Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
On 1/11/06, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki _______________________________________________
i strongly support dariusz's plea!
grtz, oscar
Dariusz Siedlecki schreef:
Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
I and the others are now stewards.
To my fellow new stewards; You have on meta now in the section "Restricted special pages" the option "User rights management" This is the wrong one, you need "Make a user into a sysop".
hehe, and username@jawiki not work.
[[zh:user:shizhao]]
2006/1/12, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be:
Dariusz Siedlecki schreef:
Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
I and the others are now stewards.
To my fellow new stewards; You have on meta now in the section "Restricted special pages" the option "User rights management" This is the wrong one, you need "Make a user into a sysop".
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
congratulations from me too :-)
oscar
On 1/12/06, shi zhao shizhao@gmail.com wrote:
hehe, and username@jawiki not work.
[[zh:user:shizhao]]
2006/1/12, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be:
Dariusz Siedlecki schreef:
Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
I and the others are now stewards.
To my fellow new stewards; You have on meta now in the section "Restricted special pages" the option "User rights management" This is the wrong one, you need "Make a user into a sysop".
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Welcome to all new stewards
Walter/Waerth
shi zhao wrote:
hehe, and username@jawiki not work.
To change permissions on the yaseo wikis, use
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:Makesysop
Datrio is the only one with access there at the moment, ask him to put all the stewards in the スチュワード group on ja. Or pester me for a while and I might get around to doing it with direct database access. You all need to have accounts there first though.
-- Tim Starling
Dariusz Siedlecki wrote:
Here are the final results:
Ausir (100%) Walter (100%) Jon Harald Søby (100%) Suisui (100%) Ascánder (100%) Rdsmith4 (97,78%) Romihaitza (97,67%) villy (96,25%) Paginazero (90%)
The other candidates didn't get 80% of support.
Seeing as the Wikimedia projects need new stewards ("and a lot of 'em!"), I'd be really happy to see the Board supporting all of the mentioned candidates.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
Hi
Actually...
it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve all the mentionned candidates.
Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections rules AND be polite to us.
------
Aside from this
I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards and might wish to change their minds with them.
Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use of checkuser rights. Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So, these populations should be different.
Anthere
What has been done can be undone no problem. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather be removed from the steward list the necessary time for the board to get to a decision quietly, even if it means that - at the end of it - it decides not to grant me the steward rights (for instance because I had a weaker support than others or because there is no need for such a bunch of new ones). At any rate, I'm not feeling at ease to give a hand to the projects, as a second rate steward, a <tag>not approved</tag> one. Just my POV.
villy ~~JC
2006/1/12, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Hi
Actually...
it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve all the mentionned candidates.
Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections rules AND be polite to us.
Aside from this
I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards and might wish to change their minds with them.
Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use of checkuser rights. Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So, these populations should be different.
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/12/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve all the mentionned candidates.
Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections rules AND be polite to us.
Okay, I have to agree I didn't wait for you - Angela and Jimbo confirmed the 9 new Stewards, and seeing that you were interested earlier in the election and didn't comment on any candidate, I thought you won't have any doubts to any of them.
Well, I was just being bold, to make a long story short. I agree, I should've waited for you to reply. Because of my behaviour, sorry Anthere. Next time I'll wait for the whole Board to reply before setting the rights, or doing anything else.
Aside from this
I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards and might wish to change their minds with them.
That sounds like a pretty good idea. It would help in such situations as Arno's stewardship ATM.
Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use of checkuser rights. Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So, these populations should be different.
Yes, that would be really useful. Right now I'm following my own policy (go me), which says "If a project doesn't have CheckUsers, go ahead with the check". But I know it isn't right and we should have an official policy on that, or just simply state "Stewards can't do CheckUser".
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
Dariusz Siedlecki wrote:
On 1/12/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve all the mentionned candidates.
Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections rules AND be polite to us.
Okay, I have to agree I didn't wait for you - Angela and Jimbo confirmed the 9 new Stewards, and seeing that you were interested earlier in the election and didn't comment on any candidate, I thought you won't have any doubts to any of them.
Well, I was just being bold, to make a long story short. I agree, I should've waited for you to reply. Because of my behaviour, sorry Anthere. Next time I'll wait for the whole Board to reply before setting the rights, or doing anything else.
Sigh. Okay. Well, I fully trust you all guys. And Angela had no opposition whatsoever as well.
(guys... errrr... yes, that's right... no gals... why ?)
One thing that makes me pretty happy is this
Ausir pl Walter nl Jon Harald Søby no Suisui ja Ascánder es Rdsmith4 en Romihaitza ro villy fr Paginazero it
This is pretty cool no ?
Next time, I suggest to put a new rule (positive discrimination I know), a requirement of 50% of female stewards... a real challenge
Aside from this
I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards and might wish to change their minds with them.
That sounds like a pretty good idea. It would help in such situations as Arno's stewardship ATM.
Yup. He seems not very happy...
Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use of checkuser rights. Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So, these populations should be different.
Yes, that would be really useful. Right now I'm following my own policy (go me), which says "If a project doesn't have CheckUsers, go ahead with the check". But I know it isn't right and we should have an official policy on that, or just simply state "Stewards can't do CheckUser".
There is even another option...
Imagine we have one person we trust very much, who is not interested in being a steward, but who has the technical skills to be a checkuser and is showing good understanding of the checkuser privacy issues etc...
What about giving that person the checkuser status on many projects, if not all projects (I suppose this could be set in the database), so that this person can do the job on a more global scale ?
(Of course, I say one person, it could be several).
This would probably remove in most part the need of stewards making the checks themselves, activity for which they may not be the most suitable people.
Anthere
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
Just joined in... thanks for the welcome, and thanks to Dariusz/Datrio for having being bold. ;o)
Nevertheless, being the least supported among the new ones, I quote Jean-Christophe and remit my band-new flag to the board's will.
Bye everybody. G. (aka Paginazero)
(Sorry... too many typos before, let me try again)
Just joined in... thanks for the welcome, and thanks to Dariusz/Datrio for having been bold. ;o)
Nevertheless, being the least supported among the new ones, I quote Jean-Christophe and remit my brand-new flag to the board's will.
Bye everybody. G. (aka Paginazero)
Apparently fixed. Jimbo, Angela and myself agree. And the final number is pretty cool. So, all is well.
Now, the old stewards go on holidays and let you clean up the request for bot status :-)
ant
Gianluigi Gamba wrote:
(Sorry... too many typos before, let me try again)
Just joined in... thanks for the welcome, and thanks to Dariusz/Datrio for having been bold. ;o)
Nevertheless, being the least supported among the new ones, I quote Jean-Christophe and remit my brand-new flag to the board's will.
Bye everybody. G. (aka Paginazero)
Anthere wrote:
Apparently fixed. Jimbo, Angela and myself agree. And the final number is pretty cool. So, all is well.
Now, the old stewards go on holidays and let you clean up the request for bot status :-)
ant
I have only just become active again and now you want me to go on holidays again ;) ......
Waerth/Walter
This is pretty cool no ?
Next time, I suggest to put a new rule (positive discrimination I know),
a requirement of 50% of female stewards... a real challenge
There is a discrimination if 50% of users are female!
But if the female users are less than 50% and it is fixed a barrage to the election of male stewards this could became a discrimination... towards male users.
A paradox. It's better to have a good steward (male or female).
Ilario
valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
This is pretty cool no ?
Next time, I suggest to put a new rule (positive discrimination I know),
a requirement of 50% of female stewards... a real challenge
There is a discrimination if 50% of users are female!
But if the female users are less than 50% and it is fixed a barrage to the election of male stewards this could became a discrimination... towards male users.
A paradox. It's better to have a good steward (male or female).
Ilario
This is exactly what is positive discrimination :-)
ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org