Is there any conclusion about the process to follow to close (I don't see any conclusion in Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010#Planning_the_2011_confirmations)?
The only sure thing I see is that we already have an election committee (and now stewards can decide :-) ). -- Nemo 12:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is for steward discussion only. Please do not comment in this box unless you are a steward. Other community members, please discuss in a separate section.
After considering the comments and discussions, ElectCom has come up with the following results on the annual re-confirmation of existing Stewards. All stewards are welcome to comment on the results below.
Opposes are on anger management issues not related to steward actions and are duly noted. The ElectCom has decided that Andre should be reconfirmed for the term as he was active enough per policy.
Opposition is on the use of oversight tool in jawiki, which is found to be within the policies.
Nihil obstat, sole objection seems to be out of misunderstanding of the steward's role and was retracted.
Opposition was based on a comment on WizardOfOz's meta cratship request. The action was within the policies and not counted as a misuse of the tools.
Ottava's objection is noted but not counted against confirmation, as it is on a personal level and not related to steward work guillom has performed.
Nihil obstat, but Kylu has decided that it is time to step down from the Steward role. ElectCom would like to thank Kylu for the time and effort.
Ottava's opposition on desysop issue is noted, but weighing in the details, ElectCom has decided to reconfirm.
Opposition on the non-steward actions were not counted against the confirmation.
Oppositions without definitive proof and non-steward activities were not counted against the confirmation.
Nihil obstat, sole objection was revoked by the user
Objections related non-steward activities or objections without reasoning were not counted against the confirmation.
Objection is on inactivity. Millosh has performed the minimum actions per policy and is hence reconfirmed.
Nihil obstat, Mayur's objection was struck.
Objections raised are not related to steward actions and was not counted against the confirmation.
Not active per policy and we would like to thank Rdsmith4 for his work.
Confirm, accusations against him are not backed up by proof, and are not related to steward actions.
Nihil obstat, but Sj has decided to step down. We thank Sj for his contributions in the role.
Thogo will be restored to the post once his term in OC ends. Objections against Thogo was were not counted against the confirmation as it was not found to be backed by evidences.
Objections are not steward activity related and not counted against the confirmation.
Stewards (both old and new) may express their questions, concerns or agreement to the results below.
The results fairly reflect the discussions, in my opinion. --
Menti 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC) fisto I agree with the result. --
Màñüé£†¹5 talk 03:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC) es Agreed. --
Avi 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC) seconded , but I assume my name should also should be included in the list
Mardetanha 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC) talk
There are two Leinads, I think the second one is supposed to be you. Jafeluv 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My bad! fixed -- Jyothis 05:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Seems to reflect community consensus well enough.
PeterSymonds 08:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed. --
Mercy 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Agree with above.
Laaknor 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Fine by me. -
Barras 09:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Agree.
Ruslik 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed.
Matanya 09:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (e/c) Speaking for myself the only opposition I got was retracted by the opposing user and that's not noted. On the other hand I agree with the results. Notwithstanding may I ask why the old system (ie: past year) is not used anymore? --
Dferg 09:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ☎ talk
Vote retraction added. Regarding the previous system not having been used (see for example Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010): the committee intended to simplify the confirmation procedure. It seems rather pointless to discuss nihil obstats and other clear cut cases, that time and energy is better spent on confirmations that may actually need some discussing. Wutsje 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, Wutsje. Regards, -- Dferg 19:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ☎ talk I agree with the results but I share the same question above --
Nick1915 - 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC) all you want I agree with the results.
20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC) fr33k man Agreed --
Melos 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC) I agree, thanks a lot to the Election Committee and all Stewards, new and old ones! --
M/ 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me. --
Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me, too. --
Millosh 04:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No objection to the result. I am working on the anger management issues. - Andre Engels 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed. --
Erwin 07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) I agree as well.
Jafeluv 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Nothing to add.
guillom 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed. Thank you, Dan, SJ and Kylu.
Bastique 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC) ☎ call me! Agreed,
Leina D 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ( t) There have been no comments in almost 3 days. Maybe we should close this and call it a year. :) -- F iliP ██ 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmations are officially closed and the results implemented. We thank everyone for their participation and their hard work for the project. -- Done Jyothis 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)