Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024

←Main page

Stewards(2024 confirmation) talk page

This page allows for general discussion and questions regarding the 2024 steward confirmations.

Final decisions (by stewards)

Confirmation discussions will remain open from29 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC)till7 March 2024, 14:00 (UTC).Thismay be extendedtotwo weeks for one or more confirmationsat 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
Under discussion	AmandaNP
Under discussion	AntiCompositeNumber
Under discussion	Base
Under discussion	Bsadowski1
Under discussion	DerHexer
Under discussion	Elton
Under discussion	HakanIST
Under discussion	Hasley
Under discussion	Hoo man
Under discussion	Jon Kolbert
Under discussion	MarcGarver
Under discussion	Martin Urbanec
Under discussion	Masti
Under discussion	Mykola7
Under discussion	RadiX
Under discussion	Sakretsu
Under discussion	Schniggendiller
Under discussion	Sotiale
Under discussion	Stryn
Under discussion	Superpes15
Under discussion	Tegel
Under discussion	Teles
Resigned	Tks4Fish	Did not run for reconfirmation
Under discussion	Vermont
Under discussion	Vituzzu
Under discussion	Wim b
Under discussion	Xaosflux
Under discussion	علاء

Results

AmandaNP

Keep:129 (good coordination of the steward clerks / good actions / professionalism and responsiveness / activity / cordial and patient / no concerns / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unanimous support, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber

Keep:104 (activity / responsiveness / quickness / professionalism / helpful / tech knowledge / no comments)
Remove:1 (no comments)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Base

Keep:87 (good activity / useful contributions / helpful / no comments)
Remove:2 (no comments)
Comment:1 (Unconvincing reconfirmation statement)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Bsadowski1

Keep:85 (truly committed / no issue / great job / truly committed / active / no comments)
Remove:1 (Replying "o_o" to an IRC report)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

DerHexer

Keep:125 (excellent work / great steward / resolute / helpful communicator with WMF / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk23:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unanimous, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Elton

Keep:60 (good work / no concerns / Thanks for commitment / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

HakanIST

Keep:68 (increased activity / helpful for SRG backlog / no reason to remove / good steward / no comments)
Remove:5 (not enough activity / no comments)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hasley

Keep:77 (good activity / great anti-LTA work / excellent work / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hoo man

Keep:51 (good anti-vandalism work / more activity is needed / good contributions / little help is helpfuf / no comments)
Weak keep:4 (more activity would be good)
Remove:12 (low contributions as steward / pointless steward / too inactive to justify the flag / minimal activity / no comments)
Weak remove:1 (more activity needed)
Neutral:3 (concerns about inactivity / not direct benefit from removing / no comments)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• ConfirmVermont(🐿️—🏳️‍🌈)17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm- weak consensus, but still falls around the level of support expected to retain steward permissions. –Ajraddatz(talk)17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmweak consensus, but arguments are mostly centered around low activity levels. --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmweak consensus. —xaosflux^Talk23:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby weak consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,I understand the inactivity arguments and think they are valid, but overall, there seems to be a weak consensus to confirm here. Hoo man's activity has increased during the confirmations, and I hope this is sustained too. So, confirm.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,weak consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,weakly — JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Jon Kolbert

Keep:70 (brilliant with proxies / good work / great at clearing backlogs / no concerns / no comments)
Remove:1 (no comments)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

MarcGarver

Keep:41 (good activity / more activity would be good / no issue / no comments)
Weak keep:3 (more activity would be good)
Remove:1 (activity has not improved in the last year)
Neutral:1 (concerns about inactivity)
Comment:1 (Unconvincing reconfirmation statement)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus and with same comment as for Hoo man.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec

Keep:101 (worked with many Vietnamese users / One of the best and the most well-known stewards / talented steward / excellent technical knowledge / vandal fighting skills / no reason to remove after a single incident / helpful / active in every area / good work / valuable steward / no issues / no comments)
Remove:2 (applying different rules to different users as ElectCom / membership in the chapter board)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Masti

Keep:64 (good experiences / quick on IRC / good acting steward / isolate incidents / good work at locking LTAs / helps in many areas / strong expertise with LTAs / good job / no reason for removal / no comments)
Weak keep:3 (good work and helpful with quick actions on IRC but lack of response is concerning / should be more responsive)
Remove:20 (no response / needs to be more responsive / no reply to basic accountability questions / accountability is fundamental / non-responsive / no comments)
Neutral:11 (productive steward / lack of responses is a bit concerning / communication skills need improvement / should be more responsive / no comments)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirm- I understand the concerns raised, though do not believe it rises to the level of a removal.Vermont(🐿️—🏳️‍🌈)17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I think the concerns are valid, and I know first hand how annoying it can be when stewards who make global blocks aren't available to discuss/deal with the fallout from them. That said, this isn't about my personal opinion - and I think there is still a weak consensus toconfirmamong the community who voted. –Ajraddatz(talk)17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am concerned that Masti did not respond to a simple question when given multiple opportunities, until it began to pose a problem for their reconfirmation. I also feel that the eventual response is incomplete, and am concerned about the message that re-confirming in these circumstances sends. However, I am judging consensus and not voting in this case. At 77% I find it difficult to see consensus to re-confirm but could be convinced. --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Due to the limited participation in confirmations compared to elections, I tend to be willing to support a bit of leeway (probably no lower than 75% outside canvassing concerns, etc.) and this case falls right at the lower end of what I would be comfortable calling a weak consensus to confirm. Numerically the numbers are very similar between Masti and Hoo man. However, I think there is some value in considering the arguments, and votes to remove due to unresponsiveness are in my eyes a more serious charge than inactivity, so I could also be convinced that this falls into a no consensus to retain situation. –Ajraddatz(talk)16:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Removethere does not appear to be sufficient consensus to retain. —xaosflux^Talk00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper Vermont. The concerns raised have been valid, but overall there appears to be a weak consensus to confirm.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mykola7

Keep:94 (great first year as steward / no concerns / thanks / for sure / no comments)
Remove:3 (concerns about scrutineering and ElectCom / no comments)
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

RadiX

Keep:64 (no problems / good work / no concerns / Thanks / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?13:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sakretsu

Keep:78 (overall good work / great steward / capable of handling complex issues / single incident / no comment)
Weak keep:2 (one incident unsufficient to remove)
Remove:21 (locking Gitz6666 / loss of trust / failing to avoid COI / using steward tools on homewiki / no comment)
Neutral:5 (questioning Sakretsu's understanding of "home wiki" provisions in the Stewards policy / no comment)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirm- a complex confirmation, with apparent canvassing on the support and oppose sides. But overall demonstrates a continued consensus to retain Sakretsu as a steward, especially when looking at the rationales given. –Ajraddatz(talk)15:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm- per Ajraddatz.Vermont(🐿️—🏳️‍🌈)16:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmI see a weak consensus to confirm here. It seems like the steward policy might be in need of clarification, but that is out of scope for this discussion. --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmI see a weak consensus here, it should be noted that incomplete information on the primary matter related to opposition (regarding stewardly-specific involvement) is available to most of the participants in the confirmation discussion. —xaosflux^Talk00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby weak consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmThis is a bit borderline, but looking at the confirmation and the rationales given, overall there seems to be a weak consensus to confirm.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,weakly – There is a minority that raised concerns over Sakretsu handling Gitz6666's global lock since the Italian Wikipedia is Sakretsu's home wiki. Sakretsu did acknowledge the concerns and that they should have consulted with other Stewards to address the issues that drove the lock. — JJMC89 (T·C)22:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Schniggendiller

Keep:67 (good anti-vandalism work / no concerns / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:1 (no comments)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sotiale

Keep:85 (work on SRCU / helpful / no concerns / great steward / needed / thanks / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unamious, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Stryn

Keep:75 (no concerns / no issues / thanks / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unamious, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Superpes15

Keep:110 (often processing SR(G)P / friendly / has some humour / no comment)
Remove:0
Neutral:1 (unacceptable comment on SRP)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tegel

Keep:73 (no concerns / hope can improve on communication / diligent and consistent / thanks / no comments)
Weak keep:1 (no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:2 (helpful and active steward but communication really needs improving / non-responsive)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmTack för ditt arbete.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Teles

Keep:71 (no concerns / good work / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:1 (no comments)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vermont

Keep:96 (valuable / brilliant / very professional attitude / friendly / great steward / no concerns / professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking / helpful and kind / great communication / skilled / no comments)
Remove:1 (concerns about a meta-wiki block)
Neutral:0
Comment:2 (concerns about handling of a WMF researchers request / concerns about opening a new RfC)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vituzzu

Keep:85 (valuable steward / no loss of trust / overall great work / responsive / no comment)
strong keep:1 (precious asset to Wikimedia projects)
Weak keep:1 (no comment)
Remove:47 (inappropriate response to critisism / inappropriate comments at Signpost / lost of trust in judgement / no comment)
hard remove:1 (do xing )
weak remove:1 (reinforcing a later-overturned global lock)
Neutral:3 (no comment)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Remove,regretfully. Vituzzu's on-wiki comments in response to the Gitz6666 case, both on enwiki and on the confirm page, are not what we expect from stewards. This sentiment was voiced by many established contributors and multiple admins/functs on the confirm page, and my perspective basically aligns with Barkeep49's comment. It's important to remember that the audience of our on-wiki messaging about stewards' cases is as much uninvolved observers as it is the person we're replying to: getting heated in responses reflects poorly on the steward who made them, and stewards as a group. Regards,Vermont(🐿️—🏳️‍🌈)17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Removean sufficient consensus to keep has not emerged. —xaosflux^Talk23:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• RemoveNo consensus to re-confirm. --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Remove,with regret. The community has spoken. While confirmations aren't the same as elections, the level of support is not sufficient to confirm. Huge +1 to whatVermontwrote as well. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Removedue to lack of consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Remove,with large regret. I've thought about this for a while, and while I would have personally kept Vituzzu, this is the community's decision and we can't ignore that. So, remove, but also aWeak keepdue to Vituzzu's good work throughout the years.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• RemoveLack of consensus to re-confirm. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Remove– A significant minority of the community feels that Vituzzu's responses in the WikipediaSignpostdiscussion and their confirmation discussion were unbecoming of a Steward. — JJMC89 (T·C)21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wim b

Keep:78 (no concerns / selfless dedication to projects / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmobvious support has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unamious, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Xaosflux

Keep:88 (working a lot behind the scenes / great first year / positively bureaucratic / activity on VRTS / no comments)
Remove:0
Neutral:0

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmclear consensus --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support (unamious, even). --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear consensus. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

علاء

Keep:111 (kind / helpful / highly trusted / very committed / available to provide support for admins / very active / best possible representative for Arab world / thanks / great work / arwiki action was not a steward action / no comments)
Weak keep:1 (the arwiki issue is not enough to remove when compared to user's activity and transparency)
Remove:10 (suspicious activity on Arabic Wikipedia / bizarre behavior / no comments)
Neutral:1 (not a good impression on arwiki mass-logout script removal discussion)

Note

You can either choose to leave a comment on every candidate or toconfirm/remove all at once.--Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• ConfirmI do not believe the concerns are substantiated.Vermont(🐿️—🏳️‍🌈)17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm- consensus to keep and a level of support in-line with expectations for retaining access. –Ajraddatz(talk)17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirma sufficient consensus to keep has been demonstrated. —xaosflux^Talk23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmConsensus to confirm. --AntiCompositeNumber(talk)23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm,clear support. --Martin Urbanec(talk)09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keepby clear consensus. ━AlbertoleoncioWho, me?14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirmper clear consensus.EPIC(talk)16:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• ConfirmSufficient consensus has been reached to confirmation. ~Yahya(talk•contribs)17:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm— JJMC89 (T·C)18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Confirm--Vituzzu(talk)14:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

All stewards running for confirmation

Note

Should you be decided to drop your comment here, please don't forget to addConfirm allorRemove allto your text. The discussion below applies to all stewards listed in the sections above,except the one commenting.Thanks, --Superpes15(talk)11:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

*Confirm all.For the case mentioned in Sakretsu/Vituzzu's confirmations, which are the ones standing out the most, I'm not sure entirely what has happened or who is in the wrong, but I'm glad they have been responsive and overall they have been competent and active stewards. As for Masti, I am also satisfied enough with the responses to the concerns addressed too. Overall, if they have learned from their mistakes, I don't think it's worth losing active and competent stewards over this, and thus I will still be leaning to confirm all.EPIC(talk)14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• OK, I've taken a second look at the Vituzzu case, and I do not like what I am reading. I'm not too convinced by either side though, so for now, I will beneutralfor that one. Other than that;confirm allas I do not have anything to say about the other stewards than what has already been said.EPIC(talk)20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

After some further thought I'm striking this for now as there does not appear to be a consensus to confirm all candidates.EPIC(talk)14:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)