Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2020

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main page Stewards (2020 confirmation) talk page
This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2020 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards)

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)

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

  • Confirm. Clear consensus to keep despite some concerns on activity. Good work overall. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Some removes due to missing statement and low activity, but no concerns about Base's actions. Matiia (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - I wrote the confirmation page too, no need to remove in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus. --einsbor talk 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 19:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - No reason for remove in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 19:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - Clear consensus for keep in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus. --einsbor talk 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 19:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - Clear consensus for keep in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus. --einsbor talk 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 20:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep Weak confirm, for reasons already given above. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual --Alaa :)..! 12:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual --Melos (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 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! talkcontribs 23:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per QuiteUnusual. Ruslik (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - Clear consensus for keep in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus, --einsbor talk 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Abstain. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - Clear consensus for keep in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Clear consensus. Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -Jyothis (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus, --einsbor talk 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • Weak confirm as there is no strong reason to remove, imo. Sjoerddebruin is competent and has taken part in some discussions held in private channels during the past year. He deserves a second chance, although he should increase on-wki activity definitely. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to say remove, sadly. Activity have been low for 2 years (2018 and 2019) and this year this concern has been shared by many users in the comments, so I feel unable to say confirm. Nothing againt Sjoerddebruin's actions, they were fine. Matiia (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Described by Rschen7754 and our automatic removing policy for inactivity. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Clear case. They are so inactive that they even need to be automatically removed, sadly. Trijnsteltalk 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Purely based on inactivity policy. We appreciate your support even through that. I totally understand the real life challenges and if the individual cannot find enough time to contribute, it is best to give up the bit and come back later when they can. -Jyothis (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, clear consensus, --einsbor talk 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove clear case. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as per policy--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove for inactivity. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove unfortunately due to inactivity but with no prejudice to re-applying when able to devote more time. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity Face-sad.svg --Alaa :)..! 20:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per consensus --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg weak remove. It is an awkward situation, because Sjoerd was basically often present in discussions. I hope you raise your activity and come back. --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity and I totally agree with what Jyothis wrote above.--BRP ever 04:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove, inactive per policy. Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, inactivity. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, due to inactivity. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: not confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • Remove, sadly. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. Inactivity. Matiia (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - No statement No confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove As much as I would have kept him, there really is no sense if someone looks completely vanished. Trijnsteltalk 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Looks like the name came true :(Jyothis (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, clear consensus, --einsbor talk 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove No statement and inactivity. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, inactivity. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove because elsewhere occupied but no prejudice to re-applying in the future. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity Face-sad.svg, but hope to see you with us again soon --Alaa :)..! 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove :/ --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sadly Remove Remove but hope to see you back again soon with a lot of time. :) -BRP ever 04:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove, inactive for long time. Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactivity. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, sadly. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: not confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • Confirm. Nihil obstat. RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm - No reason for remove in this year confirmation. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Thank you for your continued push on multiple fronts! -Jyothis (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy confirm because there has been no issues raised at all and no remove votes. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Nihil obstat. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus. And thanks for what you do with (not only) OTRS --einsbor talk 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nihil obstat. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep clear case. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep – The ayes have it. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alaa :)..! 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.--HakanIST (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Defender (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, clear consensus.-BRP ever 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirm Stryn (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 19:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Result: confirmed. RadiX 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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.
  • Resignation denied. Take care (and re-apply in the next year) :p RadiX 01:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • winkThanks! for works with us for long term. --rxy (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for all you've done and see you soon, hopefully. Trijnsteltalk 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • winkThanks! Thank you for the service! -Jyothis (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • winkThanks! for all your years of service. Linedwell [talk] 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all your work and dedication. Defender (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • see you, --einsbor talk 20:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service. I hope to see you again someday. --Sotiale (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service, and see you in your future WM roles. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Best wishes for the future, QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep against their will. 😉 Many thanks for your hard work but hopefully you will come to your senses and return. –Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Face-smile.svg --Alaa :)..! 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the years. I am looking forward to work with again Face-smile.svg.--HakanIST (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the work you have done these years as a steward. It was a pleasure to work with you :). Matiia (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Per Radix :) --Base (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service and hope you will re-apply in the future :) -BRP ever 04:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice working with you and welcome back in the future. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your service! Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • winkThanks!, for your service and, personally, for all the help you've given to me. Hope to see you back soon! —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service! —DerHexer (Talk) 20:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Steward consensus

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)

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)

Mardetanha Confirmation