From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2017
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

  • Languages: ru-N, en-3
  • Personal info: There has been a really long time since I became a steward. Though these six years passed like a blink of an eye for me. I think that I have been fairly active in almost all areas of stewards' responsibility although my activity shifted from year to year. In the past year I was as always active in the user right management (especially bots) but in addition became more active in the global lock/block requests. I also occasionally replied to checkuser requests, renamed users and was involved in updating the old javascript across many Wikimedia projects. I still think that I and my services will be useful for the Wikimedia community. So, here I politely ask for a re-confirmation and hope that this will be granted. Thank you!
  • ভাষা: ru-N, en-3
  • ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed
  • Sprachen: ru-N, en-3
  • Informationen zur Person: Es ist nun eine wirklich lange Zeit vergangen, seitdem ich Steward geworden bin. Trotzdem sind diese sechs Jahre für mich wie ein Wimpernschlag vergangen. Ich denke, dass ich in allen Bereichen, die in die Verantwortlichkeit der Stewards fallen, ziemlich aktiv gewesen bin, obwohl sich meine Aktivität von Jahr zu Jahr geändert hat. Im letzten Jahr war ich wie immer in der Verwaltung der Benutzerrechte (besonders von Bots) aktiv, aber zusätzlich wurde ich aktiver bei Anfragen in Bezug auf globale (Zugriffs-)Sperren. Ich habe auch manchmal Checkuser-Anfragen bearbeitet, Benutzer umbenannt und war darin involviert, das alte JavaScript über viele Wikimedia-Wikis hinweg zu aktualisieren. Ich denke weiterhin, dass ich und meine Dienste nützlich für die Wikimedia-Community sein werden. Also bitte ich hier höflich um eine Wiederbestätigung und hoffe, dass dieser zugestimmt wird. Danke!
  • Γλώσσες: ru-N, en-3
  • Προσωπικές πληροφορίες: Έχει περάσει πραγματικά πολύς καιρός από τότε που έγινα επίτροπος. Αν και αυτά τα έξι χρόνια πέρασαν χωρίς να το καταλάβω. Πιστεύω ότι ήμουν ικανοποιητικά δραστήριος σε όλους σχεδόν τους τομείς αρμοδιότητας των επιτρόπων, αν και η δική μου δραστηριότητα κυμαινονταν από χρόνο σε χρόνο. Την περασμένη χρονιά ήμουν πάντα ενεργός στην διαχείριση δικαιωμάτων χρηστών (ειδικά των bot) αλλά επιπροσθέτως έγινα περισσότερο δραστήριος στα αιτήματα καθολικών κλειδωμάτων/φραγών. Επίσης κατά καιρούς απαντούσα σε αιτήματα chekuser, μετονόμαζα χρήστες και συμμετείχα στην αναβάθμιση παλιών javascript σε πολλά εγχειρήματα του Wikimedia. Πιστεύω ακόμα ότι οι υπηρεσίες μου θα είναι χρήσιμες για την κοινότητα του Wikimedia. Έτσι, ζητώ εδώ ευγενικά, για επανεπιβεβαίωση και ελπίζω ότι αυτή θα μου δωθεί. Σας ευχαριστώ!
  • Idiomas: ru-N, en-3
  • Información personal: Ha pasado mucho tiempo desde que me convertí en steward. Aunque estos seis años pasaron como el parpadeo de un ojo para mí. Creo que he sido bastante activo en casi todas las áreas de la responsabilidad de los stewards, aunque mi actividad ha ido cambiando de año en año. En el último año estuve como siempre activo en la gestión de permisos de usuario (especialmente bots), pero además me volví más activo en las solicitudes de bloqueo globales. También de vez en cuando estuve respondiendo a las peticiones CheckUser, cambio de nombre de usuarios y estuve implicado en la actualización del JavaScript antiguo a través de muchos proyectos Wikimedia. Sigo pensando que mis servicios serán útiles para la comunidad de Wikimedia. Por lo tanto, aquí, educadamente pido una re-confirmación y espero que esto sea concedido. ¡Gracias!
  • Lingue: ru-N, en-3
  • Informazioni personali: translation needed
  • Taalvaardigheid: ru-N, en-3
  • Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed
  • Языки: ru-N, en-3
  • Личная информация: Прошло реально много времени с того момента как я стал стюардом. Хотя эти шесть лет пролетели в мгновение ока для меня. Я считаю что я был достаточно активен в практически всех областях ответственности стюардов хотя моя активность менялась от года к году. В прошедшем году я как всегда занимался управлением правами пользователей (особенно ботами), а вдобавок я увеличил свои активность в области глобальных блокировок и локов. Я также время от времени отвечал на запросы по проверке пользователей, переименовывал учётные записи и занимался обновлением старых java скриптов на многих Викимедийных проектах. Я всё ещё считаю, что моя служба в качестве стюарда будет полезна для сообщества Викимедиа. Поэтому я прошу переутвердить меня в качестве стюарда и надеюсь, что это произойдёт. Всем спасибо!

Comments about Ruslik0[edit]

  • Remove Remove I had hoped that Ruslik0 would change their approach after my comments last year, but their problematic approach continues. Note [1] (where it would have been better to move the request to the right section), removal of rights from an editor who obviously ragequit without waiting 24 hours, granting permanent adminship on a brand new wiki, locking a user with a few thousand edits on a wiki where they were not blocked at the time (see commentary here). --Rschen7754 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you appear to have some strange opinions about how stewards operate, which is surprising because you were one yourself. The last user was involved in the extensive cross-wiki abuse (a few thousands edits is not a license to do such things) and allowing it to continue was not an option. However I unlocked his account later when he agreed to stop. The user is currently locked though and not by me. I am also not aware of any policy that says that brand new wikis may not elect permanent sysops. If you know one, please, provide a link. In the first case it was a continuation of another discussion and 24h practically expired. So, I am sure that I was right in all three cases. Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, trusted user. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep good to go! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KeepAlvaro Molina ( - ) 15:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree pretty much with Rschen7754, some things are just troublesome. However, Ruslik0 has always been an active steward who got things done. --Vogone (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral While active and usefull in general, there are some concerns (as per Rschen7754) that make me uncomfortable to !vote keep. —Ah3kal (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -FASTILY 20:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Miniapolis 21:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Bookvaedina (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -jkb- 22:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- MechQuester (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I feel like Ruslik has done more good than what he has done bad, but please be more careful when it comes to your steward actions. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, though please be careful when locking users who are not globally banned and are active contributors to certain projects, for instance by detailing the lock reasons in these potentially controversial cases. Savhñ 23:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. Iazyges (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove - Not active on Wikiversity since 2015! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep PawełMM (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. Rzuwig 11:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep — TBloemink talk 13:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep good luck--Leon saudanha (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Rschen7754. I have witnessed two serious controversies involving Ruslik's actions this year:
    • The first one was regarding AryanSogd's rights removal on tjwiki. It was an obvious ragequit due to conflict between two of the most active local users, I spent time to explain the user what they can do just to discover that Ruslik removed rights without waiting for answer and putting the request on hold. In the end tjwiki lost its most active administrator and the conflict was not resolved.
    • The second one was regarding Rusyn Wikipedia case. Ruslik granted admin rights to an obvious sock (created two days ago and used wrong account to sign both on Meta and on local wiki) after an obviously rigged election (changed requirements and local rules during the election, manipulated timestamps). Those were obvious red flags but rights were still granted. When I discovered and reported this, Ruslik overreacted by globally blocking the sock owner KHMELNYTSKYIA even despite good contributions in projects other than Rusyn Wikipedia. After an intervention of a ukwikisource sysop where KHMELNYTSKYIA was one of the few active users he ended up unblocked. The issue is luckily resolved but it was way easier to reject an obviously bad request instead of creating and then resolving a problem
    Given that some similar issues were cited last year, I think this becomes a serious problem, hence my vote — NickK (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not obvious at that time and I did not overreact. It was a justified lock because in such cases good contributions are irrelevant. Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree it was not obvious, it was blatantly obvious:
    • If an account created on 2 January 2017 requests rights on 4 January 2017, the voting obviously lasted less than one week.
    • If an account created on 2 January 2017 states it applied for admin rights on 2 December 2016, the RfA was obviously riggged.
    • If an account applies for adminship 7 min after creation, it is almost surely a sock.
    • If local rules state that a candidate must have one main namespace edit and the candidate does not have even one main namespace edit, it is obviously suspicious, both because rules can't be that simple and a candidate can't be that new.
    • If a candidate and two first voters had their accounts created within 30 minutes and had no actions on any wiki beyond these votes, they are obviously socks.
    One does not need any tools to find out that this is suspicious, just common sense. It should have been checked. It could have been prevented. No checks means anyone can get admin rights and abuse them for the entire month on a small wiki. I don't want stewards let this happen — NickK (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have so much free time to check everything for all requests, you can become a steward yourself. But the system here is primary based on trust. We trust users that everything that they say is true. It is called "assume good faith". However when a deception is discovered consequences may be severe. You are actually wrong when you think that the conflict could have been avoided had I discovered the socks earlier. I could have locked his main account anyway. Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you have so much free time to check everything for all requests, you can become a steward yourself." Regardless of the merits of this, saying something like that is not reflecting the decorum that we expect from stewards. --Rschen7754 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In a community of volunteers when one volunteer tells another that they should do something it is quite reasonable for the second volunteer to tell the first volunteer that they should do it yourself. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I only partially agree with this. The system is based on trust indeed, but on trust in stewards. Users trust stewards that their actions at least are not obviously wrong. SRP is not based on automatic promotion, many requests end up being rejected. When a user writes "I want to be a sysop, please give me rights on xyzwiki" I expect that stewards will check if this user is really supported by a local community and they followed local rules. I don't expect that stewards will blindly trust anyone: trust, but verifyNickK (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the request. Short term three months adminships are very easy to get. They are practically given to everyone who applies - local policies are irrelevant here. But at the same time they can be removed at any time by any steward if there are problems. So, it does make sense to invest too much time in them. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not work this way. Either someone should regularly check the activity of sysops of various small wikis or a steward should do a very basic check before giving rights.
    • The first approach does not work. After almost a month of abusing these rights nobody noticed the problem. I am almost sure the user could have kept these rights until the end of the term if he had not tried to write an article about "dumb stewards" in Ukrainian Wikipedia. No bad faith here, a simple fact that nobody cares about what local admins are doing in very small wikis.
    • Thus the real approach is the second one. Looking through SRP I can actually see that even most basic local requests are put on hold for one week (e.g. Bobbyshabangu@ss.wikipedia), and canvassing (Munirjohn@tgwiktionary) or sockpuppetry (Mogoeilor@lrcwikipedia) as well as non-compliance with local rules (Wintereu@rowikivoyage) were reasons either to put requests on hold or deny them.
    That's why your comments surprise me. Surely getting a temporary permission should be easy for an editor in good standing, but a sock should not get sysop rights on a content wiki before their first main namespace edit. If you really think that nobody will do this basic check unless I become a steward (something that does not fit in my plans), that's a serious problem — NickK (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I, of course, oversimplified. There is a procedure to follow and requests are sometimes denied. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Hayordi (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, the only ( =( ) Russian-speaking steward. --Brateevsky (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep :D — Tursetic 04:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Rschen7754 provided some legitimate concerns but that does not give me enough reason to !vote remove. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KeepMarcoAurelio 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. — Ping08 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Udo T. (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral --Krd 11:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  14:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Michal Lester לסטר (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Matanya (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Rschen7754 & NickK.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --თოგო (D) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I'm not too certain about it, but I don't really see a good reason not to keep you, either. ;)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Howan Hansi (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. Although he occasionally can make something wrong, as all of us, he also does a lot of good actions, and the average is quite positive in my opinion.--Syum90 (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep though I would prefer that editors with high edit counts are banned by the community, rather than summarily blocked by stewards. We need due process, as slow as it can be  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Rschen and NickK – KPFC💬 17:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Ghilt (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Gridditsch (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Arbnos (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Plagiat (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Рулин (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral Some mistakes but perhaps he will do better this year. Natuur12 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Elmie (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) mistakes can always happen[reply]
  • Remove Remove Lepricavark (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep -Barras talk 17:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Eraevsky (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral --Minoo (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep thanks for your work --Itti (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per confidence from other stewards and globalsysops. Quiddity (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I sometimes disagree with certain actions by Ruslik, but usually due to excessive "caution" (e.g. about the role of stewards when local sysops aren't enough). Two locks of a crosswiki abuser with a few thousands edits and of an election manipulator may be good or bad things, I'd need to study more to have an opinion. Nemo 16:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral per Rschen and NickK. --Uğurkenttalk 19:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --masti <talk> 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I think (overall) his contributions are a net positive. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 02:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. Although Rschen7754 raised some legit concerns, I am confident that Ruslik will learn from his small mistakes and won't do anything wrong this time around. RadiX 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove, with regret. I have always found that Ruslik's work has been invaluable and that he's made sure a lot of less popular area of steward work are properly manned. However, the concerns raised by Rschen7754 are valid and Ruslik's reaction to comments in this discussion has shown a unwillingness to listen to valuable criticism. Snowolf How can I help? 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]