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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Languages: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Personal info: In short: being a steward contains a number of duties and responsibilities. Anyway, during these 16 months of stewardship I have enjoyed the fantastic teamwork with other stewards and patrollers. Furthermore I'm really proud of all the sensitive cases that several communities committed to me (hoping I did a good job). I must apologise for any mistakes I made. Lack of time (currently I'm one of the most active stewies) was responsible for many of them, and as a result, my explanations were sometimes too concise (for example in catching some crosswiki vandals) or not punctual. So, I cannot assure you anything than my endeavour to go on helping the project, which I hope is enough.
  • 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.
  • Языки: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Личная информация: translation needed
  • Sprachen: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Informationen zur Person: In Kürze: Steward zu sein bedeutet viel Arbeit und große Verantwortung. Jedoch habe ich während dieser 16 Monate als Steward eine fantastische Teamarbeit unter den Stewards und Patrollern erlebt. Überdies bin ich sehr stolz auf die heiklen Fälle, die viele Communitys mir anvertraut haben. Ich entschuldige mich für die Fehler, die ich gemacht habe; deren größter Teil ist auf Zeitmangel zurückzuführen (momentan bin ich einer der aktivsten Stewards), weswegen meine Erklärungen manchmal zu kurz waren (zum Beispiel, wenn ich irgendwelchen Vandalen auf verschiedenen Wikis hinterlaufen musste). Kurzum, ich kann nicht mehr versprechen als mein Engagement und hoffe, dass das genügt.
  • Lingue: 'it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Informazioni personali: In breve: fare lo steward è un grosso carico di lavoro e responsabilità. Tuttavia in questi sedici mesi da steward ho avuto modo di apprezzare un ottimo gruppo di lavoro fatto di patroller e steward. Inoltre sono molto orgoglioso dei casi delicati affidatimi da molte comunità. Mi scuso per gli errori che ho fatto, la maggior parte di essi è dovuta alla mancanza di tempo (attualmente sono fra gli steward più attivi) che mi porta, alle volte, ad essere troppo laconico nelle risposte (per esempio quando devo correr dietro a qualche vandalo su varie wiki). Insomma, non posso garantire nient'altro che il mio impegno, sperando che sia sufficiente.

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)
No, you are simply wrong--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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's community, even if your positions seems to be not widely shared at all.--Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • Remove RemoveSeveral time abused his powers Lillolollo (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
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 sysop 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Aplasia (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Amongst the best admins on the Italian chapter of Wikipedia. He's only guilty of not closing even an eye, let apart both, on anyone's disruptive behaviour (disruptive for the encyclopædia, of course). His acts always met the approval of a very large part of the active Italian-speaking community. I might understand that an admin who enforces the rules is not well seen by those who usually waste our time challenging them (let apart openly breaking them), nonetheless is worth reminding that nothing of the rules can be meant differently than the sense of protecting the project: Wikipedia's rules are not for correcting an injustice towards any user. A last note for the abovementioned cases: as for the first one (an user that gained in questionable way the right of voting), the user who opened the incident was not Vituzzu, nor Vituzzu was the administrator who blocked the user; he simply expressed his opinion like many of us did (I still have to read the rule that having certain opinions is not compatible either with stewardship or adminship, maybe I missed it); as for the latter, the admin was not confirmed because he wasn't trusted by a large part of the community, not because of some kind of plot. Anyone can read the election page... -- Blackcat (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - in my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep Keep. He often throws his hands into the manure — alone — taking decisions which many other would refuse to take, and most of the times I understand his foresight only days or even months afterwards. I've learned to trust him even while thinking he's acting wrong. Please don't feed the trolls. εΔω 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Vituzzu has been helpful and reasonable in the cases I've seen, and after consideration I don't find the counter-evidence all that convincing. Jafeluv (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • no ifs, ands, or buts: Keep Keep --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't want to use the {{remove}} template, but I had the impression of bad communication manners towards local communities. → «« Man77 »» [de] 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Mh can you point me out some example? If possible I'd use it to improve my behaviour ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • You installed an abuse filter on barWP without any kind of announcement. When the local community started discussing the topic [1] (what this filter is actually doing and if we want filters) "in public" there was no helpful statement from your side but what I perceived as selfpity because of our public debate. You didn't do that on purpose, but I expect stewards to stimulate local authorities - here, however, it was an ivory tower approach → «« Man77 »» [de] 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your explanation. Well, the filter was a log-only filter made up in order to help stewards to "catch" the famous vandal called "edgar" who did chose as a battleground (I estimate the incredible amount of ~0.05% of suppressed revs on!). Honestly I hadn't realised there was no local experience with AF: I left a note on filter comment and when you copypasted filter code on a public page I was scared by the idea of the vandal reading it, thus my rush for secrecy. It was my very beginning as steward and my communication lacked, then I apologised and I still consider it as a lesson to improve my attitude towards small wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Also thanks to you for your comments. Just one thing: It wasn't me who c&p-ed the code :) → «« Man77 »» [de] 17:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh nvm, since evw SEEMS to be almost gone :D --Vituzzu (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b / t 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.sEdivad (msg) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Eumolpa (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep absolutely — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Dome A disposizione! 00:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • {{remove}}, you must be a sock master! Keep Keep Amazing work. --Bencmq (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Great. I would like to have your PC, Vito.--Seics (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Unconcerned about allegations of "sysop abuse," (above). Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep His good work on Wikidata was really appreciated in the project's infancy. He is one of the stewards we love!! This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepΛΧΣ21 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --PandeF (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Etrusko25 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep es:Magister Mathematicae 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Stryn (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roy 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Xinstalker (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Although he is clearly going to be confirmed, I would like to register my displeasure with his actions about this time last year on Mete, where jhe defended a meta admins "right" to troll my talk page in response to neutrally worded question about a technical matter. He didn't even ask them to leave me alone, just let me know I was an unwanted interloper who should not ask such question in the first place. See [2] I expect impartiality from stewards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I have faith in him and in his abilities. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - The protection of the Foundation wiki feedback page for a whole year in September 2012 was not so well–thought–out. --Pxos (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    (Actually it doesn't involve my steward's duties) Frankly I cannot remember if it was a misclicking or if I did it intentionally, though the page was heavily spammed I can agree with unprotection. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Delfort (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep My messages are different in the following languages:
    (en) He's good steward, and is often around.
    (it-1) È un buon utente e continuerà a esserlo.
    (scn-0) Vituzzu avi fattu na bedda fiùra... finu a ora ;)
  • πr2 (t • c) 23:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)