Stewards/Confirm/2013/es

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2013
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.
Español :

Las confirmaciones de 2013–14 empiezan el 8 de febrero y finalizarán el 28 de febrero.

Las confirmaciones de steward son una buena oportunidad para ver si aún estamos contentos con nuestros stewards actuales. Para facilitar el proceso, así es como se organizarán las cosas:

Para comentar, inicia sesión con una cuenta creada con anterioridad al 1 de febrero de 2013 y que tenga ediciones en algún proyecto. Durante las elecciones del 2013, menciona si estás descontento con alguna de las personas listadas debajo y por qué. Por ejemplo, puedes mencionar inactividad o comportamiento no conforme a las políticas que regulan la actuación de este grupo. Los stewards inactivos, de acuerdo a la correspondiente política perderán sus permisos. Sólo serán tenidos en cuenta los comentarios que tengan que ver con el uso y desenvolvimiento de sus tareas como stewards. Las confirmaciones no son una votación.

Al final de la elección, los stewards actuales, junto con los nuevos, considerarán los argumentos vertidos en esta página y tomarán una decisión, tomando en cuenta tanto los comentarios de la comunidad, como la propia perspectiva y entendimiento del trabajo propia. Todos los stewards pasarán por este proceso después de cada elección.

Ver también:


Purge the cache of this page?


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: Mis disculpas por no hacer una declaración antes. En realidad he estado muy activo como steward, excepto para hacer algo de borrado que me encontré en wikis pequeñas. Preferiría mantener el estatus en caso de que encuentre algo de tiempo y trabajo para hacer como steward en unos pocos meses, pero como no hay planes específicos en este momento entendería totalmente si se me remueve del cargo por inactividad ahora.

Comments about Andre Engels[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, he-2
  • Información personal: Quedo mucho feliz a ver que peticiones en general, y cuestiones checkuser en la que yo tendo de enfocarme en particular, han sido respondidos en tiempo razonable por stewards. Me gustaría continuar apoyar la familia de proyectos de Wikipedia como steward en el año llegada. Muchísimas gracias por su confianza pasado y su cooperación en el presente.

Comments about Avraham[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: Por motivos de salud no fui capaz de mantenerme en el cargo. Estuve en el hospital durante más de medio año y por lo tante no estuve conectado la mayoría del tiempo. La semana pasada empecé mi rehabilitación laboral - y además de eso preocuparme más de wikipedia/wikimedia de nuevo. Solo, necesitaré mi tiempo, para recuperar mi forma. Entiendo el desagrado por mi ausencia, pero pido clemencia y algo más de tiempo para dar prueba de mi utilidad. Saludos a×pdeHello! 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Axpde[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: de, en-4
  • Información personal: Esta es mi segunda confirmación como steward, dado que fui elegido en 2011. He estado bastante activo durante este año de servicios. He usado las herramientas de steward para varios propósitos, como ayudar con borrados y bloqueos crosswiki (mira mis estadísticas como sysop global). También trabajé con vandalismo y spam y lockeé y bloqueé muchos usuarios e IPs. También hice muchos cambios de derechos, principalmente a mi propia cuenta para evitar más abuso y eliminar cosas abusivas, pero también cambié los derechos de muchas otras personas. Habitualmente ayudo en cualquier lugar, donde se necesite ayuda, en el IRC y también en la wiki. Si tienes alguna pregunta, simplemente házmela.

Comments about Barras[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Bencmq[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: id, en, jv, zh
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Bennylin[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: Tengo pensado continuar en la pepal de steward, si la comunidad está dispuesto de confirmarme. Tengo principalmente se comprometido los trabajos que yo decía que yo haría cuando fui elegido el año pasado. My mop has been active and consistent in areas of strength Significado inconocido (Nota la traducción) y he comprometido algunas actividades en otras areas como se requiere. Stewardes han trabajados cooperativamente y respetuosamente; como un equipo compartiendo el trabajo, aviso y demandando ayuda como es necesario, ha sido un grupo armonioso y agradable con quién trabajar, y los comendo por su pasión, diligencia y esfuerzos. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 6 de enero de 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Billinghurst[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: Esta es mi segunda confirmación como mayordomo. Fui elegido en febrero de 2011 y he estado activo desde entonces. He estado activo como mayordomo al limpiar spam crosswiki y ocuparme de spambots. Espero con ansias otro (nuevo) año de ser un administrador. --Bsadowski1 (hablar) 23:51, 6 de enero de 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Bsadowski1[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<Spanish not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1
  • Personal info: Unfortunately, I could not have been as active as in the last years. That's mostly due to my work at university and academy and my changed focus in the Wikiversum: I always want to learn about new parts of the Wikiversum and try to improve their structure and effectivity. Hence, I'm currently working as a member of the board of Wikimedia Deutschland.

    Regarding steward work, we currently have more active users than in the last years so that my main focus changed to teaching and helping them if necessary. Thank you all for your tremendous work! Since some trolls could be prevented from disturbing our projects, the focus of most stewards switched from fighting vandals to locking spambots and blocking open proxies. Although that's useful for our projects, it doesn't give great pleasure to me. Instead, besides assisting my fellows, I helped a bit on SWMT, SRGP, and on IRC and our mailing list.

    Furthermore, I co-organized the annual steward meetup at Wikimania where we planned some improvements for our work. My part was to write a script for a planned global rename policy. Due to some fixes by Hoo man, the script could have been used on secure server when this policy had been accepted (and I still hope that this will happen soon). With deactivating the secure server, the time-consuming programming was all for nothing because the script cannot be used elsewhere. But luckily, the WMF developers are currently working on a global rename tool (or hopefully at least on a rename API).

    I recently became a member of the steward election committee (a job I did in the last couple of years too) and thus hope to approve some new fellows elected by the global community. I'd be happy to serve the community and my beloved fellows with my experience for the next term. Thank you!

Comments about DerHexer[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<Spanish not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: fr, en-3
  • Personal info: My motivation hasn't changed since my election as a steward a year ago: I would still like to help out with cross-wiki issues. I rarely take care of on-wiki requests; most of the steward operations I have undertaken this year have been done upon my own initiative or upon requests on IRC.


    As to the alleged issues about my use of the CU tools sur frwiki that were raised during my election, the Ombudsman commission has told me not having seen any evidence of breach in the privacy policy, and has given to frwiki checkusers some advice to make sure they are always in compliance with the CheckUser policy.

Comments about Elfix[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Fr33kman[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, es-2
  • Información personal: En el riesgo de repetir esencialmente lo que yo he dicho antes, la vida real ya es algo febril y impredecible. Al presenté, mi trabajo y otras responsabilidades no preocupan mucho de mi tiempo, pero no sé si, cuando o por cuanto mis negocios devolverán más ocupan, si no estoy seguro como activó que será en el año próximo. Si ya tengo la confianza de la comunidad, me gustaría servir del proyecto como steward otra vez en 2013. J.delanoygabsadds

Comments about J.delanoy[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Jusjih[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Jyothis[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Laaknor[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Leinad[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep; same here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove Leinad's activity has been confined for the past year or so almost exclusively to plwikimedia, where he has granted himself twice the CU bit for spambot checks and once the OS bit. Virtually all of his global block and global locks stem from those actions. I do not think it is appropriate for a steward to grant themselves checkuser or oversight rights on one's homewiki, even if this is not a normal content wiki. The appearance of a possible conflict of interest is almost as important as an actual conflict of interest, and with almost 40 stewards around, it's not like one cannot poke another steward (we even have another steward who speaks polish and doesn't have any rights on that wiki, Pundit). Discussion with the user has been unproductive so far, with assertions that WMPL can overrule the steward policy and whatnot, but I'll let him speak for himself here if he wishes to do so, so as not to misrepresent his positions. Snowolf How can I help? 12:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised this comment, since 2009 as I'm a steward I never heard about so wide definition of the home wiki. My home wiki has always been Polish Wikipedia (*only*). I've had more contribution on Wikimedia Polska wiki beacuse chapter members elected me as a board member, but I never decided to change (or start new) home wiki. Always the rules were important for me and I always thought the spirit of the rules is also important, not just to be a bureaucratic guy. I want to help Wikimedia Community and I've wanted to help on the website of chapter where spambots creates many fake accounts - for me it's natural that I take care on the website of organisation which I'm a member. Always my point of view is to distinct 1. non-content wikis like outreach, chapters and wikimania wikis, which can be accidentally treated as a home wikis because higher activity, 2. and content wikis like Wikipedias, Wikitionaries etc. where is easier to determine connexions. I wonder if General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation should comment here - it's obvious that community of chapter wiki is unusual, so who should elect or act there as a CheckUser? Members of chapter? Board members? Or wiki should disconnect from Wikimedia family wikis? In my humble opinion Wikimedia Foundation was open to host wikis for chapters and give them some wider ability to decide about the website and I believe it's still possible. PS. Make a note that all Polish stewards are members of Wikimedia Polska, so Snowolf's interpretation of conflict of interest is not clear. LeinaD (t) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what Geoff has to do with this or how the whole discourse on Chapter is relevant. You acted using your stewards tools, not a local checkuser or oversight, and stewards are supposed to be independent outsiders, looking at a wiki from the outside. As a board member and local bureaucrat, I fail to see how you can possibly do that. I also think that there's a whole lot of difference between being a member of Wikimedia Polska and being a board member of Wikimedia Polska and a local bureaucrat. Snowolf How can I help? 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Chapter wiki do not have any strict rules regarding rights - anyone can be an admin or bureaucrat if want help, so "local bureaucrat" is not something special. I didn't request CU rights on SRP beacuse I used my steward bits - for me it's natural - otherwise I would make a request to grant rights (for example basing on board decision). Geoff's comment could clarify whether chapters wikis should be treat a bit more autonomous. LeinaD (t) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real concerns on this matter, though I have the understanding that chapter wikis cannot have CU rights assigned, and they do get hit by spambots, and do need some attention. I would be concerned if real users were being CU'd, and the assignation of rights is overt, not discreet. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm, I see no real problem here. -Barras talk 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I don't really agree with the conflict of interest argument brought up by Snowolf above, because the WMPL wiki is, as he rightly pointed out, not a normal content wiki, and the usual rules—in my opinion—do not apply there (though it'd be nice to discuss this in detail at some point). I am also not involved enough to comment on Leinad's activity in the past year; what I am worried about, though, is that Leinad was using his steward privileges on Wikimedia Commons without permission from the local community (something that's been pointed out to Andre Engels as well) for a few years before I found about it by sheer luck in October last year. The attitude shown by Leinad in that discussion looks similar to Snowolf's impression, so I am assuming that it is not a one-time incident. odder (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Important thing, details are here commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 31#Non-admin stewards performing admin tasks - I explained my intentions to help users on simple tasks. The discussion had been closed as resolved and with some suggestions to ask local community for admin rights. Make a note that similar simple actions are OK on Wikidata and in my opinion it's healthier approach to rules. LeinaD (t) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar actions are NOT Ok on Wikidata, and this is the reason, for instance, why Vituzzu applied for admin flag and was later reconfirmed. If you are using a steward flag there for deletions pls stop do it; it you are interested in having admin privileges on Wikidata pls apply for adminship there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, what's about d:Wikidata:Administrators#Other accounts with administrative access: "stewards [...] are allowed to use that access in non-controversial ways"? Would be greate to clarify this sentence. :-) LeinaD (t) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) + Wikidata:Blocked user LeinaD (t) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: It is currently OK for global sysops and stewards to do non-controversial actions on Wikidata, per local policy. That will likely change soon, but was true as of when Leinad did that stuff. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep The point that was brought up by snowolf, is Understandable for me, but Homewiki has it is own clear cut definition, clearly plwikimedia is not his homewiki, he is simply active there as remember, though to be honest if i were him, I would not have done even this minor actions, though we may discuss the issue to expand the rule of homewiki to cover more wikis Mardetanha talk 14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I trust Leinad 100%; maybe he did some minor actions against the strick rules for stewards on Commons, but it was already explained that it was done in goodwill, nothing really harmfull to anyone and similar actions were performed by other stewards on Commons as weel. Moreover Leinad appologised for this and started to be careful with using his stewards actions even more. For WMPL wiki - it is very specific, as it is maintained direcly by WMPL. There is no any election on this wiki by anyone. The simple rule is that any member of the board can grant any technical possition on this wiki, just informing me (as president of WMPL) about it. The action Leinad performed was in hurry just after spambot attacks, so there was no time to look for any other steward. Polimerek (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that is not correct. There were several stewards on IRC available (which is where my objection was initially made), and what you call "in a hurry just after spambot attacks" is actually 17 days after the last edit by a spambot. Snowolf How can I help? 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Awersowy (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. I don't believe the concerns are sufficient for me to vote another way. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I don't see any highly concerning issue that would cause me to support removal. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral the Commons issue gives me pause. I'm not concerned about plwikimedia as that's not a normal content wiki. --Rschen7754 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I don't think the issues raised are a big enough deal to lose his stewardship. Everyone makes mistakes, and this isn't a very big one in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The concerns raised about you and your general attitude in front of complainants prevent me to support your confirmation. Maybe you're right, but from what I've seen you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong... Some people have other point of view than yours, and this has to be respected too (as I personally respect the fact that you consider that chapters are not like other wikis, even if not specified in the policy). However, I see that many other stewards supported, so I'm not going to stand in his way if they see no harm... But if you are reelected I would really like to see you more opened to discussion, and also more respectful of the policies. Thank you, Leinad. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quentinv57, you said "you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong" - regarding to this sentence I would like to highlight two various cases from this confirmation page. First, I thought Commons case is clear - I love to help Wikimedia Community, but I know what I had done wrong and I didn't continue to help community on some chances. Second, plwikimedia case is not simple - I'm not only steward, but also a wmpl board member and I feel my responsibility with respect to Polish Law. Pl.wikimedia.org is not just a another WMF wiki, but for us also an official website of Wikimedia Polska which represents us - an organisation having some impact and dependence to Polish society. Make a note we are an organization of public benefit of 1% income tax deduction and we are on the special verification mode by Polish government. So it's natural that Wikimedia Polska wants to have influence on their own website. And regarding to my steward bits, as I'm responsible for many WMPL websites (polish domains like wikipedia.pl, blogs etc.), I also act on wmpl wiki, and in my opinion this not not a conflict of interest - this is just my duties. If you have an idea how to bring together the two issues, I will be glad to hear you. Regards, LeinaD (t) 12:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Leinad, I never doubted that while you granted yourself the checkuser bit on WMpl or used your steward package on Commons you were doing good things, and that a non-involved steward would have done something better. But if policy forbids something, we should not ignore it because of common sense or anything else, especially when there is no emmergency. There would be plenty of ways to check these spambots while respecting the policy, as for instance asking an other steward, or asking the local community for the checkuser flag, or... changing the policy. Don't worry, I don't oppose this, but as I said I just can't support either... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Per all supports above. Trijnsteltalk 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I understand Snowolf's concerns. Definitely, even though we have just one home wiki, clearly the same language projects are somewhat closer to each other (also because of the personal overlap) than others. I also agree that whenever needed LeinaD can ask for help from other Polish speaking stewards, me including, and perhaps he should have in a case or two, even if not to avoid COI (which I don't see, although I haven't delved into the issue thoroughly), then just to avoid such concerns. All in all I don't believe though that the magnitude of the issue is such that it would justify worrying about a possible misuse of tools. I believe LeinaD uses his toolbox with integrity and I have no doubts that he will be even more observing the possible concern areas (even if not related to any actual problems) in the future. Pundit (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral - I can understand Snowolf's argument about the appearance of a conflict of interest (and it would always be best to avoid such an appearance), but as long as it only involved the checking of a spambot (and the local community hasn't complained) I don't think anything egregious has been committed. -- Mentifisto 23:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KeepArkanosis 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove, per Odder specifically. Local admin actions in a home wiki are outside of stewards' boundaries and, although the policy is somewhat lenient when it comes to homewiki stuff, your actions do not reflect the best practices followed by other stewards. (The incident was also discussed briefly on the steward noticeboard, but codifying the de facto practice into policy didn't get any support for some reason.) That you would use your love for WMF projects as a justification for overriding the local community just makes it worse, no matter how good your intentions may have been. I don't doubt that you worked in the best of faith and AFAIK there are no complaints of any specific actions you've taken on Commons, but as a long-time steward you really should know the limits by now. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify - Wikimedia Commons is not my home wiki. LeinaD (t) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Actually what I meant by home wiki above was any wiki where you're an active community member. But that's sort of a red herring anyway, since the deletions in question would have been inappropriate even if you had never edited Commons. Stewards are simply not expected to carry out day-to-day admin actions with their steward access in wikis where local users are available to perform them. While not written in policy (I remember proposing it at some point but only a couple of people ever commented), the principle is described in the third paragraph of the Stewards page and to my knowledge it's pretty universally accepted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in discussion, I'm deeply sorry and I no longer continue such actions - the discussion has been closed. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Also you performed action where were active admins, but for me it's not a real drama. I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". LeinaD (t) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I once thought that it was okay to delete anything if you had the tools to do it as long as the deletion itself was uncontroversial. However, I was pretty quickly set straight by local users and told that actions that fall outside the remit of GS/steward should be left to local admins. Wrt the other stewards you mention: The same issue was mentioned at Andre Engels's confirmation page (which seems headed for removal, although not because of this issue). Mav is not seeking reconfirmation, and Jyothis's two 2010 deletions seem like clear steward (crosswiki) actions. Pathoschild and M7 have both stated in the discussion linked above that they intend to respect the local community's wishes. From your initial response on Commons I had the impression that you didn't see anything wrong with the actions in question – it's good to see that you've now clarified that don't intend to continue local actions on Commons, and indeed you haven't made any deletions since the issue was first brought up. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Bennylin 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep since I'm quite sure he'll take the remarks above in deep consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Trzymać. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove As per concerns by Odder and others, there was no need for Leinad to utilise his tools on Commons. Recent events on Commons and plwp give me serious pause for thought on Leinad's suitability to be a WMF steward. After this discussion Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith, and is also advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing (see further discussion here). Additionally, yesterday I was in #wikipedia-pl in which I was discussing civilly with a couple of editors the issues which have arisen on Commons, and after an editor started attacking myself (saying I was bonkers, etc), I was banned from the channel by Saper. After the ban, Leinad launched into attacks on myself (said nothing whilst I was there), accusing myself of abusing in private chat, when all that was done was I asked him to discuss issues civilly and to encourage others to engage in civilised discourse. It is plainly obvious that Leinad is not able to act in a detached way, and has now decided to allow interpersonal disputes with another editor, to escalate into attacking myself, others and an entire project, when all that is done is files which go against Commons policies have been deleted, and requests for civil discussion have escalated into further personal attacks on editors. It is not the type of behaviour that we expect from a steward. Russavia (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, while definitely noone should assume bad faith, I think the idea to host pictures which have licenses acceptable for pl-wiki, but not commons, locally, makes sense and is the easiest solution all in all, I think. Pundit (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there should be no assumptions of bad faith by anyone, and my remove opinion is only in relation to his behaviour. As a person in a respected position in the community, he should be even more mindful not to engage in such behaviour, but furthermore, he has only enabled, encouraged and participated in the furthering of personal attacks against numerous editors, after being respectfully and politely asked to encourage others to calm down. This is behaviour absolutely unbecoming of a steward. Russavia (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are many misunderstandings, but in my humble opinion this is mostly caused Russavia do not understand Polish language. Step-by-step I will try clarify:
    1. "Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith" - it's not truth. I used words "w sobie" -- that means particular person. For Polish Wikimedia community it's clear this is about Odder (Commons admin) who is skeptical to ("boycotts" would be too strong word) Polish wiki-community, especially wikipedians from Poznań (for long time we were a good friends in real live, but no one knows why he has changed his mind). In my opinion I can assume bad faith by Odder in relation to Commons del request where well known Polish open-acccess activists (saper and Polimerek) added many valuable arguments to keep the files. My post just expressed disappointment and further conclusions are ineligible.
    2. "advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing" - there is NO such statement, I wrote there about free photos and compatible with Polish law. Moreover the citizen-friendly law is very important for me. A few months ago I wrote an apeal to Sejm about problem with non-free photos. For long time I didn't know that Sejm has changed rules of its website, but when I was pointed out, I described it on Wikimedia Polska blog as an example good practise (Wikimedia Polska participates in creating open access law and such example was helpful). Yesterday I was in Warsaw on conference organised by Polish Government about Internet freedom and I had the opportunity to talk with Prime Minister of Poland about free licenses - after this I have gained personal contacts to convince to change licensing of content published by Office of Prime Minister to allow publish on Wikimedia projects. Accusing me of advocating to break the law is unfair.
    3. "Leinad launched into attacks on myself" - there was no personal attacks, I discussed the ban of Russavia with Herr_Kriss (details are below the comment to his vote) and my arguments were not intended to escalate anything. As Russavia knows I ignore him on IRC, but this is not related to the Commons issue, just from safety reasons. I was warned that he may be a troll (basing on informations like 1 year block on enwiki by ArbCom decision; topic ban from all articles, discussions, user's talk page and other content related to the Eastern Europe; and engagement to articles about nationalist meme Polandball). I am a steward of Wikimedia Community (not WMF), but also a citizen of Poland, so please understand my simple decison to I avoid any contact with him. Of course I do not exclude that he is a useful user on Wikimedia Commons, but I cannot determine. LeinaD (t) 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leinad, I really feel that there is a large degree of immaturity on your part here. Look, a fellow steward/fellow pl.wp bureaucrat has said that the personal attacks were unwarranted. Instead of apologising to those concerned, you have only further cemented your personal attacks. It is obvious that you have interpersonal disputes with User:Odder, and you should be putting such things aside in the interests of achieving the goals of our projects, but you needlessly attacked Odder in a public forum, and by way of the message you were putting out there, you have attacked all editors on Commons, who have the best interests of this project at heart. Not only that, but you continue to discuss issues by attacking others. I am disgusted by you calling me a troll; I am an admin and bureaucrat on Commons, so I am well versed in our policies and requirements -- I mentioned these images on #wp-pl back in October and informed editors there of the problems with them; I nominated them in November, I encouraged time and time again for editors to make contact with Sejm to get a release; I left messages for editors on plwp encouraging to get permission [16]; I suggested we leave discussion open well past the normal 7 days for people to make contact with the Sejm and to get permission; I enquired on the DR if there was any progress (and got a muted response); I explained civilly on #wp-pl why these images were against Commons policy; I asked you civilly to encourage editors to civilly bring opinions to the discussion on Commons; I created Commons:Template:PSL the other day after finding a free resource; I have now contacted Platforma asking for them to release things under a free licence; I am going to be uploading hundreds of Polish politician photos from Flickr; I will continue to encourage editors to get in contact with Sejm and get an irrevocable, free licence from them. And all of this has been done with civility, and with the best interests of our projects in mind. On the other hand, I see with you outright personal attacks, bad faith, refusal to recognise the problems inherited with those attacks and bad faith, etc. And yet, I am the troll? Your behaviour around this episode is quite disgraceful, and shows you have nothing but contempt for the Commons project, and its people, and I can not in good faith support your reconfirmation under these circumstances. Russavia (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Rschen7754--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Bacus15 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Easy decision. Elfhelm (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep We may differ on Leinad's actions but we must surely agree on his motives - everything he did as a steward he did with great respect and love for the Wikimedia Community and he always used his steward tools to serve this community. He might have done some minor mistakes but he always acted in good faith. I trust him completly and hope that he will be able to continue his work as a steward. Magalia (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I could provide logs from IRC showing that there's chaotic hatred aka hurr durr you are dumb and I'll ban you - not love. I always thought that stewards could be good mediators between projects, but he's rebeling pl.wiki again Commons and it was me who wanted to mediate, but there was only hate claptrap from him. It's not a good faith (even not a good fight, because it was mean flamewar, Leinad kept flaming and next he blamed opponent for his own actions, i.e. flaming). Commons problems are another thing, worth noticing, but here my main reason is how he acts. I just can't allow to reelect person who's acting in such mean way and when somebody disagrees with him he's just turning into kid full of hate. He may be nice to you and some users, Magalia, but I have different impression. Trying to solve conflict on priv by user, Leinad named "molesting him", while his oppontent was very direct and the only thing I've seen wasn't molesting, but user trying to live in peace by substantive discussion, without calling Leinad names. Leinad AFAIS uses epithets as arguments and that's wrong. No, no way. As friend he might be good, but he's just too proud to say he's wrong or to just talk about it. Krzysiu (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strange situation which in my humble opinion is not relevant to my steward bits. On Thursday February 12 during my presence on the IRC channel #wikipedia-pl I *didn't say one word* about Commons (nor any other words before ban). Meanwhile many users had been tired by activity of russavia and saper banned him. Then User:Krzysiu (on IRC he uses alternative nickname) unbanned this users - after that I suggested him that first he should consult unban with other channel operators (and yes, there was longer discussion like I like him, so I unbanned him and I wrote I disagree and I can ban you), but in my opinion this is problem between channel operators, not issue of Commons). And about: he's rebeling pl.wiki again Commons - this is a serious accusation towards my careful and neutral comment in the pl.wiki village pump (contrary to comments of many other community members). Moreover Polish Wikipedia is my home wiki where I do not act as a steward and I hope I still have there the right to have my own opinion. LeinaD (t) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Leinad, but that is pure BS, and you know it. Would you agree to post the logs, and others can see for themselves? Myself, Powerek38, MatmaRex, and to a lesser extent, Teukros, were having a civilised discussion about the deletion of Sejm images, and I was explaining from a Commons standpoint (where I am a bureaucrat, not some "bonkers" bad faith editor) why the images were not suitable for Commons under our policies, and I also stated that the images might be suitable for pl.wp and that it was up to pl.wp to discuss and decide on. I understand that pl.wp is upset about the images being deleted from Commons, and I understand that you are too, but this is no excuse for you to attack Odder, myself and Jim as having acted in bad faith -- as a pl.wp sysop, bureaucrat and CU, and a global steward, you should know that this is not on, and moreso your very position means that you should be calming editors down and encouraging civilised discussion, not inciting them as you have done. Remember, you are not the only one with a love for the Wikimedia projects; we are all here for the same reason. The discussions on the mailing list and pl.wp are a bloody disgrace in that they have denegenerated into a free-for-all against Commons admins (and Commons in general), and your part in it demonstrates to me at least, that whilst they are not connected directly with your steward role, it calls into question your ability to act with respect towards others where things don't go your way, and I'd rather not have someone like that in such a position. Russavia (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment Comment, even though my vote is already clearly stated as the second in row, just after DerHexer's declaration of love; treat it as the justification of my "keep" vote, which I am going to post here instead of under my original entry. I cannot help not noticing the extension of certain conflicts (bordering on the personal) in some votes... Leinad's actions on Commons were indeed against the letter of the rules, but they were performed in good faith and I thought, oh, naive me, that it has all been clarified out there, feet were shuffled in unease and we can live on. How mistaken I was! Now instead of feet - mud is shuffled. I am trying to interpret some entries as something other than turning the technical solution of the Polish Sejm pictue problem into a vision of pl.wiki rebelling against Commons (huh?) all fueled by ever-fire-spitting, horrible Leinad the Avenger and I simply cannot see the clear picture through this crusade. It is not the first time that a minority of not-so-proper behaviour takes over the massive amount of good deeds done (keeping the non-content wikis safe from spambots should acccount for something - last time I saw a non-Wikimedia wiki not protected from anything malicious I practically cried "A kingdom for an admin!") and the every-day activities of a steward should account for much more). OK, sorry for the tirade, but I had to get it out of my system, because I hate to see an overall good steward's head being chopped off just because he took certain steps out of line with the letter of the law, but keeping to the general spirit of the rules just the same. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 08:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep adds value on the steward side internally; had a harsh reminder about boundaries, though in good faith action; more activity would be better — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep some comments above makes me feel a little bit troubled, but everyone may make a mistake occasionally, and learn from them. Leinad also have done a lot of good work, and I see no reason to doubt his actions was done with good intentions. Höstblomma (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I, personally, don't see any use for Leinad for the tools other than spambot checks (which of are little use); the sudden rush of steward spambot checks concerns me as well, especially that the fact that this page was created the same day of all these checks, which have been /only/ on pl.wm; few steward actions in general since 2012. I don't have any particular opinion on Leinad's actions on Commons, though my personal view is that steward rights shouldn't be used in cases where there are active wikis with active competent admins to deal with issues there. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Make a note that stewards actions are not only in global and public logs. And I don't know how "competent admins" can better deal with spambots - using CU I can globally block IPs which creates many accounts in many projects, so this is much more efficient. LeinaD (t) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Jafeluv. On the contrary, I completely disagree with Snowolf and Quentin: their interpretation of "home wiki" has no basis in policy, praxis or common sense; for instance, I interpret the homewiki rules rather broadly compared to the policy (I'd consider homewiki for me it.quote, it.wiki and Meta), but with such a reasoning I should e.g. consider homewiki it.wikt where I've not been sysop for 5 years and even outreachwiki where I have few dozens edits, or (IMHO) any content project in my language (for which I have more potential COI/POV than many of the wikis where I'm sysop). Additionally, Snowolf mentioned Pundit but he's the least active steward we have and he probably would not have been able to help (he mentions himself the "learning curve" too steep for him). That said, of course one can have concerns with the fact that he didn't even ask other Polish stewards (AFAIK), or that maybe he's quite inactive outside that wiki, or if his checks were considered excessive: all things that together with the Commons case would also get a different light. I think he'll be able to get checkuser status locally if needed after removal of steward flag. --Nemo 06:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nemo, thank you for your input. I think that referring to your own comment as a source for anyone's activity is somewhat going the round way, it is much easier to use e.g. this tool (although according to it there were 9 stewards less active than me, and Pathoschild and Millosh had almost exact same activity count in 2012; accidentally there are also 9 stewards less active than me in 2013 - this is all not to say that my activity was amazingly high or satisfying to me, but I think that you're just basing your reasoning on a mistaken premise). Pundit (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Pundit, as I said the reason for my oppose is in Jafeluv's reason, so your reply doesn't affect my !vote. Mine is just an hypothesis ("probably"): I've now explained better why I think that my premise is not mistaken at all and I note that you didn't comment further about the "learning curve" (a very concise point of your statement that I may surely have misunderstood and therefore mentioned in a misleading way here; I hope not). --Nemo 12:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Siigh, I have not commented on your "learning curve" point exactly because of the obvious misunderstanding, quite clear to any bystander. I wrote that "there is a learning curve in being a steward", which means that you learn your toolbox gradually. This is a statement of an indisputable fact, and I have been grateful for fellow stewards for their support in my taking the role on, extended to me as to any other new steward. In no place did I write of the learning curve being "too steep" and I have no idea what gave you that impression. Moreover, while I understand that you operate on a hypothesis mode, I still am quite convinced that comparing a total of 5 years of actions with a total for 1 year may not be a "mistaken premise", but just does not make much sense (in other words, using the very same reasoning, you could demote ALL new stewards one day after they're elected, because their action count is likely to be ZERO, which compared to the total count for 5 years for any of the veterans is indeed a huge gap). If you want to compare activity of anybody, a sensible assumption is comparing same periods of time. 20 of all current stewards had the number of actions lower than I had in 2012 in some year in the past. Pundit (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, your reply on the point doesn't address the point (i.e. whether you would have been able to help on that Polish wiki).
    As for your laughable reductio ad absurdum, you're missing an important premise, that confirmation is not a day after election but a year later. You're free to have your opinions but such attempts at undermining the others' are just ridiculous. --Nemo 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, don't call other people's arguments "laughable". Reductio ad absurdum shows flaws in argumentation more clearly. In any case, it is quite obvious that comparing 5 years of total edits with one year does not make any sense (otherwise you'd expect all new stewards to do 5 times more work to meet your standards). Pundit (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What can I say more? This topic again and again comes back, though I'm deeply sorry, discussion has been closed and I no longer continue such actions. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons, for example: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Also Jafeluv, of whose comment you base, performed action where were active admins. And I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". I'm sorry you can't look at this situation in wider aspect. LeinaD (t) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I've opened your links and they don't prove your point, there's nothing (obviously) unfair here. Sorry if I don't comment each case, it would get too long. --Nemo 20:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the opposite Nemo - they do prove the point. Which is that other stewards also performed admin-specific actions, occasionally as it was, without having explicit admin status on a given wiki. I do not know what there is to comment here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wpedzich, you're obviously not very calm about this discussion... The actions linked above are either not comparable to Leinad's or it's not true that they're not being discussed, as per stewards policy and Stewards, which someone could start thinking you didn't read very carefully either. --Nemo 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Luckas Blade[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: it, en-3, de-1, es-1, fr-1
  • Información personal: Soy Steward desde el año 2006 y estoy dispuesto a continuar en servicio por otro año más. He incrementado mi actividad en comparación con 2011, especialmente lidiando con problemas que afectan a múltiples proyectos. Sigo la lista de correo y reviso los registros de Meta-Wiki y por supuesto la página RfP. Se me puede contactar en mi página de discusión de Meta-Wiki que está configurada para enviarme un correo electrónico cuando es modificada. Un saludo.

Comments about M7[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: es, en-2, fr-2 (Puedo llegar a comprender bastante bien (aunque no escribir mucho): an, ast, ca, gl, ext y pt; y demás lenguas romances)
  • Información personal: Hola a todos. Esta es mi tercera confirmación como steward desde que fui elegido en 2010. Durante todo este tiempo he continuado con las tareas a las que he venido dedicándome durante todo este tiempo: gestión y ejecución de peticiones, mantenimiento, supervisión de pequeños proyectos y anti spam, entre otras. También he seguido activo en nuestras listas de correo internas y en nuestra cola de OTRS. Durante este año mi actividad se ha visto reducida respecto a la del año anterior por circunstancias personales y de salud. Aún así he realizado 954 acciones con un total de 6337 acciones desde mi elección. La distribución por sectores de actividad puede ser vista en este gráfico. Adicionalmente durante este año hemos visto cómo la familia de proyectos de Wikimedia aumentaba con la apertura de dos proyectos hermanos: Wikidata —a la que he asistido de manera especial en su primera fase con la asignación de permisos— y Wikiviajes, proyecto con el que estoy colaborando actualmente. Si la comunidad está conforme con el uso de los permisos y la gestión que he realizado durante el año pasado; si lo estima conveniente me gustaría continuar por otro periodo adicional. Comentarios relacionados con mi gestión como steward son bienvenidos. Muchas gracias por su tiempo. Reciba un saludo muy cordial.
    -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about MarcoAurelio[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: fa, az, en.
  • Información personal: Llevo tiempo siendo steward y creo que todavia puedo desempeñar el trabajo. Ahora incluso tendré más tiempo para ser más activo. Estoy casi siempre disponible en el IRC donde atiendo solicitudes urgentes. Espero que la comunidad confíe en mi para renovarme por otro año adicional. --Mardetanha talk 14:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Mardetanha[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: he,en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Matanya[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: He sido steward desde que este grupo fuere creado. Ahora tengo un trabajo a tiempo, he retomado mis estudios e incluso me he enrolado en la la reserva militar del Estado. Ello no me deja tiempo ni energía para realizar tareas steward o incluso editar en Wikipedia. Ha sido un placer, pero creo que es tiempo de apartarme y dejar que otros con más tiempo y energía ocupen mi lugar. Gracias por todo.

Comments about Mav[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about MBisanz[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: it, en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Melos[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Mentifisto[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Millosh[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, fr
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Pathoschild[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, de-1
  • Información personal: Hola. Fui elegido como steward en febrero de 2011, y me gustaría ser confirmado por otro año. He estado clara y consistentemente activo este año, y siempre estoy encantado de ayudar en cualquier área del trabajo de steward. ¡No he destrozado demasiado, lo que debe de ser un buen signo! Gracias por vuestra consideración. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about PeterSymonds[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Pundit[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, and no, this is not a Polish mafia vote. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm, no issues here. -Barras talk 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I particularly loved what you've done recently to improve the life of stewards. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I agree with Quentinv57. Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Lonio17 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep trzymać --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep pushing good initiatives — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) handles his double-burden with the FDC very well[reply]
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I didn't mean to but I've voted against in other cases and I must do the same here for consistency because I now see he's the least active current steward and he basically did nothing but some checkusering. We therefore don't have any way to confirm our trust in his job as a steward. From the responses below we have a clear indication that he has some TRUTH problems: he can't stand criticism and opinions different from his and masks his opinions and arguments as facts; extremely worrying for a steward. And no, other tasks do not change this fact; moreover I've always considered each responsibility (like flags) as an additional "debt of trusts" (to the community and the movement). --Nemo 06:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC) – addition/correction 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity: the following comment was a reply to the original vote, without comments about "truth problems" (which, frankly, sound a bit like a personal attack to me, so I'm going to do this, rather than reply :):Sounds fair (although I am surprised that you've discovered me as the least active, at least according to this tool it would not appear so, as both in 2012 and in 2013 there were 9 stewards less active than me, also in 2012 two were ahead of me just by one action - although my activity is definitely far from desired). Pundit (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking of this, which counts 88 actions (second least active axpde with 124; I've opposed his confirmation before opening this page or placing the comment above): is the count wrong? As I said in the case of Andre Engels, I don't care about recent activity if previous activity in the "job" can be used to the purpose of confirming suitability to the flag, but we don't have even that here. I also looked closer and it seems that 46 actions out of 88 are checkusering; we knew that you can be trusted with the CU tool as you were an ombudsman, but 40 non-CU actions only in the first year as steward means, to me, that we surely don't have enough "material" to confirm you, even without looking into those actions (sure, nobody will have anything to complain about; chi non fa non sbaglia, an Italian proverb says). Moreover, with such a low activity in the first year (when one is usually most interested in the job one has just run for), I doubt you'll ever recover in the future, but this is a minor point compared to the previous one. Sorry for bothering you all with so many words to explain what's just my opinion, but you claimed that my comment was based on "false premises" so I felt obliged to elaborate more than I first considered needed. --Nemo 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that Jyothis' tool is rather inaccurate, Pundit has been rather active behind the scenes. But regardless, I don't think that comparing absolute numbers is very helpful, at least compare actions since the last confirmations or actions per day. Snowolf How can I help? 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've said above myself that the count shouldn't be fully relied upon, that's why I added other reasons (and it still gives a useful general picture, not falsified yet). I disagree that absolute numbers don't matter at all and I've explained why above; of course they are not useful to make a complete "ranking" of all stewards but that's not something I tried or I'm interested in. --Nemo 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, I believe it is rather unfair to compare absolute numbers, since I've been a steward for just a year, and the majority of the pack - longer. If any sensible comparison can be made, it is for the same period, be it just the raw last year (where I'm ahead of ~ 1/4 of stewards) or some averaged calculation. So, indeed, I believe that your count is quite wrong in the sense of not having much meaning, as it does not make any sense to compare the absolute total number of actions for one year in the case of a new steward with, say, 5 years of another. Pundit (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one stat of relevance I've gathered from this: 20 of current stewards (the majority, that is) in some year of their tenure had an action count lower than I had in 2012 (which was my first and only year of being a steward). Pundit (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on absolute numbers and I've no interest in judging the people's dedication: activity can be reduced by many good reasons and as I said above can't be compared just by log counts; I'm only interested in knowing whether I can actually trust this confirmation process to review and confirm your ability to do the steward's job.
    I've no idea why you, on the contrary, are being so fixated with editcountitis, which is not the only point in my argument, but if you want we can also play this game. Using the same numbers as you are, we can see that only two stewards in history had a lower activity track than yours at any given confirmation (Jusjih and Millosh, ~83; surprise surprise, I didn't vote for them either at the time); perhaps also axpde, but mismatched terms don't allow a good comparison with such low numbers (and I've opposed his confirmation too). Dorgan had 88 like you and didn't ask confirmation; Zirland had 83 and failed reconfirmation. Of course data is very lacking for the ancient stewards, but a comparison to Angela, Anthere & Co. wouldn't make sense anyway. --Nemo 09:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a huge fan of editcountitis neither. But while all of your qualitative judgments are blackboxed and thus cannot be disputed (they are more like opinions, than facts), the argument about numbers is simply ostensibly flawed. Interestingly, I have no idea how you came up with the idea that only two stewards in history had lower activity track, which is obviously counterfactual, since, as mentioned before, even this year I was "more active" (in the empty terms of mere counts) than roughly 1/4 of all stewards on duty in 2012. Also, I'm not sure how you even came up with this number for the date of confirmation (usually not done on 31 December of any given year). Here you can count thirty seven instances of activity counts lower than 78 in a year, from the stewards currently on duty (so quite likely 7837 instances of successful reconfirmations). If you want to play with numbers, at least do it right :) You can believe that this activity count is disqualifying for whatever reason, but at least be fair and say that 1/4 of all stewards in 2012 have been too inactive to meet your standards. Pundit (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said a dozen times, I'm considering total activity to have an impression of the steward's experience etc. etc. You disagree that this is a valid point, we got it; there's no need to continue repeating your opinion selling it as a fact, it's rather annoying. Perhaps as odder highlighted below you have some problem accepting that opinions different from yours can be valid? At least we managed to have some open peer review of your endeavours on this confirmation, previously impossible due to lack of material: thank you for this possibility you gave us, I've changed my comment accordingly.
    As I also said above, terms are not all matching, however counting is generally very easy because most stewards in history passed your activity in their first year and there's no need to check the following ones; the only dubious cases have been listed above with names, some of which obviously appeared below to oppose my vote, of course; but I wanted to make my count easily verifiable, unlike yours... --Nemo 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that I annoyed you. I read your comments about me being inactive as being phrased as something close to statements of "facts", rather than obvious opinions based on the total activity count (which you have not emphasized strongly each time you made the observation about alleged inactivity). I don't believe I have problems with different opinions, I do, however, find statements illogical in my own eyes as problematic, and if they are coming from people I consider logical and sensible (like you) I try to understand their point of view and perception. Such revealing of assumptions and reasons for one's stance usually help present the argument better, so I did not consider this as a potential annoyance to you personally. I have not intended at any point to be a cause of any emotional reaction from you, and again - I apologize, I have not been aware it may be read this way. Let's end this particular part of the thread here and agree, that whoever shares your argument that stewards (including new ones) should be evaluated by the total count of all actions (in the case of other stewards, covering many years), rather than the count in any given year, they should definitely vote for removal. Pundit (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Nemo --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: Hi Pundit, you mention above that your activity is far from that which is desired. Could you give a brief rundown of why you think your activity isn't as much as desired; i.e. is there something keeping you from activity as a steward? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the last year I've been writing a book for my full professorship review. I've been working under a lot of pressure, this definitely influenced my activity (not relevant, but I finished and submitted, yay! :). Also, I would LIKE to be more active, and intend to be around IRC more often. Yet, quite a number of times, as fellow stewards can confirm, I've been grumbling on IRC that some other steward performed a request quicker - so, yeah, I would DESIRE also a faster net connection for example :) All in all, as I've just written to Nemo above, I disagree with labeling my activity as low. I was active in organizing steward work and lobbying for tools, which is not reflected in the action counter, but took time, too. Also, even by the action counter, in 2012 I was more active than 1/4 of stewards, and more than half of all current stewards at least once in their tenure had a year, when their action count was lower than mine in the freshman year. Pundit (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fixated on editcounteritis, as edits don't always indicate activity. But just so that I have it straight in my mind, activity to obtain full professorship (good luck with that) is essentially the reason for low activity, and you will becoming more active as a steward in the future? Also, I know that you have several flags on Polish Wikipedia; do you foresee activities for those flags being an impediment to more steward activity? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! My activity as steward has not been low (and as mentioned, even by the crude activity counter it was higher than for the majority of the current stewards in at least one year of their tenure). But I believe it will be higher. On pl-wiki I am an admin and a bureaucrat, I don't expect these roles will be distracting. Also, when unified rename hits the gates, bureaucrats will have less work, while stewards - significantly more. Pundit (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support In light of answers above, support. Russavia (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove Per Nemo, and also seeing that I voted against Pundit's appointment as a steward in the first place. Also, being stalked for about a week on IRC to change my vote was not an enjoyable experience. odder (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Some activity is not visible from outside. Ruslik (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Alan ffm (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Yarl (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Rzuwig 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. As long as not really inactive, he can help Wikimedia projects with the ammount of activity he wants to provide. Stewards are also volunteers. I mean, if stewards are paid, somebody is taking what is mine. Also per Quentin.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ruslik0. LeinaD (t) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep πr2 (t • c) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<Spanish not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: fr-N, en-3, de-1
  • Personal info: Hi. I'm a steward for now 1.5 years and would like to run for another year. I've been active this year except a few months. I've mainly dealt with the big amount of spambots that came cross-wiki this year, as well as other x-wiki issues and steward work. If you have any comment or suggestion that could make my work better, feel free to do it. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Quentinv57[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Ruslik0[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: zh, en-1, ru-1
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Shizhao[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, it
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Snowolf[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: sv, en-3
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Tegel[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en, es-2, pt-N
  • Información personal: Deseo que yo pongo quedarme como steward porque creo que ya ayude un poquito de comunidad. Será la primera vez que experimento el proceso de confirmación. Me gustaré leer lo que todos deben decir sobre lo que había y tal vez mejorarme con ésto. He sido activo después del primera día como steward y planeo mantener el mismo nivel de actividad por algo tiempo más. Tenemos un gran grupo de stewards que hace buen trabajo. Juntos con un pocos checkusers locales, están muchos simpáticos de enseñarme como un mejor usuario cada día. Estoy feliz que hago parte de esto "equipo" y, si la comunidad está de acuerdo, deseo que ayude ya. Gracias a todos los stewards y por leer y comentar. .—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲»

Comments about Teles[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Thogo[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  • Información personal: Llevo año y medio como steward, y esto será mi primera ronda de confirmación. Creo que he estado bastante activa desde el principio en octubre de 2011. (En realidad, basándome en la cantidad de acciones de steward, fui la cuarta steward más activa). La mayoría de mis ediciones están relacionadas con el vandalismo cross-wiki, abuso de títeres y spambots (en grandes cantidades!). Estoy disponible a través de todos los proyectos, email e IRC y siempre estoy dispuesta a verificar mis acciones. Espero poder servir a la comunidad un año más como steward. Trijnsteltalk 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Trijnstel[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Información personal: En breve: De estar un steward contiene pocos trabajos y responsibilidades. Aun así, durante estos 16 meses, he disfrutado el trabajo en equipo con otros stewards y patrulleros. Además estoy mucho orgullo de todos los casos sensitivos que algas comunidades que me fue cometido (en esperanza que hacía buen trabajo). Debo disculparme por algunos errores que he hecho. Falta de tiempo (al presente estoy un de los stewards más activos) era la responsabilidad por muchos de ellos, y así, mis explanaciones eran demasiados concisos a veces (por ejemplo en entrapar algunos vanadles crosswiki) o no eran puntual. Si, no les pongo asegurar Uds. algo que mi esfuerzo de continuar ayudando el proyecto, que espero es bastante.

Comments about Vituzzu[edit]

Or, he has inflicted an indefinite block to this user because, according to this steward, the user had threatened him on IRC. I’d like to remind to the reader that blocks are preventive, not punitive. So blocking someone on WP seems a bit pointless if you want to… prevent him from threatening you on IRC. After being asked to give proof of these “threats”, the IRC log was posted, which contained no threats at all, just some angry rant. The indefinite block is still there, though.
Of course stewards and admin actions (especially blocks) are not always preventive. Yes, it prevent greater damage, but most of the case, it always "punitive" (or curative) because of some action that already been made. Bennylin 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are simply wrong--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User who has abused his sysop powers to push his POV even when the consensus was different, by, for instance, altering a page and then protecting that page, even if the discussion page clearly went in the opposite direction of what the user did. I honestly cannot feel that such abuses are appropriate for someone in a steward position.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mh I was told the "conspirationist trolls" were doing a canvass about my confirm on their blog (heavily spammed by BDA) I bet there will be some more trouble in the next days. removed poorly worded stuff
Though none of your remarks is by far related with my steward tools but I'd debunk them the same.
As stated by the sysop who did block mine weren't personal attacks but he tried to cool down a certain situation. Then I flipped out and I went through a vote of confidence I succeeded in passing with more than 80% of keeps. Vigevanese is widely recognized as a troll and yes, threats are never allowed, even if the target is as evil as I am. Since I was involved I opened (by myself) an RfC and my block has been judged as perfectly right.
Dealing with your last remark: the article has been widely judged (even by users against who did argue so much with me) as being heavily non neutral because of such a fascist-friendly flavour, the edits I was reverting had been made by a blocked user and the final protection (please note that it was a semi-protection while I was arguing, setting apart the banned user, with autoconfirmed users) has been done in accomplishing w:it:WP:PP and w:it:WP:BLOCCO. Furthermore the current revision does include all my remarks about contents at time (this could suggest I succeeded in getting consensus about my edits). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is here, and I don't see anything there that says concerns about abuse of local tools "must be ignored". Is there maybe another policy you refer to? Jafeluv (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SP and previous confirms do state both precedents and matter we should deal with, anyway I've removed the aside you did find wrong (or at least poor worded). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here's an example. Starts off by personally attacking me ("you are a part of the conspirationist trolls"), and then tries to evade the facts. I don't care what the sysop who blocked you said, you evaded a block by abusing your admin tools. It is simply not true that Vigevanese's block was considered "perfectly right", and i strongly suggest to whoever is reading this to try and find someone who can read Italian to have that discussion page explained, i am very aware that Italian language is not well known outside of Italy/Switzerland but even google translate can shed light on the contents of that page. Lastly, you are still trying to avoid the facts. I am not arguing about the fascist POV of that page, i am arguing that you listed a fighting party in a way that the consensus in the discussion page established should NOT be listed in that way, and again whoever can read Italian can see that. After going against the consensus, you abused your admin tools to protect that page that went AGAINST the consensus to keep it the way you liked it. Unless we are discussing facts, i don't really see a point about arguing here. Again, i know that Italian is difficult to read for English mother-tongue people but what i linked can be openly read by anyone capable of doing so. As i said, i don't "feel" (as in, i find morally wrong) that someone who abused his admin tools is a WP steward.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cool down, I did say *exactly the same*: I said I'm quite sure you're "naturally" opposed to the conspirationist trolls since even your current edits on it.wiki share a "debunking" point of view. With this I removed the part which seems to be badly worded. Feel free to ask any translation, but the questions are, now, quite simple: why had I more than 80% of supports (while I needed to reach only 66%) and my block hasn't been removed? Please don't ascribe your view about my actions to the whole it.wiki's community, even if your positions seems to be not widely shared at all.--Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained my ideas, and i don't need to "cool down" since i'm simply, placidly stating facts. Facts are there and can be seen by anyone, in this case, repeated abuse of admin powers to evade blocks and to push POV. Which is why i don't feel that this user should be a steward. On the re-election, it can be understood by checking the list of favorable users and confront it with the list of users who participate in admin elections and discussions on voices with a specific POV. It's always the same users. Whether it is about indefinitely block an inconvenient user because "his edits appear to be aesthetic and apt only to reach the minimum number to be able to vote" or to avoid the confirmation of an admin who doesn't share the views of the usual group of admins/user, those voting are always the same. I could link any number of pages that show this, and that show that the votes are always like-minded, and I'll do so if asked to, in a more suitable page. Right now, I am merely explaining why this sysop keeps being a sysop, even after repeated (and demonstrable, those on this page are just a couple examples) abuses of his functions.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days, we'll be forced to write a Wikipedia article about those weird theories about WP sysops... :D OH WAIT. Btw, I like the fact that people blocked indefinitely since years just show up out of the blue, in order to vote against someone who's respected in the Wiki* community. It's definitely a fascinating phenomenon... --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Wikitanvir[edit]


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

español:
  • Idiomas: pl, en-4, de-2
  • Información personal: translation needed

Comments about Wpedzich[edit]