Jump to content

Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2020

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Talk:Stewards
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Stryn in topic Final decisions (by stewards)
This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2020 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards)

Latest comment: 4 years ago753 comments27 people in discussion

Confirmation discussions will remain open from 29 February 2020, 00:00 (UTC) till 7 March 2020, 23:59 (UTC). This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).

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

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

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

Status Candidate Notes
   Confirmed
 -revi clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Base clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Bsadowski1 clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Defender clear consensus
   Confirmed
 DerHexer clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Einsbor clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Green Giant clear consensus
   Confirmed
 HakanIST clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Hoo man clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Jon Kolbert clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Jyothis clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Linedwell clear consensus
   Confirmed
 MarcoAurelio clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Mardetanha confirmed
   Confirmed
 Masti clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Matanya clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Matiia clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Melos clear consensus
   Confirmed
 NahidSultan clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Pmlineditor clear consensus
   Confirmed
 QuiteUnusual clear consensus
   Confirmed
 RadiX clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Ruslik0 clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Rxy clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Schniggendiller clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Shanmugamp7 clear consensus
   Removed
 Sjoerddebruin consensus to remove
   Confirmed
 Stryn clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Tegel clear consensus
   Resigned
 Teles did not run for confirmation
   Removed
 There'sNoTime consensus to remove
   Confirmed
 Trijnstel clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Vituzzu clear consensus
   Confirmed
 Wim b clear consensus
   Confirmed
 علاء clear consensus
Results

The confirmation discussions are now closed. Please check the results right above.

Note
The discussion about Mardetanha was extended to two weeks (until 14 March 2020, 23:59).

For the Election Committee, RadiX∞ 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

After an extension of the discussion the Election Committee

-revi

Keep Keep: 106 (active / very active / trusted / helpful / friendly / helps in various areas / strong judgement / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 2

Base

Keep Keep: 50 (active / very active / trusted / helpful / always ready to help / hopes activity increase - user become more active / lower activity in one year is not a problem / deserves another chance / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 7 (no statement / tools have't been used in so long / no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 1

Bsadowski1

Keep Keep: 68 (active / very active / LTA - spambot hunter / helpful / responsive / very accessible / helpful / always on IRC)
Remove Remove: 2 (no 'language entry' / no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Defender

Keep Keep: 64 (active / very active / helpful / good efforts / active at counter-vandalism tasks / helpful / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

DerHexer

Keep Keep: 87 (fairly active / technical skills / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Einsbor

Keep Keep: 67 (active in SRP and AAR related tasks / scrutineer for ArbCom elections / good work / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 1 (no reason given)

Green Giant

Keep Keep: 56 (active in replying OTRS tickets / active in fighting spambots / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no 'language entry')
Neutral Neutral: 0

HakanIST

Keep Keep: 65 (active enough / no issues / trusted steward / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Hoo man

Keep Keep: 59 (technical skills and expertise / active enough / no issues / 'maintainer of CentralAuth' / trusted steward / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 2 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 3 (activity level / no reason given)

Jon Kolbert

Keep Keep: 60 (good activity / good and abundant work / a lot of good work / good steward / very active / friendly / trusted / active in IRC/SRG and elsewhere / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (blank statement at the beginning of the confirmations)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Jyothis

Keep Keep: 40 (no issues / polite and positive approach / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Linedwell

Keep Keep: 68 (active in SRCU and SRG pages and so on / trusted user / trusted steward / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

MarcoAurelio

Keep Keep: 96 (active in almost every task / one of the most helpful stewards / very active / always helpful / incredibly helpful / reasonably active / active / very active / great work / good technical skills / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Mardetanha

Keep Keep: 91 (trusted user / experienced user / good communication skills / neutral person / there is no evidence for government interference throughout Mardetanha's past-current terms / controversies are based on speculation / there is no wrongdoing / user has never abused his rights / multilingual / user always follows Wikimedia policies / user has not violated any of the community guidelines / cases where state authorities exert pressure on Wikipedia volunteers are quickly noticeable / Mardetanha has assured his account is being operated in a safe environment / there is no connection between Persian Wikipedia and the Iranian government / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 35 (several concerns regarding Mardetanha's involvement with Iranian government and his account security - a session with the ministry of culture, some interviews on behalf of Wikipedia and Wikimedia in the state TV etc / Iranian government's effort to ab[use] Wikipedia[ns] / Iranian authorities could force him to disclose private information / no one living inside Iran is immune to the sting of local government / it's about not trusting Iranian government / not comfortable with someone having this access level in Iran / there is evidence that the Iranian governemnt knows Mardetanha's identity / Mardetanha's personal information is known publicly / government is interested in manipulating Wikipedia)
Neutral Neutral: 8 (same as above / closure of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki)

  • I'm going to say confirm. I understand some user's concerns, but I think community still trust Mardetanha to be a steward and they think that he can handle it, as he has been doing it for some years. While concerns are valid, if some action should be taken against Mardetanha due to users' security, I think this is something to be handled by WMF, not us. Matiia (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Weak confirm Definitely not a clear outcome and I tend to agree with Matiia. This should be handled by the WMF. Trijnsteltalk 12:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep I totally understand the concerns of my fellow Wikimedians from the region. I also know the lengths Mard goes to protect his access to the system. Having served together this long - yep, it has been a while :) - and met him in real life during Wikimania, I have no reason to doubt his commitment and his passion to the mission. I am going to stand with the values he bring to the table and the efforts he takes to advance the project in the region where free knowledge is a premium. Thank you for the continued support and please keep pushing further. -Jyothis (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Weak confirm, for reasons already given above. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't know, I really don't know. I have been thinking about this (spontaneously, though) during Feb. I still don't know what is best for him - he's competent, he knows what they are doing and he has been fine for almost a decade. However contacting those voted to remove them privately to rescind their vote is something that shouldn't have been done, and I also get the point that you should not work with dictators - those who ignores basic human rights. I'm not sure about the result - but I think I should say what my conscience tell me to say, with regret: it might be best for him if he continues contributing without stewards hat. I don't mean it to say Mardetanha's performance as a Stewards was poor or I have grudge on him or something like that - I trust him and worked with him for few years, but I just think given the circumstances (Government knows who he is, which already have a history of doing shits, and that sort of circumstances) it might not be a good idea to continue with the hat which allows lot of PII without being detected. — regards, Revi 15:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I do trust you, I know you and know what you have done for Wikimedia. But I do not trust your government. I know you have a safe and secure password, but I also know that if they want to compromise your access, they will find a way. And it won't be visible in logs. To sum up, I think there are two solutions: first, WMF should decide if they are OK with a steward that is known to Iranian government, second, it is up to you. To be honest, you could do a lot to Wikimedia as a global sysop, without access to sensitive data. What is better? Not my decision, but in my opinion there are serious voices to remove. --einsbor talk 19:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Weak remove per einsbor - raised concerns are too important for me to vote to keep. I'll be happy to support you as a GS through. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC) I'm not, however, in a set-to-stone position - and my opinion is probably similar to those who say "Weak keep" here. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep. I prefer to trust Mard and, if evidence is presented of government interference, ask the WMF to intervene. Same for any of us - all governments may interfere even so called democracies QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep – Per QuiteUnusual. We are being really naive if we think other governments would never engage in subversive actions. Mardetanha is at no more risk from the Iranian govt than I am from my govt. In all my years of wiki-editing, I have strived to keep my identity as secret as possible, with my real name only being revealed by email to one other Wikimedian (who may or may not be deceased). Despite this, I do not doubt that if the police or intelligence agencies of my country wanted to hack my account or find out my password(s) they could do so quite easily, even if we have strong laws to protect rights. Do you really think they would struggle to find my IP, track my address and turn up at my door? In fact I can almost guarantee that my govt has a secret file about me and how much or how little danger I pose. If we are going to single out Mardetanha, then let’s remove every steward, CU, OS, bureaucrat, and sysop because I do not believe anyone is safe from any government. If there is an issue, it can be dealt with by other stewards and where necessary by WMF Staff. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep. As previously stated, government interference is possible elsewhere. I believe this is a matter of trust and I've full trust in Mardetanha's capability of integrity and discretion regarding advanced rights.--HakanIST (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual --Alaa :)..! 12:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep. Mostly per above. All of us can be tracked down. We are citizens of our contries, we have contracts with our ISPs, we use mobile carriers, many of us engage in international travel to attend Wikimania and other conferences and so forth. We should not underestimate governments and we should not build illusions that our own governments are nicer. Yes, some would resolve to atrocious acts and some wouldn't, or would not as often, but all of them could potentially find the information we have access to useful. We take the risk and evaluate our own circumstances. WMF indeed might at one point decide that for example stewards from Holy See are to be no more and that would be it, but I do not want the community to set up discriminatory rules ahead of it. That being said, I did not like some thing mentioned, especially the mention of Mardetanha emailing voters, this is a fault IMO, but a minor one for now. --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual --Melos (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Neutral Neutral, per -revi and QuiteUnusual. There are some valid concerns for the removal, which shouldn't be discussed publicly, but Mardetanha has been doing an awesome job and is a great help. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 23:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual. Ruslik (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed

Most of the stewards who shared their opinion said that they still trust Mardetanha, although some criticized that he contacted afterwards the users not in favor of him. Many stewards shared the view that if it's not safe for him to hold the stewards flag it should be stated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

- For the Election Committee, Stryn (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Masti

Keep Keep: 67 (no issues / very active / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 2 (users' opinion on large IP-rangeblocks / no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Matanya

Keep Keep: 47 (no issues / technical skills / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 1 (no visible contribution)

Matiia

Keep Keep: 47 (helpful / helpful in all areas / reasonably active / competent / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 3 (meta-only user profile / only dedicated to countervandalism work / biased against large wikis / activity on the lower side / no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Melos

Keep Keep: 52 (technical skills / 'maintainer of SULWatcher and StewardBot' / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 1 (not very active)

NahidSultan

Keep Keep: 57 (good activity / friendly / professional / very helpful / no issues / trusted / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Pmlineditor

Keep Keep: 41 (no issues / reasonably active / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 1 (not very active)

QuiteUnusual

Keep Keep: 40 (no issues / good at fighting spambots / good activity / good work / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

RadiX

Keep Keep: 64 (good activity / active / active in many stewards noticeboards / very friendly / no issues / useful in translating bus tickets; has half decent taste in wine - LoL@Tony! / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 0

Ruslik0

Keep Keep: 65 (fine activity levels / one of the most active stewards in SRP/G/B/CU/GP pages / valuable critical way of thinking / no issues / very active on SRB / trusted user / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 5 (communication concerns / issue towards tolerating breach of global policies)
Neutral Neutral: 2 (not 'in touch' with the community / no reason given)

rxy

Keep Keep: 54 (very active / great ammount of work / lots of behind the scenes work / no issues / no issues / no concenrs / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Schniggendiller

Keep Keep: 61 (one of the most active stewards / intelligent / kind / very helpful / good humor / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Shanmugamp7

Keep Keep: 37 (helpful in stewards requests / fine collaboration with large projects / one of the most helpful stewards / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Sjoerddebruin

Keep Keep: 28 (has been active in discussions despite low activity levels / everyone has ups-and-downs IRL / competent / deserves another chance / stays committed to the Wikimedia movement)
Remove Remove: 22 (inactivity / minimal activity levels / too inactive / not very active / has barely used the tools / oversight use on fawiki / no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 11 (activity concerns / should re-apply in the future)

Stryn

Keep Keep: 70 (experienced / trusted / good activity / active in many stewards noticeboards / available on IRC / no concerns / no issues / good user / friendly / competent / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 1 (no reason given)

Tegel

Keep Keep: 80 (very active / experienced / one of the most active stewards / one of the best stewards / fast at fightening vandalism / good work / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

There'sNoTime

Keep Keep: 8 (moral keep etc / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 41 (seems vanished / no signals of activity / farewell messages / lots of messages expressing concern etc)
Neutral Neutral: 9 (same as above)

Trijnstel

Keep Keep: 79 (active / helpful / 'common-sense approach' / good work at SRGP and mailing lists / excellent cross-wiki collaboration / no doubt / favorite steward / very kind / very dedicated / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 0
Neutral Neutral: 1 (no reason given)

Vituzzu

Keep Keep: 80 (active / very experienced / one of the most respected stewards / only positive experiences / net positive / insightful / valuable support / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 3 (nonneutral in conflicts / unresponsive)
Neutral Neutral: 1 (not responding to users' messages left at his talk page)

Wim b

Keep Keep: 63 (very helpful / active in SRG/CU pages / always available / solid work / good and useful commentary on food - LoL@TonyBallioni! / no issues / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 1 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

علاء

Keep Keep: 106 (active / experienced / multilingual / extremely helpful / active in SRCU/UC/G/P pages and COI bot reports / active in dealing with zhwiki CU requests / trusted / 'untireless wikimedian' / great user / no issues / no concerns / no reason given)
Remove Remove: 2 (no reason given)
Neutral Neutral: 0

Teles

This is a reserved place for all of you who wish to thank Teles for everything he has done for the Wikimedia projects over the past 8 years and didn't have the opportunity during the regular confirmations period. The user will be removed from the steward group after the end of the confirmations.

Steward consensus

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to Template:Steward confirmations, stewards will disuss the confirmations. There is a phrase which baffles me ("which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases"). When is a confirmation case obvious and when not? Is there an approximate threshold, such as 60% or so? Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It might become clearer if you look at what the whole process is: first, "stewards [...] are invited to review the confirmation comments and to give their impression of the outcome (consensus to confirm/remove etc.)"; then "The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases)", so non-obvious cases are those where the stewards as a whole are divided in what they see as the outcome. This is an example of a non-obvious case (the decision which ElectCom made in the end can be seen in the table at the top of the page). --MF-W 16:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mardetanha Confirmation

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
No longer needed and way too long for this page. Once again apologies to all who get affected by my ill considered proposal. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Einsbor: I agree with letting WMF declare and had send an email very early on, but WMF did not reply. I think I had waited enough and the results are close to finalizing, hence, I will release my email to T&S under CCBYSA3.0/4.0 here for community to decide if we need further discussion in this.

Hello,

I am writing as a concerned community member and wikimedian about the confirmation process of steward Mardetanha.

As you all can see plainly, there are concerns that he is identified himself publicly and is in Iran, a nation we accept that human rights aren't protected to a desirable level. This had led to many people voting to remove him based on the fact that he may be of a threat to personal information should the authorities arrest him.

We had previous cases of zhwp CU access being removed due to security reasons and some users are unable to sign the NDA such as Alex Shih after the Arbcom debacle.

My point is that identities of functionaries and stewards tend to be open if they participate in outreach, community acitvities or rather events like Wikimania. As far as I can recall, some personal information is collected in these activities, we just cannot turn up with a mask and pseudonym and expected to enter such activities.

Not only Mardetanha, other stewards may be in this risk if they enter countries where their right to pledge the fifth is denied by force.

Do see my comments on the confirmation page and I hope that T&S /SuSa team will do 1. Compile a list of nations whose residents and citizens may be at risk of such issues of lack of legal representation, arresting without good faith reasons, and poor human right records, broadly construed. If it is in the foundation and community interest, clarify if they can sign the NDA and will they be able to run for any functionary / stewards / OC / etc places. 2. For identified individuals, have a list of countries / terrorities that they should not visit as an advisory to their personal safety.

I hope to have a prompt response.

Best, Dated Feb 10, 2020, 8:16 PM (UTC+8)

Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am truly flabbergasted at this, and that being polite. I've seen lots of things over the years but asking the Foundation to build and maintain blacklists of volunteers based on their national origin or place of residence is probably one of the most abusive ones. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Full-heartedly agree with MarcoAurelio on this. OhKayeSierra (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MarcoAurelio and OhKayeSierra: What I mean is that if WMF clears the particular individuals, we can then have less of a concerns of whether to let them access the data involved. In short, the foundation can decline on acting too or just pass the remit to us, I am just wondering if WMF have an interest in this, as such I send such a message to them. I am unsure with the removal of CU access from zhwp, can zhwp users run for stewards, this is why I hope for some direction from T&S. It's T&S who conveyed the message to the community and said they will not honor local electionsfor CU access, so will they allow a steward from zhwp community. This is another area I am looking into when emailing them. Sorry for this proposal, I should have phrased it in another way (i.e. to clarify they don't have objections to something). --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Marco on the optics and substance of this specific proposal.

I’d also add that the general idea that the WMF has the capacity to do risk assessment on every steward or functionary is simply false and also something they’re extremely unlikely to do anyway, because the more they’re involved in the process of vetting, the more legal liability they expose themselves to. Elections and RfX have been delegated to the community not only because of respect for the community, but it also provides some level of shield to the WMF for the actions of people with advanced permissions. This discussion is very much something that falls within community remit and that the foundation is unlikely to respond to for any number of reasons.TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TonyBallioni: Makes sense. I am just afraid we may not have the enough legal / security expertise to evaluate this case. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

After all the feedback, I knew my proposal is ridiculous. Really deeply apologetic to all who are troubled by this. I did send a follow up email to WMF (contents CCBYSA3.0/4.0).

Dear Sir / Mdm,

After feedback from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2020#Mardetanha_Confirmation, I realised this email is highly inappropriate and the proposal I am asking WMF to do is incorrect. This will lead to WMF and Stewards to face very awkward situations.  I am deeply apologetic about this and sorry for my serious lack of consideration and thoughts. I apologize to all who are troubled deeply from this.

Regards,Mar 1, 2020, 10:41 PM (UTC+8)

With this, I hope this foolish act of mine will be put to rest. Once again sorry to all involved. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2020&oldid=19897925"