry, Jianhui67, Yeza, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Widr, Marcelo Victor, Darwinius, INeverCry, Quenhitran, Harlock81, Melos, AryanSogd, Matanya, GZWDer, Matiia, Jusjih, Nioger, Vanthorn, FrankyLeRoutier, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Zyephyrus, Elmie, Taichi, Wagino 20100516, La femme de menage, Vonoserbizky Spartacus
  • active enough / highly active when around
    10 agreed, 1 seconded (58 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Wikitanvir, Etamni, Avraham[NahidSultan], Érico, Barras, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.; helpful
    6 agreed (63 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Syum90, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Snowolf, Castelobranco
  • no concerns
    3 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226, Uğurkent, Shanmugamp7
  • announced his planned absence
    2 agreed, 1 seconded (66 didn't mention this).
    Hedwig in Washington[Érico], NickK
  • trusted
    3 agreed (66 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Syum90, Taketa
  • friendly
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter
  • hopes RadiX will become more active
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Miniapolis
  • Contributions to en.wv within a year
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • inactivity, e.g. belated signing of the new confidentiality agreement
    3 agreed, 3 seconded (63 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Steinsplitter, 분당선M, Timk70], MF-Warburg[분당선M], Billinghurst
  • announced absence for 5 of 12 months of the next year
    1 agreed, 3 seconded (65 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Steinsplitter, 분당선M, Timk70]
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    DerekvG
  • "same problems as in 2011-2"
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    JSSX
  • Not fully convinced
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Trijnstel
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (68 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 1 neutral "comment" (without reason).
  • Confirm. I think there's consensus to confirm RadiX as steward. —MarcoAurelio 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - consensus to confirm, even with concerns on activity. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no concerns re activity. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm though not happy with the announced long absence. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The only relevant oppose reason is inactivity, but it is only shared by few users. --MF-W 22:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm please take into account long absence periods. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, same as Matanya. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - There seems to be consensus to confirm. -Barras talk 12:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus. Concerns about inactivity shared by only a few.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruslik0[edit]

66 users commented on Ruslik0's confirmation, or 17.1% of participating users. Final revision r15388895.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    40 agreed (26 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Emergency doc, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Miniapolis, White Master, Az1568, Hedwig in Washington, Laurent Jerry, Billinghurst, Jianhui67, Rxy, MoiraMoira, Teles, Draa kul, Kolega2357, Cvf-ps, Oleg3280, Uğurkent, Widr, INeverCry, -jkb-, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Afil, Рулин, Matiia, Jusjih, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity
  • active
    11 agreed (55 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Mathanaharan, Wikitanvir, Avraham, Trijnstel, Barras, Taketa, NahidSultan, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • trusted
    7 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Mathanaharan, Trijnstel, Taketa, NahidSultan, बिप्लब आनन्द, Pmlineditor
  • good steward/"very well"/"I like his steward work"
    6 agreed (60 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226, Wikitanvir, RadiX, Yogesh Kavishwar, AryanSogd, Taketa
  • useful/helpful
    4 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, Barras, Snowolf
  • no concerns/no issues
    2 agreed (64 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Steinsplitter
  • "helped me rename my username according to the rules"/"renamed me"
    2 agreed (64 didn't mention this).
    Kosta1986, Cybularny
  • Russian-speaking
    1 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    6AND5
  • contributions to en.wikiversity within a year
    1 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • concerns about communication
    4 agreed (62 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Mathanaharan, RadiX, AryanSogd
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    DerekvG
  • putting obstacles in the way of small Wikipedias
    1 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Holder
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (65 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs
  • 1 "neutral" comment without reason.
  • Confirm.MarcoAurelio 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. In spite of some concerns about communication, I think there is consensus to keep him as a steward. Ruslik0 is considered to be a skilled and helpful volunteer, and thus should not be considered for removal, IMO. RadiX 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus to confirm despite issues with communication. My own experience with his communication has been positive, for what it's worth. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, I have had no issues with communication. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Communication issues are the only relevant oppose reason mentioned, but only 1 user thinks he should be removed because of it. --MF-W 22:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm clear consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm should have had more votes for his works. Bennylin 02:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per MF-Warburg.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Savh[edit]

78 users commented on Savh's confirmation, or 20.3% of participating users. Final revision r15389006.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    48 agreed (30 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Infinite0694, RadiX, Mh7kJ, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Taichi, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Euphydryas, Jcaraballo, Miniapolis, Az1568, Osiris, Jianhui67, Rxy, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Marcelo Victor, Bernard, PetrohsW, INeverCry, Charitwo, Baiji, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Meno25, Matiia, Nioger, Jmvkrecords, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity, Taivo, Érico
  • no concerns
    9 agreed (69 didn't mention this).
    Cadfaell, Yeza, Raystorm, Liuxinyu970226, BAICAN XXX, NickK, Uğurkent, MarcoAurelio, NahidSultan
  • sufficiently active
    8 agreed (70 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, NickK, Barras, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward / good work etc.
    4 agreed (74 didn't mention this).
    Laura Fiorucci, Avraham, Taketa, Snowolf
  • useful and helpful
    4 agreed (74 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, Barras, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7
  • trusted user
    3 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar, Trijnstel, Taketa
  • good contributions at steward meeting in San Francisco 2015
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst
Concerned
  • No reason given
    2 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Maragm, White Master King
  • no babel info in the statement
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Jusjih
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Clear consensus here, IMO. RadiX 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Shanmugamp7[edit]

76 users commented on Shanmugamp7's confirmation, or 19.7% of participating users. Final revision r15395388.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    52 agreed (24 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Infinite0694, RadiX, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, மதனாஹரன், Taichi, Armbrust, Nan, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Pharaoh of the Wizards, White Master King, Miniapolis, Az1568, Legoktm, Rsmn, Shrikarsan, Billinghurst, Maathavan, Rxy, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Sivakosaran, Shivanarayana, Uğurkent, INeverCry, Kurumban, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Luke081515, Courcelles, AntanO, बिप्लब आनन्द, Matiia, Mh7kJ, Jusjih, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, கி.மூர்த்தி, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity, Érico
  • (very) active, good work
    12 agreed (64 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, NickK, Ravidreams, Trijnstel, Barras, Taketa, NahidSultan, Pmlineditor, Snowolf, Info-farmer, Altamel
  • no concerns
    6 agreed (70 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Steinsplitter, Ah3kal, Liuxinyu970226, Wikitanvir, NickK
  • friendly/nice/helpful
    5 agreed (71 didn't mention this).
    Jianhui67, Teles, Trijnstel, NahidSultan, Pmlineditor
  • trusted user
    1 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • useful language skills
    1 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • Contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 3 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. No issues. RadiX 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The blanket oppose is not a relevant reason. --MF-W 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

SPQRobin[edit]

62 users commented on SPQRobin's confirmation, or 16.1% of participating users. Final revision r15389003.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    40 agreed (22 didn't mention this).
    RadiX, Vituzzu, BRPever, Greenday2, 1971markus, Armbrust, Murma174, Miniapolis, Az1568, Osiris, Danny B., Billinghurst, Luke081515, Teles, Kolega2357, Richardkiwi, Charitwo, Arkanosis, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Berlin-George, बिप्लब आनन्द, GeoTrinity, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, Matěj Suchánek, FrankyLeRoutier, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Andries Van den Abeele, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity, Érico
  • active enough
    7 agreed (55 didn't mention this).
    Avraham, NickK, Trijnstel, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward/good work etc.; helpful, friendly
    4 agreed (58 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, Taketa, Snowolf, NahidSultan
  • no concerns
    4 agreed (58 didn't mention this).
    Liuxinyu970226, Wikitanvir, NickK, Timk70
  • banned a problematic user after an RFC
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (60 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12[Hedwig in Washington]
  • trusted
    2 agreed (60 didn't mention this).
    Taketa, Trijnstel
Concerned
  • highly inactive
    5 agreed (57 didn't mention this).
    Ajraddatz, Jianhui67, Uğurkent, Snaevar, Barras
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Hindustanilanguage
  • some concerns with how he estimates consensus
    1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12
  • no contributions on en.wv
    1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (61 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" (without reason).
  • Confirm.MarcoAurelio 19:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. RadiX 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clearly the concerns that I expressed over activity were not important in the eyes of the other participants. Consensus to confirm. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Inactivity is a relevant oppose reason, but it is shared only by very few users. --MF-W 22:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm please be more active. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, same as Matanya. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, some concerns about activity, but consensus to confirm. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - some activity concerns, but still consensus to confirm. -Barras talk 12:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus. One valid reason shared by only one user though. A few other opposes with invalid reasons IMO.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Stryn[edit]

78 users commented on Stryn's confirmation, or 20.3% of participating users. Final revision r15388905.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    54 agreed (24 didn't mention this).
    Infinite0694, RadiX, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Armbrust, HakanIST, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Miniapolis, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Danny B., Laurent Jerry, Murma174, Billinghurst, Jni, Rxy, Epìdosis, Vincenzo1492, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Alexanderps, Jan Kovář BK, Wieralee, Aude, Marcelo Victor, Ghilt, Ankry, DCB, Arkanosis, Quenhitran, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Taivo, Courcelles, Matiia, Jusjih, Matěj Suchánek, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Pablo000, Zyephyrus, Nan, Wagino 20100516, Quiddity
  • (very) active
    11 agreed (67 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Wikitanvir, NickK, Avraham, Uğurkent, Ejs-80, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf, Snaevar
  • good steward / good work etc.
    9 agreed, 1 seconded (68 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Jianhui67[Tufor], Trijnstel, Barras, NahidSultan, Taketa, Snowolf, Jianhui67, Ejs-80
  • no concerns
    2 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Syum90
  • Tuttu paristo
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (76 didn't mention this).
    Pxos[Geohakkeri]
  • trusted user
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • Contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 1 neutral "comment" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Clear consensus here. RadiX 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The blanket oppose is not a relevant reason. --MF-W 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised which would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per clear consensus.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Taketa[edit]

77 users commented on Taketa's confirmation, or 20.0% of participating users. Final revision r15390190.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    18 agreed (59 didn't mention this).
    Vituzzu, BRPever, Armbrust, DCB, Widr, Richardkiwi, INeverCry, De Geo, MoiraMoira, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Dick Bos, Jusjih, WeeJeeVee, Zyephyrus, Wagino 20100516, Andries Van den Abeele, .js
  • acts with good intent/dedicated Wikimedian
    3 agreed, 6 seconded (68 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Mh7kJ, Stemoc, Herbythyme, Jni, Odder, Kusurija, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M, Ireas], Rschen7754[Jni, Kusurija, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M], Nemo bis
  • good steward/good work
    6 agreed, 2 seconded (69 didn't mention this).
    6AND5, GeoO, Liridon, Billinghurst[Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7], Jo-Jo Eumerus, Barras
  • learned from mistakes/deserves a second chance/will do better next year
    6 agreed (71 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Teles, Alexmar983, Jmvkrecords, Avraham, NahidSultan
  • Active enough; great help
    4 agreed (73 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Ankry, Pratyeka, बिप्लब आनन्द
  • good contributor to StewCon
    1 agreed, 2 seconded (74 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst[Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7]
  • never too proud to admit a mistake/does his best
    2 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Natuur12, Trijnstel
  • not concerned about the dual OC-steward role
    2 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Barras, Avraham
  • seems to be open for feedback
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    RadiX
  • removal will be a net negative
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Ruslik0
  • many contributions to en.wikiversity in the past year
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • unspecified "per above"
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Érico
Concerned
  • several mistakes/little knowledge about policies/overchallenged
    11 agreed, 13 seconded (53 didn't mention this).
    MF-Warburg[Stemoc, Herbythyme, Jni, Steinsplitter, Nemo bis, Timk70, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M, Ireas], Vogone[Stemoc, Jni, Kusurija, Odder, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M, Ireas], Natuur12, RadiX, Rschen7754[Jni, Kusurija, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M], Teles, NickK, Alexmar983, Pratyeka, Avraham, NahidSultan
  • little overall activity
    6 agreed, 8 seconded (63 didn't mention this).
    MF-Warburg[Herbythyme, Jni, Steinsplitter, Nemo bis, Timk70, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, Ireas], Stemoc, Wikitanvir, NickK, Barras, Base
  • actions look careless
    2 agreed, 8 seconded (67 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Stemoc, Jni, Kusurija, Odder, Uğurkent, Krenair, Freddy2001, 분당선M], Avraham
  • steward-OC double role
    4 agreed, 3 seconded (70 didn't mention this).
    Vogone[Jni, Kusurija, Odder], Stemoc, -revi, DerekvG
  • confusing replies to the concerns mentioned by MF-Warburg
    2 agreed, 3 seconded (72 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754[Jni, Kusurija], Nemo bis[MF-Warburg]
  • no reason given
    2 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Laberinto16, CaZeRillo
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (75 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs[Kusurija]
  • contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards
    1 agreed (76 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • Regretful remove - While I personally feel that Taketa can learn from his mistakes and is an asset, there is a critical mass of people opposing. While these are not elections, I do not think that Taketa has maintained enough support to remain in this role. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    As requested, I will expand upon this. Taketa has not taken any controversial or difficult actions which people are opposing him for - the oppose reasons are based on inactivity, general poor use of the tools, and poor understanding of the various practices and procedures that stewards use. Given the rationale of the oppose votes, I don't feel that he maintains the level of support required to continue as a steward. These are serious concerns. If the concerns were "revenge" votes or votes based on a controversial action, I would think differently. My thoughts did take into account the specific circumstances and arguments present, though perhaps I didn't make them clear enough in my first comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Equally regretful remove. Taketa is a good user with good intentions and I have found him to be a nice person to work with, but I'm afraid that I have to agree with Ajr that there does not appear to be sufficient support nor consensus to confirm him as a steward. SPQRobin (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still considering Taketa's confirmation. The arguments for Remove are strong and a number of Supports agree with the concerns while still supporting. If this was a new election it would fall below the required percentage. But I want to spend some more time considering it. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have looked to this confirmation just from a numeric point of view. It appears that numbers are not that bad for a reconfirmation: even taking into account "blanket remove(s)" that are usually discounted, the consensus ratio does not fall below 2/3. So I would suggest that this reconfirmation might be used to help Taketa to improve and do better and better; I am also convinced both about the good faith, and that the same errors will not be repeated. --M/ (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per M7. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    Expanding on my comment above. I believe that the errors that Taketa made can be explained by his lack of involvement in the steward related activities. When he was elected a year ago, he was just immediately distracted by the Board Election. So, near the year end, when he tried to catch up, he did some actions in hurry, which resulted in errors. But I also believe that in the second year he will be more active (there is no Board Election this year, fortunately) and will not make similar mistakes. Because, if the situation repeats itself during the next year confirmation, I will support the removal. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per M7 and every person deserves second chance specially given the number of supporters Mardetanha talk 19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak remove, sorry, too many concerns raised. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak confirm. Tough decision here. Although I found no *clear* consensus to confirm Taketa as steward, it can be argued that there is definitely no consensus to remove him either. After having reviewed the discussion, the impression I got is of a steward who is friendly, helpful, and a good communicator on the positive side. On the other hand, there are quite some complaints regarding his ability to perform the steward tasks without adding to controversy. However, going off the number of supporters and his willingness to do better, I think we should give him another try. RadiX 02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    Although the process itself is not a vote, I thought that the "majority consensus" rule should be useful in determining some consensus anyhow, especially in a pretty difficult case like this one. However, on stewards policy, is written: "Should the stewards determine that consensus exists for a steward's rights be removed, the steward will lose their status." with no mention on how stewards should determine that consensus or what percentage should be considered as a valid threshold for determining consensus. Since this is not a plain vote, it is fair to discount some blanket supports/removes and take into account the comments which are really weight up. As a result, there are as many relevant claims on his use of steward tools as there are positive feedbacks based on his skills and willingness to do better this time. To put it simply: there seems not to be some consensus either for removal or to have him confirmed. In this case, I would say in dubio pro reo. RadiX 04:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Per M7 --Melos (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove First of all, I'd like to offer a correction to what M7 said: In fact, the "numbers" are bad for a confirmation. While they are a little bit above 2/3 (25 of 77 said "{{remove}}") if all comments are taken into account, what should matter more is arguments - and ignoring 18 "no reason" keepers as opposed to 3 "no reason" + "blanket" removers, it is under 60% support. And that is indeed "bad" in the sense that in steward confirmations, in the vast majority of cases, the only opposers are blanket-opposers or an occasional revenge "voter" (as can also be seen from the summary tables on this page). It is also bad if you consider that both CU and OS rights on every wiki require at least 70%, and that the steward election requirement is 80%. We put a note on SC this year about the changed confirmation process, which says "they [=stewards] will be especially careful to do it [review the confirmation comments and to give their impression of the outcome] regarding someone about whom they expressed strong opinions in the confirmation". Aware of that, but also seeing that others who opined in this confirmation have already given their impression of the outcome in this section, I will give mine as well. After having reviewed the discussion, I do not have any impression about a "willingness to do better". I also think it is wholly inappropriate for stewards to say "let's give him a second try", "everyone deserves a second chance" etc., when the steward policy says "stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered", and when the number of supporters on the confirmation is one of the lowest (easily visible from the number of "no reason" keepers alone) and no opposers came from the reason which many people feared e.g. in Requests for comment/Confirmation of stewards, namely that the steward acted to solve a tricky local conflict, which would now backfire. --MF-W 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, remove. There are numerically quite a lot of different concerns mentioned on the confirmation, and even though I certainly trust Taketa as a Wikimedian, content editor & Ombudsman, I don't think that continuing in the steward capacity is wise because of the concerns listed on the confirmation page. The statement "I did more then 6 renames in April-October. More like 25." is, IMO, not convincing - 25 isn't much either in what Taketa claims to be one of his expertises in a seven-month period. The reasons for the prolonged limited activity, be it meeting a minister or whatever, are not relevant in this confirmation, I believe. Moreover, the 11 logs on commons are actually 8 + 3 local logs of global renames, and those 8 are actually only 3 requests (consisting of usurp+rename). The two (actually more) logs on fr.wiktionary are for one rename+usurp. The one on pl.wiki was part of a global rename. The 4 (actually 5) on de.wiki are also for one user. The one on en.wiki is the same as the one on meta. This means that the number of renames is actually of the same order of magnitude than what was originally stated. Savhñ 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict.)Confirm Before I explain my reasoning, I would like to explain why I think that some of the statements above may need to be reviewed in light of policy. Stewards policy#Loss of steward access, states: "[S]ince stewardship is typically a position likely to get into trouble and since the steward group can easily control itself, the confirmation itself will be done by other stewards.…Stewards will be specifically careful to review situations when opposition from the community is registered." Stewards are elected based on demonstrating a strong consensus of the community, but are confirmed through a consensus of the active stewards. Therefore, while I very well may be mistaken, I find the reasoning of Ajraddatz and SPQRobin, while understandable, to be flawed, in that they base their decision solely on the level of support in the comments, which is in opposition to their own personal opinions of Taketa's continued utility as a steward. Similarly, I think RadiX's support suffers from the same issue, in that it appears to be completely based on the opinions posted, instead of it being his own opinion taking the community opinions into consideration. The first part of [User:M7|M/]]'s argument to confirm is also one that is not sufficiently Stewards policy-based in my understanding, but he also supports Taketa's confirmation with his own opinion as to Taketa's ability to learn from errors and is expectation that Taketa will continue to provide utility to the stewards, and by extension Wikimedia. Ruslik, Mardetanha, and Melos can probably be assumed to support all of M/'s statement so that would be at least three opinions for confirmation as per policy. On the other hand, we have MF-W who makes the case for removal not solely based on counts and community support, but takes it into consideration together with own reasoned opinion of Taketa's continued utility, which is exactly per policy in my understanding. DerHexer can probably be considered to agree with that in toto as well, so that gives us two policy-based oppositions.
After that long preamble, I found MF-W's arguments convincing enough to revisit my opinion, but after reviewing the discussions, I do not feel that Taketa is unaware or oblivious and that he does intend to perform better, so my careful review of the situation leads me to believe that we stewards would remain better off with a less-mistake-prone Taketa, and I do not have a reason now to doubt that he will perform appropriately. I will say that he should be VERY careful going forward, as if he does not cut down on errors, once they have been pointed out, he will turn into a liability to the steward corps.
I would request of Arj, etc. to recast their decisions in a policy appropriate way as we will probably need the clearest adherence to policy to adjudicate this properly. Thanks for putting up with my pendanticism Face-smile.svg. -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of the comments here fall outside of policy. The section on confirmations in the steward policy is largely descriptive, not prescriptive - the only imperative statements that I see there are that stewards will conduct the confirmations, and will carefully review situations where there is community opposition. That says nothing about which reasons are acceptable. Since 80% support is required to elect stewards, I feel that the level of support is a very important metric to consider (though not the only one) when evaluating confirmation discussions. That said, I do appreciate your desire to have these discussions focused around substantive issues rather than simple number counting, and I hope that I've reassured you of my intent to not do that. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Edited Ajraddatz (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    I am glad that I was mistaken; thank you for clarifying Ajraddatz. Obviously we can and should take everything into consideration; it was what appeared to be a desire to support being being overturned by the voiced concerns which threw me. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for my misconception. -- Avi (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak remove This is definitely a tough case and I can see the concerns raised as well as the points for confirming him brought up by M7 and others. Considering all of that, especially the community input, I regretfully think that the rights should be removed. - Hoo man (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know. My gut feel would be remove per low community support, but I do think Taketa is an asset, and we should keep him. Hence I am Neutral here. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Difficult decision - personally, I favor confirmation (as I stated in the confirmations page), but I think the community has raised several valid concerns. A regretful weak remove from me. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak remove, even though I wanted him to stay, I don't think there is consensus to have him confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain - I thought long about it. I work with him in the OC and also as a steward, I think I have too much of a COI here. I feel I can't judge here neutrally and wish to abstain. I voted in the confirmation and the final result shown here clearly is not a clear-cut case. Since this discussion here is to determine the consensus from the community, which should happen in a neutral way (like closing RfXs as a crat), I simply can't give any sort of neutral input. -Barras talk 10:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. I think that M7 is right and Taketa would learn this, what he doesn't know yet, but it seems, that community doesn't confirmed him. einsbor talk 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on Barras's comment, I want to reiterate that per my reading of Stewards policy#Loss of steward access, community consensus should be taken into consideration, but unlike an election, it is not the final arbiter of an existing steward's confirmation. That lies completely and totally in the decisions of the active steward corps. As such, if we the stewards feel that based on Taketa's work, of which we should know better as we can see the non-logged actions and reflect on his contributions to our work on the e-mail list and wiki, that Wikimedia would be better off with him remaining, we are entitled to make that decision. Of course, as User:Ajraddatz made clear, if we ourselves feel that the community consensus to remove, or even lack thereof to confirm, means that we feel that the stewards and their support of Wikimedia is better off thanking Taketa for his work and letting him go, then that is the decision we should make. I just feel that when Barras said "[s]ince this discussion here is to determine the consensus from the community", it is not what the policy says, which is "[i]f the majority of other stewards request removal of steward access…" By all means, we must consider everything and weight it according to each one of our own's perception, but we should also remember that if we feel we and Wikimedia are better served with Taketa's remaining a steward, we can choose to do so on its own merit. Of course, I may be the one misreading the policy, and would welcome being corrected if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. Though I supported Taketa for I believe he is completely able to do the job, has our trust and could improve with past experiences, I don't think there is consensus on this confirmation for any decision. It should be clearer for us what question we are trying to answer with that community consultation. If the question is "Is there enough approval for keeping Taketa as Steward?", the answer is "no". Other questions like "Is there enough consensus for removing Taketa from the Steward group?" may provide different responses. And that particular issue has been changed at Stewards policy in the middle of this ongoing process, which makes things more confusing.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tegel[edit]

82 users commented on Tegel's confirmation, or 21.3% of participating users. Final revision r15388999.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    51 agreed (31 didn't mention this).
    RadiX, Natuur12, Vituzzu, BRPever, Alan, Armbrust, HakanIST, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Miniapolis, Az1568, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Hedwig in Washington, Danny B., Billinghurst, Rxy, Vincenzo1492, Obelix, MoiraMoira, Teles, Nan, Kolega2357, Widr, Uğurkent, Wieralee, PetrohsW, INeverCry, -jkb-, Ghilt, DCB, Arkanosis, Quenhitran, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Courcelles, Meno25, Matiia, Jusjih, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Boberger, 분당선M, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity
  • no concerns
    13 agreed (69 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Steinsplitter, Cadfaell, Syum90, Mh7kJ, Wikitanvir, Laurent Jerry, Avraham, NickK, Ankry, Ejs-80, Trijnstel, Érico
  • (very) active
    8 agreed (74 didn't mention this).
    MF-Warburg, Rschen7754, Stemoc, NahidSultan, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward / good work etc.
    8 agreed (74 didn't mention this).
    Herbythyme, Ah3kal, Infinite0694, Jianhui67, Sciking, Barras, Taketa, Snowolf
  • trusted user & useful language skills
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Taketa
  • Contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (81 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 1 neutral "comment" without reasons.
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. I think there is clear consensus to keep Tegel as a steward. RadiX 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, no valid concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The blanket oppose is not a relevant reason. --MF-W 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised that would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Teles[edit]

81 users commented on Teles's confirmation, or 21.0% of participating users. Final revision r15388914.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    54 agreed (27 didn't mention this).
    Castelobranco, Natuur12, Widr, Vituzzu, BRPever, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Laberinto16, Miniapolis, Az1568, Liuxinyu970226, Syum90, Laurent Jerry, Herbythyme, Billinghurst, Rxy, RadiX, MoiraMoira, Kolega2357, Marcelo Victor, Uğurkent, Darwinius, INeverCry, Ghilt, Taivo, DCB, MARKELLOS, Arkanosis, Shivanarayana, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Taichi, Courcelles, Ciberprofe, Meno25, Matiia, Jusjih, Nioger, Vanthorn, GRS73, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Pablo000, Vonoserbizky Spartacus, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, DARIO SEVERI, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, Quiddity
  • (very) active
    10 agreed (71 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, Érico, NahidSultan, Barras, Pedrassani, Taketa, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • good steward / good work etc.
    6 agreed (75 didn't mention this).
    Wikitanvir, Jianhui67, Avraham, Ejs-80, Taketa, Snowolf
  • no concerns
    4 agreed (77 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Cadfaell, Hedwig in Washington, Trijnstel
  • trusted user
    2 agreed (79 didn't mention this).
    Alexanderps, Taketa
Concerned
  • No reason given
    3 agreed (78 didn't mention this).
    DerekvG, Hindustanilanguage, Arthemius x
  • Low activity on request pages on Meta
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Snaevar
  • "same problems as in 2011-2"
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    JSSX
  • Not contributed to en.wv
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (80 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reasons.
  • Confirm. There is consensus to confirm (IMO). In spite of Snaevar's comment, activity level on request pages on Meta-wiki seems to be quite reasonable, and it is not the only thing in steward work that really matters. RadiX 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - even though he hasn't contributed to en.wv (shame!), there is still clear consensus to confirm. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The only potentially relevant oppose issue is the one by Snaevar, but it is supported by nobody else. --MF-W 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised that would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Trijnstel[edit]

97 users commented on Trijnstel's confirmation, or 25.2% of participating users. Final revision r15388917.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    71 agreed (26 didn't mention this).
    Syum90, Herbythyme, RadiX, Natuur12, Emergency doc, Widr, Vituzzu, Infinite0694, BRPever, Alan, Armbrust, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, White Master, Miniapolis, 1989, Az1568, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Danny B., Wikitanvir, Laurent Jerry, Rxy, L736E, MoiraMoira, Teles, Kolega2357, Bernard, Uğurkent, Darwinius, Itti, Shivanarayana, Alexanderps, INeverCry, -jkb-, Ghilt, Taivo, DCB, Snaevar, Arkanosis, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Rax, Taichi, Vinvlugt, Odder, Courcelles, Berlin-George, CaZeRillo, Dick Bos, Meno25, Matiia, Marcus Cyron, Jusjih, WeeJeeVee, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, DerekvG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Marcelo Victor, Andries Van den Abeele, Drmies, Zyephyrus, MBisanz, Wagino 20100516, Mailer diablo, बिप्लब आनन्द, Quiddity
  • good steward/amazing steward/good work; helpful/engaged/dedicated
    11 agreed (86 didn't mention this).
    Greenday2, Atcovi, Jianhui67, Ejs-80, Tufor, Barras, Taketa, Érico, Einsbor, Pmlineditor, Snowolf
  • active
    10 agreed (87 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, NahidSultan, Barras, Taketa, Érico, Einsbor, Pmlineditor, Shanmugamp7, Snowolf
  • friendly/great person; trusted
    6 agreed (91 didn't mention this).
    NahidSultan, Érico, Shanmugamp7, Taketa, Einsbor, Pmlineditor
  • no concerns/no issues
    5 agreed (92 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Steinsplitter, Rschen7754, Hedwig in Washington, Ah3kal
  • provides valued insight
    2 agreed (95 didn't mention this).
    Avraham, Snowolf
  • extremely valuable contributor to the CU mailing list
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    NickK
  • female
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst
Concerned
  • no reason given
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Axpde
  • unresponsive
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    6AND5
  • acts on the basis of a biased view
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    De Geo
  • no contributions to en.wikiversity since 2014
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed (96 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs
  • Confirm. Clear consensus to confirm, IMO. No relevant issues were brought to attention. RadiX 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. —MarcoAurelio 19:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; clear consensus, virtually no concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - nihil obstat. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised that would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm nihil obstat. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain, for obvious reasons. Face-smile.svg Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Vituzzu[edit]

115 users commented on Vituzzu's confirmation, or 29.9% of participating users. Final revision r15389002.

Favourable
  • no reason given
    77 agreed (38 didn't mention this).
    Infinite0694, RadiX, Natuur12, Emergency doc, Widr, Herbythyme, BRPever, Raystorm, Aplasia, Armbrust, HakanIST, Yeza, Ajraddatz, Riley Huntley, Euphydryas, Druddigon, Miniapolis, Nicolabel, Az1568, Osiris, Liuxinyu970226, Dimitrij Kasev, Danny B., Herbythyme, Lenka64, Pracchia-78, Rxy, Eumolpo, Luke081515, L736E, MoiraMoira, Teles, Thibaut120094, Kolega2357, Shivanarayana, Bernard, Uğurkent, Archenzo, Taivo, Pegasovagante, Alexanderps, Wieralee, Aude, INeverCry, Triquetra, Ghilt, -jkb-, DCB, Arkanosis, Melos, Matanya, GZWDer, Afil, Luigi.tuby, Rax, Taichi , M&A, Courcelles, Matiia, Do not follow, Matěj Suchánek, Jusjih, Jmvkrecords, MarcoAurelio, Jo-Jo Eumerus, 분당선M, Theo10011, Nungalpiriggal, Zyephyrus, Elmie, Wagino 20100516, Luke081515, Mailer diablo, बिप्लब आनन्द , Quiddity, Riottoso, Érico
  • no concerns
    11 agreed (104 didn't mention this).
    Vogone, Syum90, Pokéfan95, Hedwig in Washington, Wikitanvir, Laurent Jerry, Jianhui67, NickK, Ah3kal, Ankry, Cekli829
  • good actions / good steward etc.
    9 agreed (106 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, Avraham, Allen2, Harlock81, Trijnstel, Ttzavaras, Barras, Taketa, Snowolf, NahidSultan
  • (very) active
    7 agreed (108 didn't mention this).
    Rschen7754, NickK, Taketa, Snowolf, Shanmugamp7, Pmlineditor, Avraham
  • trusted user
    2 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
    Steinsplitter, Taketa
  • friendly and/or helpful
    2 agreed (113 didn't mention this).
    NahidSultan, Shanmugamp7
  • his personal views don't interfere with his steward actions
    1 agreed (114 didn't mention this).
    Billinghurst
  • rangeblocks
    1 agreed (114 didn't mention this).
    Tufor
  • contributions to en.wv within a year
    1 agreed (114 didn't mention this).
    Marshallsumter
Concerned
  • no reason given
    4 agreed (111 didn't mention this).
    Odder, Severino, CaZeRillo, DerekvG
  • blanket oppose against all stewards because of alleged harassment
    1 agreed, 1 seconded (113 didn't mention this).
    Auvajs[Kusurija]
  • "has no problems with users being banned indef for POINT only"
    1 agreed (114 didn't mention this).
    Juandev
  • concerns with long IP blocks
    1 agreed (114 didn't mention this).
    Diti

  • 2 neutral "comments" without reason. 1 "I don't trust him since the Italian language lockout" (whatever that is)
  • Confirm. Overall good work as a steward. No relevant issues. RadiX 18:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm.MarcoAurelio 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm; high support, no real concerns. SPQRobin (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, per consensus. Savhñ 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Mardetanha talk 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Melos (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. None of the oppose reasons are relevant. --MF-W 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm Nothing raised that would change my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm per consensus. Matanya (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no concerns. Linedwell (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no valid concerns. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm - clear consensus. -Barras talk 12:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm. MBisanz talk 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm, einsbor talk 07:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from the community[edit]

First of all, I think this format is much improved over how confirmations were done in previous years, even if it is more work; it is more transparent and eliminates the controversies that have dogged the 2014 and 2015 confirmations.

I hope that ElectCom will consider extending the period of discussion for Taketa's confirmation. In such a close case as this one, a well thought-out and deliberated decision will be much better at reducing controversy than a rushed one to get things done with (i.e. Jusjih in 2014), and where related drama continued well into the next election cycle. I also hope that sufficient efforts will be made to notify all stewards so that they have the opportunity to participate (including newer stewards), Taketa if he has any additional comments, and the community by posting on a page like SN. --Rschen7754 07:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have notified all stewards of these discussions through a message on their talk page. They had already been notified through the mailing list. I believe the main community consultation period has passed, though. Savhñ 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I think this was unnecessary spam. Every steward who doesn't follow the ML probably also doesn't care for his talk page. --MF-W 18:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that this isn't the place for the community to rehash the confirmations, but I believe that the feedback from the community on the proposed decision, and the reasoning behind it, should not be discouraged. --Rschen7754 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Which community, the global one which has already expressed their opinions throughout the confirmation period, or the local meta (biased on certain points? better informed on the confirmation process?) community? Even though I will certainly not dismiss community feedback on this process, I believe asking for a specific community's feedback might not be ideal.
MF-W, I hope you can live with the spam - I did it in an effort to transparently and complementary inform all stewards of the ongoing process, should they for some reason not read the mailing list. Savhñ 22:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OC-steward double role[edit]

I'd like to raise a general point regarding the OC-steward double role. I don't really think it should be discussed here, however, it is something that has been there for long enough and will almost certainly always be an issue.

Firstly, I do totally understand the concern about the double role and a few years ago, that would've been a good reason for me to oppose someone. However, a few years ago, WMF suspended the local and global related rights for the term an user was part of the commission. At some point this rule was dismissed. After the term, the users were given back the right without another vote/election. In fact, I'd still support this. In my case, I simply restrict myself from doing most CU work and other stuff which could be problematic. If needed and urgent, I'd however still act as needed.

Currently, a steward/CU/OS would've to formally step down from their positions and stand for a full re-election once their term in the OC has ended. While this is certainly possible, it's for many people annoying as hell and I can understand that people are not going to step down for that reason.

I'm open for any suggestions to solve that possible problem. From my past term as steward and also member of the OC, I think it is possible to avoid any sorts of COIs. If there would be a case involving me, I'd simply abstain from any process and leave everything to the other commissioners. We've currently 7 full members and 2 advisors, so there will always be enough if any member is involved in a case. -Barras talk 10:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As a steward who was a member of the OmbCom for two years, I agree with Barras that it is not difficult to avoid a CoI and that there should not be concerns with the role, especially if the steward voluntarily reduces usage of CU and OS. -- Avi (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the "suspension" is an issue. If you look at Template:StewardsChart, all stewards who returned within the same term they resigned were given back their rights without any new election. I don't see any reason why this practice couldn't be continued for stewards who (voluntarily) suspend their rights while serving on the OC. --Vogone (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes the WMF may ask someone on OC to stay for a second term. That happened to me in 2015 when my selected replacement backed out. Two years is an eternity in wikispace, which is why I think that forced relinquishing and restoring is less than optimal; just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even mention "forced relinquishing and restoring" and stewards confirmation also exists after two years (so does it after one year) in case the community has issues with the user in concern continuing. Ideally, this would be the least thing to worry about. --Vogone (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Back to the main issue, obviously I have an opinion colored by my own experience, but what makes you more concerned about a joint steward/OC role any more than an admin opining on an RFC about another admin? Both have access to the same level of private data and the same rights. If it is a quid custodiet ipsos custodes argument, that can be recursed infinitely. If it is a CoI issue, that can be handled by recusing any case which the OC member would be party to. This can be an issue even if the OC member is NOT a steward. Most of the cases I saw dealt with non-stewards. This can be enhanced by the voluntary reduction of use of the privacy related tools during the term. Lastly, stewards are people who have demonstrated the community and their peers' trust, people more likely to be trusted with the privacy data and analyzing it fairly. At least those are my thoughts. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I could perhaps go into further detail, but I think [1] summarises my main concern pretty well. An appeal body for concerns about my or anyone else's private data should be independent, especially if it doesn't work publicly (unlike admins commenting on RFC's of other admins). No external community member can even see what the OC does. --Vogone (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
In former times, stewards who joined the OC and thereby ceased to be stewards went through the confirmation process and did then become stewards again when the OC term ended (if the confirmation was successful, which it always was IIRC) without further election/confirmation. It would be no problem to use this reasonable method again for stewards who become OC members and don't want to be stewards at the same time. --MF-W 18:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed that was the method. I think we can discuss this in an hypothetical post-mortem-electionis, but since this is not a blocker anymore, it should be voluntary. —MarcoAurelio 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We do, so far, not have any rule on that. Yes, I could voluntarily step down for my term as member of the OC, however, I'd have no guarantee that I'd be given back my tools ones the term has ended. At least not in our current situation. Furthermore, I don't think it's useful to make this something one can chose one way or the other.
Regarding the neutrality issue raised by Vogone above, no matter whether I'm currently a steward/have those tools, after 5(?) years as steward, working with them etc, one can hardly be totally neutral. Having the rights currently or not doesn't change this at all. I'm pretty sure I'd not be more or less independent without my steward flag. If you want absolute neutrality, you'd clearly need people in the OC who have never been in contact with most/all groups. As said, I'm pretty sure that my view won't change, no matter whether I have a steward flag or not. The fact I already had it for several years before joining the OC makes me biased. If there is a reason to complain about one of the members of the OC, one can simply contact another member. I'm pretty sure that someone involved in a case won't get involved into it as OC member. -Barras talk 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ElectCom evaluation[edit]

As some stewards have called for, I propose to extend the confirmation period with one week per the policy above ("Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. 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."). Then more input is possible for the unclear outcome of Taketa. @Jyothis: @Mardetanha: @Shanmugamp7: @Stryn: What do the other Election Committee members think? If not extended, we need to close the confirmation today Sunday 6 March. SPQRobin (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We have to extend, given the time needed for discussions Mardetanha talk 07:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
(not electcom) I'd propose to extend Taketa's (and maybe Benny's) confirmations since they're being the most discussed. Extending the others looks unneeded bureaucracy for me. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 16:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Marco above. --Stryn (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Though i agree with Marco's proposal, i think its better to close altogether at once (i.e, close all of them at 13th march ), instead of doing it multiple times, @Jyothis: @Mardetanha: @SPQRobin: @Stryn: : are you guys agreeing with it or you guys would prefer to do one round now and extend the discussion for Taketa alone. --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems only Taketa and Benny's need further discussion Mardetanha talk 21:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mardetanha:, Yeah i agree with it, but we would like to decide on when we should the close the discussions for others. if the majority of the electcom agrees to close the discussions for others by today, please be available on IRC during 14 to 19 UTC. Thanks--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that I will be at home after 1,5 hours (about 16.10 UTC), and also on IRC then. --Stryn (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Just an update to everyone interested; we will close the steward confirmations altogether on the coming Sunday, March 13. Thanks for your understanding, for the ElectCom, Stryn (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't on IRC, I didn't see the notice in time. I'll be available this Sunday. SPQRobin (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)