Stewards/confirm/2010/Sj
|
English: The 2010 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.
Suomi: Vuoden 2010 ylivalvojien vaalit on loppu. Uusia ääniä ei hyväksytä enää.
العربية: انتخابات المضيفين لعام 2010 انتهت. لا أصوات أخرى سيتم قبولها.
Deutsch: Die Stewardwahlen 2010 sind beendet. Weitere Stimmen können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden.
Español : Las elecciones a Steward del año 2010 han concluído. No se aceptan más votos.
فارسی: .رایگیری در مورد انتخابات ویکیبدهای جدید پایان یافته است.رایهای جدید مورد قبول واقع نخواهد شد.
Français : Les élections de 2010 pour Steward se sont conclues. Aucun vote au-delà de cette date ne sera compté.
Gaeilge: Tá na toghcháin Maoir 2010 dúnta anois. Ní féidir aon vótaí eile a glacadh as an am seo amach.
Galego: Xa remataron as eleccións a steward do ano 2010. Non se aceptarán máis votos.
Alemannisch : D Stewardwahle 2010 sin umme. Du chasch nimmi abstimme.
עברית: בחירות הדיילים לשנת 2010 הסתיימו. הצבעות נוספות לא תתקבלנה.
Magyar: A választás lezárult, további szavazatokat nem fogadunk el.
Italiano: Le elezioni del 2010 a Steward sono terminate. Nessun voto ricevuto dopo questa data sarà preso in considerazione.
日本語： 2010年のスチュワード選挙は終わりました。今後の投票は受け付けられません。
Nederlands: De stewardsverkiezingen van 2010 zijn gesloten. U kunt niet meer stemmen.
Polski: Wybory stewardów w 2010 roku zakończyły się. Nowe głosy nie będą akceptowane.
Português : As eleições para Steward de 2010 estão encerradas. Nenhum voto lançado a partir desta data será computado.
Русский: Выборы стюардов — 2010 завершены. Дальнейшие голоса не будут приняты.
Svenska: 2010 års val av stewarder är avslutat. Ingen ytterligare röstning kommer att accepteras.
中文：2010年监管员选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（简体）：2010年监管員选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（繁體）:2010年監管員選舉已經結束。逾期投票將會作廢。
Ελληνικά: Οι εκλογές επιτρόπων για το 2010 έχουν τελειώσει. Δεν γίνονται δεκτές άλλες ψήφοι.
Türkçe: 2010 kâhya seçimleri tamamlanmıştır. Daha fazla oy kabul edilmeyecektir.
Azərbaycanca: 2010 eşikağası seçkiləri tamamlanmışdır. Daha çox səs qəbul olunmaz.
|
logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement
English:
- Languages: en, de-2, es-1, fr-1, sw-1
- Personal info: Hello! I have been a steward since 2005, working mainly on small-wiki and bot support. I am an admin also on English, Swahili, and Nahuatl wikipedias, and reachable by mail and meta. I am often on the stewards and cvn-unifications channels and started our noticeboard last year. I hope to continue to be helpful as a steward, but am not so active at the moment thanks to Board and Foundation work.
עברית:
- שפות: en, de-2, es-1, fr-1, sw-1
- מידע אישי: שלום! הייתי דייל משנת 2005, ואני עובד בעיקר על פרויקטים קטנים ובתמיכת בוטים. אני מפעיל מערכת בויקיפדיה האנגלית, הסווהילית, והנאהואטל, ואני בקשר על ידי דוא"ל ובמטא. אני לעתים קרובות על ערוצי הדיילים בIRC, כמו #stewards ו#cvn-unifications והתחלתי לוח המודעות שלנו בשנה שעברה. אני מקווה להמשיך להיות מועיל כמו דייל, אבל אני לא כל כך פעיל כרגע בגלל עבודה בשביל המועצת והקרן.
日本語:
- 言語: en, de-2, es-1, fr-1, sw-1
- 候補者の情報: こんにちは。2005年からスチュワードを務め、主に小規模ウィキ群とボット支援を担当してきました。英語版、スワヒリ語版、およびナワトル語版ウィキペディアの管理者も務めています。私はメールやメタで連絡をお受けしており、また、しばしば IRC の stewards および cvn-unifications チャネルにいます。昨年、スチュワード伝言板を立ち上げました。引き続きスチュワードとしてお役に立たせて頂ければと思いますが、理事会や財団関連の仕事のためスチュワードとして今はそれほど多くの活動をしていません。
русский:
- Языки: en
- Личная информация: здесь должно быть заявление
- Reconfirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- confirm. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thought leader despite less activity than I would prefer. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep --WizardOfOz talk 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)- Confirm of course --Church of emacs talk 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm, though I would like to see more activity. --Erwin 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Marcus Cyron 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm --Mardetanha talk 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep.--Jusjih 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep, but I'd like to see more activity --FiliP ██ 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Razorflame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Jyothis 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep without a shadow of a doubt. my compliments with the way you succeed in combining wmf board-membership with stewardship! oscar 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, we just need him-- ※ JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※ 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- really. bastique demandez! 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep, no fuss, quiet achiever. billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. --Philippe 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. —Innv {ru-ws} 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Billinghurst; very well put, Billinghurst. :) Durova 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -FASTILY (TALK) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Kept the promise and became more active as a steward. Glad to see that :) --Millosh 13:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is the point of this farce? The candidate has no respect for the community nor do his fellow stewards who interpreted two years of almost total inactivity as an irrelevant factor in the last two confirmations. This is insulting and ridiculous. --JayHenry 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just a question: In which way low activity insults you or the community? —DerHexer (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps he should have been removed per last time... I see that's a clear consensus to remove, but for some reason he wasn't. When the community elects you to do a job, it's only decent you do it. Sj did, for a while, but then got busy elsewhere and should really have handed the steward bit in a long time ago. Majorly talk 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- We stewards talked about how to hande inactivities on steward-l but one steward ignored that and closed all confirmations. We apparently did not want to make trouble and accepted that; also because of being chronically understaffed. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- You just answered your own question then about how this is a ridiculous and insulting farce of a process. --JayHenry 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'd not call that insulting. And of course not all steward appreciated that behaviour as you assumed here. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- But none of you did anything about it. The community unanimously said he should be removed. The community was unilaterally overridden and you sat by and did nothing. sj cares so incredibly little about the community that he didn't even bother to write a statement. Of course that's insulting, because it shows exactly what the stewards think of the community - zilch. I've been here a long time and, yes, I do find it insulting to have my views completely ignored on a whim. --JayHenry 22:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Statement is in clear view on the contrary. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it somehow unclear that my statement is about last year? --JayHenry 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- My point: this process is insulting because last year there was total consensus to remove and SJ couldn't even be bothered to write a statement. The Stewards don't care what the community thinks and reappointed him anyway. This is a joke. --JayHenry 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not the stewards: Talk:Stewards/confirm/2009/en#Sj —DerHexer (Talk) 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Whatever, I really appreciate Sj's frequent comments on steward-l and I do not want to miss them, even if he's not the most active steward. Not all steward actions are logged, and especially not all on meta.
- My point: this process is insulting because last year there was total consensus to remove and SJ couldn't even be bothered to write a statement. The Stewards don't care what the community thinks and reappointed him anyway. This is a joke. --JayHenry 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it somehow unclear that my statement is about last year? --JayHenry 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Statement is in clear view on the contrary. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- But none of you did anything about it. The community unanimously said he should be removed. The community was unilaterally overridden and you sat by and did nothing. sj cares so incredibly little about the community that he didn't even bother to write a statement. Of course that's insulting, because it shows exactly what the stewards think of the community - zilch. I've been here a long time and, yes, I do find it insulting to have my views completely ignored on a whim. --JayHenry 22:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'd not call that insulting. And of course not all steward appreciated that behaviour as you assumed here. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- You just answered your own question then about how this is a ridiculous and insulting farce of a process. --JayHenry 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- We stewards talked about how to hande inactivities on steward-l but one steward ignored that and closed all confirmations. We apparently did not want to make trouble and accepted that; also because of being chronically understaffed. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps he should have been removed per last time... I see that's a clear consensus to remove, but for some reason he wasn't. When the community elects you to do a job, it's only decent you do it. Sj did, for a while, but then got busy elsewhere and should really have handed the steward bit in a long time ago. Majorly talk 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do not agree that this is a "ridiculous and insulting farce of a process" Rather, it's one that has been carefully constructed to remove (or at least reduce the influence of) political and grudgeholding sorts of input... That is why it is a two phase process. The community gives input, in the form of praise or concern, plaudits or issues, and the stewards as a body evaluate what to do. Last year's community portion of the confirmation raised a lot of concerns. During the second phase those concerns were evaluated and addressed by the stewards, and by Sj. The question now is, has there been a change for the better sufficient to merit reconfirmation in the community's view? Rehashing last year's confirmation may not be the most productive thing to do. Speaking as a steward with visibility to nonpublic discussions, it's my view that Sj is a valuable member of the steward community, as I said on the 7th. I don't want to lose his insight and contributions behind the scenes. As I said on Anthere's reconfirmation, being a steward isn't just about bit twiddling, though that's an important part of it. It's also about thought leadership, internally (among other stewards) and externally (among the entire WMF community). Sj has that in spades. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strawman. Nobody last year had political or grudgeholding input. Not one single person. I have no problem with sj, I have a problem with this bogus process, but, as with all processes whereby powerful users protect each other, it is never the place to discuss it, never the time, etc. Honestly, if you're going to completely ignore a unanimous consensus decision from the community, just don't ask for input in the first place. I brought it up here because I hadn't realized, until I saw this confirmation discussion, that the stewards didn't care at all what the community thought. I don't care if you reappoint SJ, but why put us through the charade of asking for our input when you don't care at all what we think? That you labeled last year's 100% honest input as "political" and "grudgeholding" tells us all we need to know about the value you place on opinions from non-stewards. --JayHenry 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- JayHenry, I have a great deal of respect for you, you are a careful and considerate wikimedian who has made many insightful comments in the past that people tend to take heed of, for their own good. But when you call this process "bogus", "ridiculous" and other pejorative terms, that's not at all helpful, I don't think. If you look across all the steward reconfirmations, there was lots of political and/or grudge-holding input last year, which is what I was referring to. There's even more of that this year, unfortunately. But all input is considered carefully. If you look at the steward discussion for sj you won't see the concerns raised brushed aside lightly. Sj was grilled about his intent, and it wasn't a shoo-in by any means. He made a commitment and he's met that commitment. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strawman. Nobody last year had political or grudgeholding input. Not one single person. I have no problem with sj, I have a problem with this bogus process, but, as with all processes whereby powerful users protect each other, it is never the place to discuss it, never the time, etc. Honestly, if you're going to completely ignore a unanimous consensus decision from the community, just don't ask for input in the first place. I brought it up here because I hadn't realized, until I saw this confirmation discussion, that the stewards didn't care at all what the community thought. I don't care if you reappoint SJ, but why put us through the charade of asking for our input when you don't care at all what we think? That you labeled last year's 100% honest input as "political" and "grudgeholding" tells us all we need to know about the value you place on opinions from non-stewards. --JayHenry 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just a question: In which way low activity insults you or the community? —DerHexer (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove Basically inactive, and has been since 2006 pretty much. Thanks for your hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)- Keep Not everything is quantifiable. Why are some here being so insulting? Can't we just be professional about this? --WiseWoman 08:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. My idea of professional and non-insulting, however, is an environment in which the views of longtime contributors are not disregarded. Now, it is true that in many professions it is the prerogative of the bosses to simply ignore the views of their underlings. Think of the "suggestions box" that the boss tosses in the garbage without reading. Our views are like those slips of paper to the stewards. I suppose it may be professional in that sense, but I struggle to see how it's something other than insulting. --JayHenry 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- JayHenry, I want to personally apologize for allowing the confirmations last year to be run in the manner you describe. I tried to ensure the community's intent was carried out, but I failed. I wasn't alone in that attempt, but I can only speak for myself. As stated elsewhere, I am ashamed of that failure. I also want you to know that while it is true that powerful users protect each other, I am not and will never be in that camp: I will always defend users (or not) on the merits of a given situation, or do my best at least. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. My idea of professional and non-insulting, however, is an environment in which the views of longtime contributors are not disregarded. Now, it is true that in many professions it is the prerogative of the bosses to simply ignore the views of their underlings. Think of the "suggestions box" that the boss tosses in the garbage without reading. Our views are like those slips of paper to the stewards. I suppose it may be professional in that sense, but I struggle to see how it's something other than insulting. --JayHenry 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep While he is technically not very active, there are clear benefits to him continuing to have the Steward rights. Clearly can be trusted. The level of inactivity necessary for it to become a fundamental argument for removal is much more than this. (Minor disclaimer: I've interacted a lot with the user in real life so may have a biased opinion). JoshuaZ 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Billinghurst. Jayjg 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Remove per Mike.lifeguard. Jayjg 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)- As last year, remove due to his lack of involvement as a steward. One can only assume that being a board member will exacerbate this. I feel obligated to point out that Sj has not followed up in any meaningful sense on his promise from last year to work on an improved process for making judgments about inactive stewards. I'm afraid I cannot disagree with JayHenry's assessment of this process in any meaningful sense either. I only hope our modified system this year will ensure the community's wishes are respected. Please see my comments on Redux's confirmation page as well. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm. A bit inactive. Please with caution to your activity and please remove if inactive. Thank you for your service. NonvocalScream 05:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm, but I would like to see you more active in steward actions. LeinaD (t) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm as sound and trustworthy. . Dave souza 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Djordjes (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
