Meta:Requests for adminship/Beria

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Successful. There is above 75% support, so the user has been promoted to admin. Congratulations! --FiliP ██ 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beria[edit]

Ending 29 June 20:12 UTC

Beria (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hi, Most people already know Beria from IRC and her work on-wiki. She ran for stewards this year, and has been pretty active on Meta for a few years. She is already involved in a lot of different discussions on Meta. she has 60,000 edits globally, about 1400 on Meta. she's also an active sysops on Commons and other smaller wikis. She's also a pretty active translator, OTRS volunteer, chapter-representative among other things. I would like to nominate Beria for Adminship here on Meta. She is active within the Meta community, and comments on steward requests etc.. I think she would make a great addition to Meta and will do good work around here. Beria, please acknowledge your acceptance of the nomination. Theo10011 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Theo. I accept. Béria Lima ^msg 20:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Theo10011 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support micki t 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Even if I agree with the nominator, and beneath all your work here on meta, which is great, you´ve been asked twice on IRC to be nominated for meta sysop flag before this nomination. What was the reason for you to decline both nominations? And what have lead you to change your mind and accept this one? --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1º question has a easy answer (the same I gave in IRC in fact): I did not accepted because I didn't wanted to be an adm only to have the flag. If I can't help the wiki, why be an adm?

The 2º answer: Now I have more free time to look at meta RC (vacations!! \o/ ) and Fundraising is starting to be prepared, and that create a lot of work here in meta, so have the right to delete nosense pages, block some vandals and edit CentralNotice would be very useful to me. Béria Lima ^msg 10:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the answer. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure. Trijnstel 20:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure anymore about my support. For now neutral and maybe I'll change that later. Trijnstel 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course ! I don't see a reason why not. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aye. Courcelles 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course (wanted to nominate here as well) - Hoo man (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. :) The Helpful One 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes~~ fr33kman 01:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been provided with the proof I needed, I am unable to support Beria for admin. fr33kman 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 01:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes. –BruTe ^talk 06:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course ! Toto Azéro 07:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matanya 07:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — D.DEU. 07:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think we should give these tools to a person that makes canvassing. It was exposed here for those that don't want to read all that request. The canvassing was done on a closed conversation, so I can't bring the logs unless Béria and 555 are agreed as suggested here. More than know our rules, users must be ethical.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 07:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Active, skilled... -- Bojan Talk 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vibhijain 09:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --თოგო ^(D) 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Helpful user. Jafeluv 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted, active. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- @lestaty ^discuţie 16:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Local problems should be kept local Mardetanha ^talk 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Meno25 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Indech 22:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Teles and this: "If i was cavanssing for him or Ruy they would not be GR by now Ajraddtz. Don't underestimate me! ;)". And this is local, yes, local to Meta, which is what this request is about. No need to have people who engage in off-wiki games of influence in power positions.--Darwinius 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am likewise unable to support someone who canvasses on requests, get pretty heavily involved in drama, and comments like that from her also concern me. Would she respond in the same manner if someone were to, say, bring up a concern over a block she made? I don't know, because I've seen few positive responses to criticism from this user. Also per this; setting aside the personal drama, she still had her admin/crat bit removed on ptwiki, and did not pass a second RfA. While this isn't pt.wiki, I am still unable to support a candidate who has gotten so involved in drama there, and who has in the past brought that drama to meta through canvassing. Sorry, Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Teles etc. axp_de ^Hello! 11:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For sure canvassing is not an appropriate behaviour and should be banned. But I'm sure that it won't have consequences on the way that Beria will contribute and help as a meta sysop. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Axpde, there might be more of a history between what transpired on pt wiki. But she has been active on Meta since 2008, I think it should be limited to her work on Meta to begin with and not on a separate project. Second, There are always two sides to a story, I, like others supporting here trust Beria. Theo10011 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sure, pt is pt and meta is meta --Jan eissfeldt 21:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The context of canvassing here is meta, not pt.--Darwinius 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diff entirely does not prove that she canvassed. That only proves, "if she canvassed.." (notice the "if" in that comment), which is completely different. I can say if you would have done that, but that does not mean you did that. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I know canvassing happened here, I'm absolutely sure of that, but I will not die if you don't believe it even in the face of the evidences Teles provided, and the complete silence of Beria about this. On that context, this diff suggests boasting about the power of her canvassing apparatus, that's why I used it in my vote. I repeated it above to remark that the context of all this is meta, not somewhere else. If it has distant roots in some home wiki project is immaterial to this case. I find comments such as the ones from Fr33kman, Alchimista and MachoCarioca bellow, trying to mix this with past situations in a chain of events, very much improper and embarrassing, all but red herrings dispersing attention from a situation concerning Meta. I personally like Beria and I know she would probably do a good administrative job here in many aspects, but her willingness to engage in off-wiki games of influence, as I said, is reason enough to justify my vote against. I hope I've been clear.--Darwinius 14:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You find my asking for proof "very much improper ..."? Interesting! I don't know ptwiki, I don't know Beria, I don't even know you, but I do know that if a person makes an accusation then they need to provide proof. I would say that your comments are improper, very improper. Notice, if you will, that I support Beria for sysop here, so how am I hurting? Try reading my posts one more time, slowly. fr33kman 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is proof, as you have been repeatedly told. Teles has offered to send it privately, below. What I found very much improper and embarrassing was your willingness to bring here wiki-pt stuff and disperse attention from an episode that occurred on Meta, even topping it with one dramatic "that has to end", which should rather be applied to comments like yours below. This is perfectly clear in my comment above, so I would suggest you to follow your own advice, and try reading my posts one more time, slowly. No need for all those bolds and exclamations as well, try being less emotional.--Darwinius 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the proof is up to the accuser, no one else. Yes, Teles offered to send me a link if I joined the ptwiki google group. I'm not a pt speaker so after thinking about it I don't think I should. I, not being a member of ptwiki, have brought nothing here, ptwiki members did that. What I've asked for is proof that we (meta) can see. As for ptwiki bringing it's issues here, it's a fact, and yes, it has to stop; many of the stewards are sick of performing CUs for sockpuppets trying to fish for other sockpuppets. Meta is for project coordination and crosswiki issues, it's not for bringing personal fights from other projects. fr33kman 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply ignore the last part of your comment, since I've not the least interest in discussing the Meta-pt relationship in this RfA. You are welcome to bring it to my talk page if you really want to discuss it, but here is not the proper place. About the proof, it's a log. It's kept in the MSN group servers for some time. If you want it, ask Teles. But as you know, or should know as a bureaucrat here, no one is allowed to make public private conversations here on Meta, so stop asking for what is impossible and even breaks the law, or ask Beria and 555 for permission to release the log. If you have trouble understanding it, you can always ask for a translation.--Darwinius 01:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinius, you said you know canvassing happened here for Béria, but I see no the reason she would do that. She has more activities here to be known (i.e., she ran for stewardship, she is on IRC, she is a chapter member, etc) to Meta community very well and yes, Meta is the local community here. In my opinion, people who vote from her Meta aspects should count, because firstly, the internal ptwiki war has nothing to do with it, secondly, to be honest, (I think) it is very difficult to judge who we should believe with ptwiki issues. I agree with Fr33kman above, it's a fact, and yes, it has to stop. Thanks! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop bringing ptwiki issues here. There is not any "internal ptwiki war" going on, there never was. This is a myth circulating in steward circles whose origins are more obscure than the depths of the Amazon forest. You can ask the last steward who came to the local VP in Wiki-pt with those wild theories what was the reaction from the community. In simple words, you are plainly misinformed. But please, I'm asking again, stop bringing that myth or even real pt-wiki issues into this RfA, it is not helpful in the least.

About not being a tragedy to have a canvasser in Meta, I agree it isn't, but is reason enough for me to vote against. I'm not forcing anyone else to follow my example, and likewise I'll not be changing my mind.--Darwinius 01:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one asked you to change your mind, and forcing isn't possible here. It's a free world. :) We all can believe whatever we want, as it is up to us. My only clarification was, as you said, "The context of canvassing here is meta, not pt." has nothing to do with canvassing at all, as I explained above. Obrigado! :) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 01:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, he is saying that the canvassing happened on meta, which it did. Also, everyone here is saying that ptwiki drama should stay on ptwiki - I completely agree, and that is why I have problems supporting a user who actively brings ptwiki drama here through canvassing (see both of Ruy's gr requests, and Teles for the logs). We are talking about meta here, and this user's actions on meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeinaD (t) 22:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never had a problem with her on Meta. That's all that matters. ←fetch comms 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the other oppose comments --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support She has a lot of cross wiki contribs, among chapters and chapters related matters, is an otrs volunteer and has lot of translations on meta. Among those contribs there is no historic of problems, so the home wiki stuff should be just home wiki stuff and don't cross the borders to other projects. Alchimista 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the "home wiki stuff" you are talking about? My reason for oppose has diffs linking to the canvassing that happened here on Meta. If you say it is not enough for opposing this candidature, it is ok; I will receive your opinion with total respect, but let's talk about what happened here... on Meta. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but can´t support after such opposes. Canvassing is something that a sysop shouldn´t do. Doesn´t matter on which project. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I don't see any proof of canvassing in the diffs Teles is linking to, just him accusing her of canvassing, same as here. Teles, can you please cite some proof? I only see your accusations of canvassing to Beria in Ruy's global request. Maybe I'm missing a diff? Theo10011 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theo, I think I do and I will bring a more specific diff. Stealth canvassing is something very difficult to prove; I still have the logs of the conversation she had with other users, but I can't post here and that would be the easier way to do it. However, there is a diff here on Meta I can show you (diff). It is a message sent to 555 ten minutes before he comment on the request. I mean... I said with a very clear section title that he was being canvassed before his vote. You can compare with the time that he voted (diff). How could I know that he would vote? And for oppose... and right after Béria's oppose... and involving an user that never voted on those request? I could never predict that and would never use the word "canvassing" on my message with no reason. His vote was just a confirmation. I've already said twice that Béria and 555 could authorize the release of the conversation. Of course, they never said a word about it. I know you trust her, Theo, and I don't blame you for this. I probably would if I had only the information you have about her.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first diff is your edit Teles, it proves nothing whatsoever. The second edit doesn't mention that Beria canvassed for anyone. Do you have proof of Beria canvassing or asking others to do so for her? If so, post it regardless of the source. As a crat (elsewhere) I would personally be discounting those opposers that are reliant upon "canvassing" otherwise because it has not been proved. A larger problem seems to be the atmosphere of ptwiki spilling over into meta and even globally: that has to end. fr33kman 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Teles the diffs being linked to above only point that you knew that 555 would oppose before, by that logic I could have guessed half the opposes above after certain people initiated or because I know them, Either way, It doesn't prove anything. You are claiming to know why 555 opposed, he might have planned to oppose before or regardless of Beria's oppose or position. I believe 555's clarification here [1], I believe they both acted in good faith. I do however, see multiple instances on that page where you and others are accusing Beria of canvassing openly, same as other requests she has commented on which is not an example of assuming good-faith. Just to clarify, we have moved on from simple canvassing accusation on Meta - to stealth canvassing, and possible release of logs from chatrooms off-wiki at this point, to be honest, I am not certain which is worst. Thanks. Theo10011 02:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not exactly what my diffs prove. You said you could guess who would vote here for oppose. I think you can't; like anybody else can "guess". It is like somebody vote here and minutes after you go to a page of another user that have never voted here and say he will vote per canvassing. Are you sure you can do that? I'm wondering why Beria did never say a word about authorizing the release of that conversation. She could just authorize it and everybody would be able to confirm her innocence. See the problem I have. I witnessed a canvassing off-wiki (stealh canvassing), which is something that I believe is serious enough to become public. I can't make the conversation public because it is unlicensed material. What should I do? We have to assume good faith when in doubt. You are assuming good faith, because, in your opinion, I couldn't prove my words. However, why should I assume good faith if I am sure? Anybody can be part of that chat, since the membership is free and then I can send the logs, but I just won't disrespect any rule to prove it. I think the disrespect of any rule is the worst. For me the context where those diffs were done makes them an evidence. If anybody is not agreed, I will understand. I have nothing else to say.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (complement) Fr33kman, you said "post it regardless of the source". Well, can you (or somebody else) assure me that I can post it here? I might be wrong, but I guess I am not allowed, unless there are some exception in cases like this. If it would not be against any rule, I can post it anytime.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regardless of source. If Beria has canvassed then fairness dictates that those with evidence provide it. fr33kman 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a private conversation which involved Teles, Beria and 555. In respect of their privacy, all three users would need to agree to release it, and Beria has specifically declined from doing so. I personally feel that, if there was nothing to these claims, Beria should have no problem with agreeing to publicly release the logs, but at the same time I don't want to get involved in this drama. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to inform the editors here who do not belong to Wikipedia-pt that the placements against editor Beria are the result of a political battle already existing in the Lusophone project and has little to do with her actual ability to the function on Meta and it also involves the candidate above, Ruy Pugliesi (the fights). In my opinion as a simple editor of the Wiki-pt (for five years, with more than 1,330 articles created and never wanting to have been nothing there or anywhere than a single articles' creator) no editor from Wiki-pt should have their opinion considered here. Editor Theo10011 seems to be having lucid notion of what is happening here.
Teles is an administrator here (?). He says in his argument against Beria: "users must be ethical." Yes, they must be Teles....
Thank you. Fraternal greetings. See you. MachoCarioca 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We know ;) fr33kman 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, A good and active user across many Wiki projects--Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bugoslav 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's the big deal? If she needs a tool, let her have it. (To clarify: I've been attracted by the loud murmur from this page. May we do something more constructive than to have heated discussions about giving a tool to someone?) --Millosh 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been directly given the information I have asked for. Having read it I can not support Beria for admin on meta. Thx to those who helped. fr33kman 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dəstəkləyirəm və uğurlar arzu edirəm! Onun gördüyü işləri çox yüksək qiymətləndirirəm! --Cekli829 06:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two things: Jimbo wrote that being admin should not be a big deal. As she seems to have skills, time and sound mind, that is all what is needed. I heard too many times on meta word "canvassing". Be honest and admit that most voting is made of 20-40% votes of people who have found voting page themselves, and most of them will find it because somebody is talking about it. In my opinion, if word "canvassing" would be used only when it is substantiated with real evidence of harassing users to get more votes, that would be reason enough to oppose, but as too many people use this word too easy I declare myself broadminded and support this request. SpeedyGonsales 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aleposta 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]