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.

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | 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)[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 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)[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 sysop 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]