Stewards/Confirm/2024

Translate this page at Template:Steward confirmations.

The 2024 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

The 2024-25 Confirmation will begin on February 6, and will finish on February 27.

The 2024-25 Steward Confirmations are an opportunity for the Wikimedia community to comment on the performance of existing stewards. To make the process as smooth as possible, the confirmations are organized as follows.

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 6. During the 2024 Elections, please mention if you are comfortable or unhappy with the use of steward tools of any of the people listed below and why.

After the election, stewards (including the newly-elected ones) are invited to review the confirmation comments and to give their impression of the outcome (consensus to confirm/remove etc.) on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024 for every steward who stood for confirmation. Of course, they are not required to do this for every candidate and will be especially careful to do it regarding someone about whom they expressed strong opinions in the confirmation. Non-steward comments are welcome outside of the "Final Decision" section, subject to the usual expectations of civility. Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).

All stewards elected before February 2024 will undergo this process.

AmandaNP[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en, fr-2
Personal info: With this being my third confirmation, I have found my role to expand a lot over this past year. As we engage with the WMF more and more, and anti-abuse priorities become more and more critical, I find my advocacy tasks expanding very fast - and has taken a good chunk of my time in the second half of 2023. I envision this to continue to increase. Beyond that, I'm working on sustainability programs such as the Steward clerks or finalizing UTRS 3.0 to give stewards another leg up in handling un(b)lock requests. I'm also in early consultations to build a tool for stewards that would manage requests from every venue that exists, beyond my initial command line tools I've built. I also stop by the main stewards noticeboards when I can to assist. I view my role this coming year to remain exactly in these departments, and to expand in them, building us a better chance to encourage, attract and retain more stewards. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about AmandaNP[edit]

Keep--Hornstrandir1 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hide on Rosé ^t 14:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for your service at SRCU for zhwiki, and for coordinating the work of steward clerks! --Luciferian Thomas 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep np ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her effort in areas like steward clerks is helping steward efficiency as a whole, and she is probably one of the best stewards in this regard. --Ferien (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep done good work and good actions to try and improve the sustainability of the group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Titore (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great behind the scenes worker. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Thank you for all your hard work. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taylor 49 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work. —MdsShakil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep We are ever thankful to have someone as dedicated as you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sohom (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HouseBlaster (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hooray for you--Tmv (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking Lizthegrey (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--valcio ••• 09:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saw her a lot in activity. Always correctly and accurate. --Lollo98 Text me 23:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Grasmat (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep••Pierpao (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Styyx (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nardog (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hatman31 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been a great help and is very cordial and patient despite me bugging her a lot sometimes. Deauthorized (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your work coordinating the steward clerks--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LuciferianThomas and Ajraddatz 94rain ^Talk 05:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks a lot for your help during PlanespotterA320 case.Lemonaka (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论) 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revsson (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hadrianus (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wordsmith (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --எஸ். பி. கிருஷ்ணமூர்த்தி (பேச்சு) எஸ். பி. கிருஷ்ணமூர்த்தி (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great work.--Tehonk (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nastoshka (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Saroj (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong background engagement. Bold on their actions and careful with the group's effectiveness and sustainability.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no issues. Natuur12 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zero concerns ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Contribs. 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work, for your assistance in my first year as stew, and for sharing your technical knowledge --Superpes15 (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always love your administrative work Amanda! Your the best! --JuniperChill (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --doramiso-meta (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. — Jules* ^talk 12:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SCP-2000 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no doubt. —Borschts^Talk 23:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntiCompositeNumber[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hello! This is my second reconfirmation. Over the past year, I have continued to focus primarily on anti-abuse work at SRG, appeals on VRT and UTRS, and oversight requests. I am active in responding to urgent requests on IRC, and regularly attend Steward-WMF coordination calls. I was less active this year compared to the previous two because of real life changes, and I expect to be able to continue at this level in the future. With the community's support, I would be glad to continue to serve as a steward. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about AntiCompositeNumber[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, without a doubt. Giraffer (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep always quick on IRC EPIC (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No memes, just thanks. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no problem. JrandWP (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for answering all my IRC requests :P --Ferien (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Minilammas (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good activity and responsiveness. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sohom (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 23:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HouseBlaster (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking Lizthegrey (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --valcio ••• 09:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Grasmat (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep••Pierpao (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Styyx (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very helpful on IRC --94rain ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very helpful. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meiræ 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no issues. Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very positive experiences. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only your speed surpasses your technical knowledge --Superpes15 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove jdx ^Re: 10:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: uk-N, ru-4, en-2.5, be-3 (understanding only), es-0.5, slavic-0.5, nl-0.25, romance-0.25
Personal info: Hello. This is my fifth confirmation.
Unfortunately, I haven't been noticeably active this year. I am still affected by the war in my country psychologically. Many Wikimedia things, such as Wikimedia Foundation persisting with all the same actions that we have been seeing during the superprotect saga and even earlier, takes further toll on me mentally.
That said some things I did do. Mostly reactive work to lock some LTAs reported privately or stumbled upon during ukwiki adminwork; suppression requests handled; a few more difficult cases on SRP closed, where I believe my long term experience managing the page was handy; a few SRM requests closed.
Not directly a steward activity as such, but as a consequence of stewardship entailed security clearance on Phabricator I was also involved in trying to mitigate the lack of communication when WMF has abruptly disabled Graph extension by relaying the non-sensitive information from the private tickets publicly.
In all fairness I would probably resign under current activity level under normal circumstances, but what makes me want to stay is the extremely low number of stewards we have currently ended up with, that even if this election would be much more fruitful than the last ones, we are still to experience lack of adequate manpower, unfortunately. I feel like any competent help is very much needed now, and I am convinced that my experience is still thus of use for everyone.
On the other hand, traditionally, I would postulate, that even if I am not to be reëlected, I am not going anywhere, and you will likely still see me somewhere around Meta-Wiki, that including some of the stewards related things.

Comments about Base[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mehman 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Keep up the pH"? Can't think of a good joke rn:( ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very helpful. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good activity. JrandWP (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Activity is reasonable especially considering the current situation. Thank you for continuing to help. --Ferien (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Understandable activity given the situation, still making useful contributions to the role. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien. Slava Ukraini, Heroyam Slava! Prodraxis _(talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 👍 --Ruthven (msg) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvincing reconfirmation statement. ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maksim L. (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --valcio ••• 09:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lvova (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rampion (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dostojewskij: Would you mind explaining why you oppose? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ••Pierpao (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Юрко Градовський (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep odder (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- dima_st_bk 07:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lower activity is understandable and no issues other than that have been found. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for continuing to help despite your limited time --Superpes15 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep starship .paint (exalt) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bsadowski1[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: This is now my 13th year being a steward (and my 12th confirmation). I have done a lot of work with anti-spam and antivandalism and plan to continue to do that.

Comments about Bsadowski1[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Hide on Rosé ^t 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Until he croaks ..--Ste moc 14:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problem. JrandWP (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't b sad, for we have Bsad Keep ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always helpful :) --Ferien (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as usual :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always truly committed to this project. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep \o/ — T. 18:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would really bsad if we did not keep this user as a Steward. Does a great job. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mtarch11: If you don't mind me asking, why do you oppose this candidate? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: because when I report an LTA on IRC in the middle of the night I expect the steward to block it, not to reply "o_o" (05:12:46, 02.10.2023) by continuing other locks. The work of others must always be respected, even if you have been here for many years. --Mtarch11 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Julius 12345 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wordsmith (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atuante de forma consistente no trabalho contra LTA.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No visible problems, although anyone who has been in this important of a role for that long probably deserves a vacation. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mtarch's comment does raise some concerns, but I don't think it rises to the level of removal. I still support keeping this steward. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There when needed and thorough Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de, en-3, es-1
Personal info: Hi, I've been a stewards since 2007 and changed my field of work a couple of times since that time. These days, I'm one of the few stewards who support governing the group. For example, I'm co-contact for the Wikimedia Stewards User Group, I held presentations about the stewards and their work in the past term and I wrote the annual report of the group for which I have to be up to date in all fields of stewards works. In this role, I also represented the stewards at Wikimania 2023 in several meetings with WMF staff, and was elected a group representee for the upcoming Wikimedia Summit 2024 for the very same purpose. I try to attend all steward calls with Wikimedia Foundation and other groups, be available on all communication channels (IRC, Discord, Telegram, …) and I'm serving in this year's ElectCom once again.

My other field of work often neither is visible in public logs: More recently, when I'm available, I returned to monitoring the global account creation log and hideusering long-term abusers (some hundreds last term). I try to be quick and block the IP address before they can create another account, which occasionally leads to some loginwiki checkuser actions. Certainly, I am not the most active stewards anymore but I'm filling some of the gaps and bring in some expertise from the early years and good connections to WMF as well. It'd be my pleasure to continue this service for another term.

Comments about DerHexer[edit]

Keep really good background work --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --janbery (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Codc (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bubo 容 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at this point, might as well make him "co-founder" of wikimedia, been a better servant than jimbo..--Ste moc 14:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problem. JrandWP (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent work as always, and has kept up with the reporting requirements for the user group! – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Has been a great steward for a long time. Thank you for your service. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You’ve become a celebrity without knowing! — T. 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have known him as a great steward for a long time, thank you for your service. May you continue to enjoy your work. --Funkruf (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)=[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :-) --Civvì (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~though a co-contact is just a ntact!~~ ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nolispanmo (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenWhile6. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hadi (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--BugWarp (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --valcio ••• 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C[o]lin (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Drummingman (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wandelndes Lexikon (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pimpinellus (talk) – WikiMUC – 22:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Andreas JN 466 08:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Aspiriniks (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is legend! - εΔ ω 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brettchenweber (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Silverije 23:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reelection as sure as eggs is eggs -- Tirkon (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Squasher (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Denis Barthel (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kpisimon (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wordsmith (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Matthiasb (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meiræ 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mervat (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RudolfSimon (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Killerkürbis (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nastoshka (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my first and recent interactions with him there seems to be a reason why he was elected and re-elected and re-elected, just great. Solved an issue of years with a comment.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mario-WL (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ra'ike (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure!.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no issues. Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geagea (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paradise Chronicle. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Pentachlorphenol (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A beacon for us novice stewards --Superpes15 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Troubled @sset 10:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DerHexer used to be not very active, but over the last years he has really picked up a lot of work on the side of stewarship outreach, including doing a lot of helpful communication with WMF. --Base (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elton[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: pt-N, en-2, es-1
Personal info: Hello everyone. I was elected in 2017 under previous username Defender. I have been moderately active in the past year and I would like to continue to help out as a steward for another year if the community is willing to confirm me. Questions and feedback are most welcome. Thank you for considering. — Elton (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Elton[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolutely! good work. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --valcio ••• 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work and commitment --Superpes15 (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HakanIST[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: tr, en-3, az-3, es-2, de-1
Personal info: Hello Wikimedia community. Last year, I was active in fighting spam and vandalism and worked with the Universal Code of Conduct Building Committee and several other committees. I had some personal reasons that kept me less active in some periods, but I am committed to being a steward again this year.HakanIST (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about HakanIST[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LuCkY^talk 14:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove promises, promises..--Ste moc 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mehman 15:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Fenikals (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm quite surprised at some of the remove coments that have been coming in. I personally have seen increased activity from HakanIST and was going to (and am still going to) use my comment to thank him for it. --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeps the SRG backlog down. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --LisafBia6531 ^msg 18:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No convincing reason to remove Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bjelica (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Queen of Hearts, enough activity. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--David1010 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jaba1977 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — ნინო ხუბულავა (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mikheil ^Talk 11:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am simply grateful for his existence. - εΔ ω 00:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like they are a good, increasingly active steward, so keeping. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Benoît Prieur (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Kadı Message 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--KediÇobanı🐈 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove not enough activity.--Tehonk (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DraconicDark (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see concerns here --Superpes15 (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasley[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: es, en-3, ca-2
Personal info:

Hello everyone. I am Hasley, and this is my second confirmation as a steward.
Sad to relate, my activity has dropped significantly in the last weeks, since my town does not have electricity since January 4. I am sometimes staying somewhere else, but even there—where I am currently at, writing this statement—we lack both electricity and internet most of the day.
Situations like this are actually quite common in my country—severe blackouts have been hitting the national power grid for almost three lustra, and daily power outages have been the norm since 2019. Nonetheless, this is not the first time this has happened to me, so I expect to be active again in the upcoming weeks.
Regardless, my work did not change much in the past year: I helped in various areas, but I was mainly active dealing with LTAs, handling global locks and blocks, and processing oversight requests, and I was very active on IRC responding requests there.
I really appreciate your trust in the past, and would like to continue serving the community for the term to come, if you are happy with it. Thank you all, Sgd. —Hasley 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Hasley[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Activity continues to be very good especially considering he lacks electricity for most of the day. --Ferien (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great anti-LTA work. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They already do an excellent work with their current living conditions; one of the few candidates whom I can easily !vote "keep" without reading the statement (I did because I normally do, but could have skipped this process). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with SHB2000's assessment, Hasley does a great job.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think your work does actually change much :P ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for your nice work--Tmv (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--valcio ••• 09:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Borgil (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --94rain ^Talk 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Madamebiblio (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Espero que as coisas melhorem por aí e que continue com o bom trabalho.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your efforts on wiki despite the situation in your country --Superpes15 (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo man[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de-N, en-3
Personal info: Hello! I have been a Wikimedian since 2008 and a steward since 2014. In addition to my on-wiki work, I am or have been active in several other areas around Wikimedia, including volunteer software development (user scripts, MediaWiki extensions, …) and work on Wikidata.
Besides my volunteer activities, I'm employed by Wikimedia Germany as a software developer working on Wikidata.
As a steward, I have mostly participated in some small wiki monitoring and dealt with requests for global locks and blocks in 2023. I planed to get more involved in steward/ admin tools related software maintenance and development in 2023, but my activity here only increased very slightly. In 2024, I plan to increase my activity in technical areas, while keeping up the counter vandalism and abuse handling work. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Hoo man[edit]

Keep good anti-vandalism work --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bubo 容 14:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- 3 consecutive years, your contribution as a steward has been close to zero mate..--Ste moc 15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the most active steward, but fine to me. EPIC (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still good contribution. JrandWP (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would prefer more activity this year. --Ferien (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep More activity would be good. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valuable team member. — T. 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You "planed to get more involved [...] in 2023", what came in the way? You "plan to increase [your] activity" now, but how can you assure you don't return next year saying again that it only increased very slightly?.. That said, I don't see a direct benefit from removing you either, so Neutral. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but community needs more your activity. --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, fine as a steward, but would prefer more activity. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above--Tmv (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Queen of Hearts. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — per User:Stemoc, pretty pointless steward. Arriba, ——SerialNumber54129 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove From a cybersecurity standpoint, stewards are a massive attack vector. We should not keep stewards that are not using their permissions around. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak remove more activity needed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, as too inactive (as a steward, anyway). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DCB (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, more activity needed --Kadı Message 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove not enough activity in Steward areas to justify keeping. Thank you for your service. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matthiasb (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Snowmanonahoe and Stemoc --Tehonk (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit concerned about activity levels. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per stemoc --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, concerns with minimal activity levels -Fastily 22:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ra'ike (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who are concerned about activity ought to look at intended activity, not past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe people are concerned about intended activity as well, taking the previous confirmations into consideration. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wetterwolke (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would probably vote remove under normal circumstances, but as I said in my own confirmation statement, unfortunately we are critically lacking human resources now, so even little help is helpful, and I do hope Hoo man becomes more active. --Base (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kolbert[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en, fr, de-2, es-2
Personal info: This is my fifth steward confirmation. My main areas of focus are Steward requests/Global and global blocks for open proxies. A recent priority of mine has been to improve translations for the stewards global block wizard so that users affected by blocks can find information in their language on how to resolve their block issue. With the community's support, I would like to continue to support the global community in this role. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Jon Kolbert[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and brilliant with proxies :P --Ferien (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good work eh – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great at clearing backlogs. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — T. 18:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep skype is good, thanks ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--valcio ••• 09:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 12:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revsson (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hadrianus (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work --Superpes15 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Wim b 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove jdx ^Re: 10:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarcGarver[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en-N, fr-2
Personal info: I've been a Wikimedian since October 2006 and have completed ten terms as a steward. As well as my steward activities, I intentionally maintain a level of content related activities on the English Wikipedia and Wikibooks. I don't believe I have courted any controversy this year in either activity and I've maintained a steady activity level (with the usual dip in December when I am always busy in real life). I am active most days and keep an eye on the noticeboards. I'm happy to continue and, while I am certainly not the most active of Stewards, I believe I maintain an adequate level of activity and competence.

Comments about MarcGarver[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- was neutral last time but his activity in the areas he promised hasn't improved at all...--Ste moc 14:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same comment as for Hoo man. EPIC (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still good activity. JrandWP (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but would prefer increased activity this year. --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep same as what I said for Hoo man. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others; their activity on en.wb is also more than most users. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvincing reconfirmation statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep same as Hoo man. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Queen of Hearts. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral activity is a bit on the low side. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issue for me --Superpes15 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Urbanec[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hello everyone, this is my fourth confirmation as a steward. I'm regularly responding to IRC requests and processing requests on steward boards. I also make use of my experience from the technical communities and work on making sure steward needs are understood by the technical community (and vica versa).
As always, if there are any questions about my steward activity, I'll be happy to answer them.
Disclaimer: I'm a Wikimedia Foundation staff member, for which I work as a Software Engineer within the Growth team. More detailed information can be found at my WMF user page. I am also a member of Wikimedia CZ's board of trustees.

Comments about Martin Urbanec[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --janbery (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the stewards has worked with many users who speak Vietnamese. Hide on Rosé ^t 14:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mehman 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best and the most well-known stewards, mostly for viwp. JrandWP (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per User talk:Leaderboard#Steward Elections 2024 (applying different rules to different users) with a rather non-sequiteur follow-up – it is not the behaviour I'd expect from a steward. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I would have voted keep had they accepted and apologised, but I vote remove for doubling down. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000: Hello, to clarify, this was not a decision made unilaterally by Martin Urbanec. This was a decision made by the Election Committee (comprised of 6 stewards) and communicated for the committee by Martin. On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a decision from ElectCom, Martin still poorly handled it. There are far better ways to handle that situation than what happened here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the response Martin Urbanec gave to the discussion SHB2000 links as fair, and would indeed agree it is not the behaviour I would expect from a steward, but in my mind it is not quite worth removing over. --Ferien (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No-brainer - talented steward, excellent technical and vandal fighting skills. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prodraxis (talk)
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My opinion mirrors that of Ferien - I'm not going to vote remove over a single disagreement. Leaderboard (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one incident does not cancel out a volume of work. HouseBlaster (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sohom (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :) —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 22:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not removing after a single incident. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferien--Tmv (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bjelica (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, helpful and telented, active in every area. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Membership in the chapter board, which probably violates the Code of Conduct, doesn't show knowledge of Wikimedia principles. Thus, such a person should not hold a steward flag. Juandev (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Besides chapter membership being irrelevant here, Juandev neglected to disclose they are in long-standing conflict with the WMCZ chapter.) Ijon (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maksim L. (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 10:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good working. -- Karelj (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Drummingman (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --94rain ^Talk 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Squasher (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wordsmith (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the best Martins on the steward team ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very valuable steward. --Sîmbotin (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course! --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grande conhecimento técnico, é proativo e possui capacidade de interagir positivamente com os demais.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I owe him about 3/4 of my work this year. I think I'm the one who bothers him the most during the day. But his comprehensive knowledge of the wiki world, from the most subtle technicalities to small-wiki issues and older discussions and policies, makes him a great steward. Without him many things would not work as they should imho. Thanks for your commitment on wiki! --Superpes15 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not convinced by oppose votes. — Jules* ^talk 12:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, I honestly don't see the problem. --Borschts^Talk 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure! Kizule (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

masti[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: pl-N, en-4, de-3, ru-2, several European -1
Personal info: I am keeping my work in cross wiki vandalism mainly concentrating on Long Term Abusers and crosswiki spambots. I am easily available on stewards IRC so can react quickly on the incoming requests. I think I will be able to keep with at least same level of activity in the coming year.

Comments about masti[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mehman 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Smat (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only had good experiences, and always quick on IRC. EPIC (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am aware of the concerns. They are of course valid, and I understand them. However, I am happy that Masti has responded, and I am satisfied enough with his response. Considering this, and that Masti is overall an active steward, I don't think it's worth losing him over this if he has learned from his mistakes. Thus, my keep vote remains. EPIC (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good acting steward. JrandWP (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep always quick to answer my IRC requests :P --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will reconsider my keep vote if Masti doesn't address these concerns soon, although I'd rather voters were more consistent with stewards with communication issues. (Note Tks4Fish was confirmed in 2023 and Tegel looks to be reconfirmed in 2024...) --Ferien (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction I see between masti and Tegel is that for Tegel it seems to be a one-off incident from last confirmation period (no double jeopardy!) and Tegel has responded to more recent talk messages whereas Masti hasn't responded to any since July. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove until I see a response. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see a response to 1234qwer1234qwer4's comments - the last 8 months of talk page queries have been left unanswered which can be a serious problem. Leaderboard (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- see my answer Special:Diff/26171728 masti <talk> 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masti:, I appreciate your response, but I don't get the gist of your answer. @1234qwer1234qwer4: basically asked "did you made a mistake", a few other users weighed in with their opinion, and you're basically asking "why does it matter", months after the query was raised? Maybe I'm missing something... Note that it's OK to make mistakes, but I'm not sure the response was appropriate. Leaderboard (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Locks are for protecting the projects. So even if it was more than minimum necessary it did serve a purpose. And a question looks like a rhetoric one or a comment. masti <talk> 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if "a question looks like a comment", you think you don't need to reply to it? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but right. I should pay more attention to answering to clarify things which I maybe misandertood. masti <talk> 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I replied back, though I can't say I'm convinced to change my vote yet. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sorry, but not responding to talk page queries is a dealbreaker IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Leaving users on red is a massive red flag. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove needs to be more responsive. Ingenuity (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A productive Steward, but the lack of responses is a bit concerning. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning remove. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Being interactive is one of the fundamental things required of stewards. --Tmv (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Fenikals (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, good work and helpful with quick actions on IRC but lack of responces for months is indeed concerning. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – tsca (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Juandev (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maksim L. (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Not responding. Per above. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --valcio ••• 09:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A generally helpful Steward, and even as my activity has declined on Wikimedia in general, I can only recollect good experiences when I think of Masti. That said, 1234qwer's comment above gave me some pause - the incident mentioned clearly does not look good, especially as communication and accountability are of paramount importance for a Steward. On the other hand, a look through Masti's talk page and contributions on plwiki suggests to me that they have generally been responding to talk page comments there, even if at times in the rather nonstandard way of going over to the talk page of the original poster (example). As problematic as the non-answering of 1234qwer's concerns here (for months, too) is, I find it difficult to establish that this is a general problem with Masti, moreso due to my interactions with them being generally positive. I hope that a recurrence shall not be seen. Keep. Java Hurricane 11:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lvova (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far Neutral but communication skills I see here User talk:Masti definitely need improvement. Not responding to queries from various LTAs that they made while evading another block is one thing but not responding to fellow stewards? Not responding to legitimate questions? That is not ok to do. Meiræ 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove with regret. Communication is key, and it should not take opposition in a reconfirmation to get a response to basic accountability questions. Nor should people need to go to plwiki to get a response. HouseBlaster (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — IRC = completely irrelevant, and accountability is fundamental. ——SerialNumber54129 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Masti's explanation for not responding. Just removing based on one incident of long nonresponse while keeping someone who had globally locked a user for a month doesn't seem right to me. None of this means you'll have to go to plwiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like an isolated incident to me. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's a good place to post my opinion or if I even have formal rights to do it, but nah... it might just be reversed or <del>'ed. A few days ago he has made a really nasty provocation with admin votimg procedure by putting the candidate with provocative note. More details are on his Polish discussion page: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Masti and here: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Przyznawanie_uprawnie%C5%84/Hoa_binh/3 (if you can read Polish or if you wish to use automated translator) Karol739 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

providing the opportunity to a user that has all necessary knowledge to be able to do things he is complaining that admins do not do is not nasty. This was a fully valid adminship voting. He did not wanted to [participated. It is his choice. PS: here we discuss my work as Steward not polish wiki user. masti <talk> 17:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, anyone can comment here because the stewards make the final decision anyway. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isolated incident Seawolf35 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ptjackyll (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Definitely does good steward work, but should be more responsive to queries. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thibaut (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kggucwa (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Being unresponsive is a problem, and not appearing to get why it's a problem is even more of a problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Szoltys (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Kadı Message 13:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NiktWażny (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duży Bartek (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Active and helpful on IRC, but should be more responsive onwiki too.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) good work/bad responsivity[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work at locking LTA accounts. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 14:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that this person has made a reasonable effort to resolve the concern made by 1234qwer1234qwer and the lack of a precedent (as far as I'm aware), I think we can make do with an admonishment in this case. Leaderboard (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It is important that stewards are responsive to concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though communication breakdown that everyone talks about is not ideal, I see it as a standalone incident. Masti helps in many areas and it would not be foe anyones advantage to lose such a steward.--reNVoy (user talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revsson (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Radagast13 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove not responding for ~6 months is not appropiate in my view, and given the section immedately below the one referenced above this doesn't actually seem as isolated of a problem as suggested above. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joee (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archiwald (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, many remove/neutral votes... --Wolverène (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep odder (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong expertise with LTAs. The communication skills of the steward could use some tweaking, but I don't think that they alone deserve to take away the tools. I fully recommend keeping Masti as steward, movement greatly benefits from his work. Nadzik (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Teukros (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boston9 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nadzik though on the weak side. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Taivo (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AramilFeraxa (Write to me!) 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to being nonresponsive --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, concerns with communication -Fastily 22:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am assuming that the incident pointed above is not recurrent and, hopefully, Masti will be responsive to the ones that addresses relevant questions.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jamnik z Tarnowa (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supporter of administration on szl.wiki, helpful many times Krol111 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Masti is doing a good job. I'm sure they won't have a similar problem again. It also sometimes happens to me that I don't see or am unable to reply to messages, but when it comes to my actions it's important to remember to do so, but being an isolated case it's not problematic imho! --Superpes15 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove jdx ^Re: 10:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --DannyS712 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't want to feel people voting remove unheard, I personally see only a small issue that does not scale all the way to a need for removal. Most of the messages Masti has not replied are just mass-notification, I don't really see what one was supposed to reply to those. He did miss a couple of inquiries where his answer was indeed needed, but to be honest that is a normal although unfortunate thing when something like this happens occasionally, and unless we see a long term pattern and lack of willingness to amend it, I do not see a reason for rights removal. --Base (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may times of help on IRC. Thanks. --M/ (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zala (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola7[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: uk-N, en-2, de-1, pl-1, ru-4.
Personal info: Hello all! 2023 is my first year as a steward, and I'm honored to be here for the first time. During last year I was actively dealing with stewards work. Mostly focused on SRG, SRGP, SRP, anti-vandalism and various other areas from time to time. I would be happy to serve another year as a steward for the community. Thank you for your attention. --❄️Mykola❄️ 08:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Mykola7[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Telaneo (User talk page) 14:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great first year as steward. --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems OK. --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a first year well served! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Летний снеговик в обличии совы, и чё там дальше? Keep ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – tsca (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Megitsune-chan 💬 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Пан Хаунд (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maksim L. (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lvova (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rampion (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 00:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HarleyQuinn❤️ (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Юрко Градовський (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Silverije 22:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Squasher (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep odder (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see, that both opposers are Russians opposing an Ukrainian steward. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind retracting your conclusions based on racist "evidence", which by the way is not even true (as you would have been able to tell if you had taken the (very) short time to check both users' global account information as a bare minimum)? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree with Taivo. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- dima_st_bk 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Its the second elections/voting process they take part in as a member of the electoral committee or vote scrutinizer on Meta in which I see some flaws. In the UCOC voting process I was also thanked for adverting on the bug. In this elections I had the question on a steward action removed, and I wanted an explanation but they don't reply at their talk page. That's ok for a regular editor, but from a steward (in an electoral committee) I expect a bit more.12:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradise Chronicle (talk) [reply]
At this time, Superpes15 replied to you on your talk page. I see no point in repeating what he said. ❄️Mykola❄️ 12:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thank you for this first year! We are "growing" and improving together and you are a faithful fellow steward --Superpes15 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, · ^מקףHyphen_෴ · 01:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure.--Borschts^Talk 02:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadiX[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hi, everyone! This is my ninth confirmation as a steward, and I'm so honored to be part of this team for all this long :) As a steward, I am mostly focused on dealing with LTA and cross-wiki abuse/vandalism/spam, but also have a bit of action in other areas such as user rights management and account renaming, the management of the private CU wiki/list etc. I am also aware of how many LTAs and cross-wiki trolls behave and some maintenance tasks. I went on hiatus in the middle of last year due to job and address changes, but I've been back on track since October, handling daily requests or emergencies. :) So I am interested in continuing serving as a steward for one more year, if I can count on your support, of course :)

Comments about RadiX[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems. JrandWP (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work! ;)--Tmv (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep² ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for still being here to help --Superpes15 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CasteloBranco^msg 19:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks. — Jules* ^talk 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakretsu[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: it, en-3, ja-2
Personal info: fourth term completed and damn, I feel already old... :-) As usual, I was worried I hadn't been that much active this year, yet it appears I have done around the same amount of actions of 2022. I have no clue how I found time to do this many actions again. "It ain't much but it's honest work", as the meme goes :-)) I'm doing the same things I did throughout my first three years as a steward. So in sum I'm continuing to help fight abuse (with a special focus on SRG) and support the community as much as I can. Sometimes users reach out to me via email or on-wiki because they're affected by one of my rangeblocks, and I still address these kinds of issues quickly enough, I think. Due to time constraints, I've given up on chatting on IRC altogether for now, including the steward channel. On that note, I'd like to take this opportunity to give my best wishes to all former stewards that resigned this year. I really appreciated your work and I was sad to see you go. I also want to thank everyone for the trust you have given me so far. I serve the community in my steward capacity for the sole purpose of helping out, and the same goes for my activity in the capacity of sysop and CU on my homewiki. If the community still trusts me, I'll be happy to see what I can do in the next term.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 16:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Sakretsu[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you. --Titore (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Torsolo (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just wait til you're looking back at your original election page and see it was ten years ago... :S – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sakretsu, your actions and communications around the Gitz6666 case (where, following a dispute on your home wiki, you globally locked an editor including on other projects where they had been very active, with a rationale that many have questioned) were highly problematic. Back then I explained in detail why I considered your answer to a question about the lock's rationale to be very weird coming from a steward in your situation, and how your action raised some serious questions with regard to Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest, Stewards policy#Check local policies and en:Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards. I never got a response from you, nor am I aware of other subsequent statements by you addressing these points (feel free to let me know in case I overlooked them). - I do want to acknowledge that your highly problematic action was reverted on appeal (after it drew the attention of other stewards), and that you announced this reversal yourself. However, I didn't see any apology or other statements by you suitable for assuring the English Wikipedia community and other non-itwiki projects that similar transgressions on your part won't happen again in the future. It also feels quite disingenuous that you leave out this high-profile incident (which received media attention and lots of community discussion) from your wordy reflections about the past year etc. in your confirmation statement above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never hesitated to further explain my rationale to fellow stewards and other functionaries that had signed the confidentiality agreement - to the best of my knowledge, my actions around this case were not deemed abusive. An appeal was accepted a month later, and that was the end of it. It's true that itwiki is my homewiki, but that doesn't necessarily mean I had a conflict of interest in this particular situation. I wasn't involved in any editorial dispute on itwiki. I didn't override any local consensus. In fact, the itwiki community can revert/contest any actions I do whenever they want. Just like the global community, global functionaries in particular, can do the same with the actions I do as a steward. I'm well aware that I'm not a superuser. But of course, no problem for me if anyone decides to oppose my confirmation for any reason. Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never hesitated to further explain my rationale to fellow stewards and other functionaries - that seems to be another way of saying that you did not see it necessary to do so to non-functionaries, i.e. the Wikimedia community as a whole. Which is quite consistent with the impression left by this comment (your single contribution to that mid-2023 Signpost discussion), where you dismissed such questions with a curt My lock is not based on a convenient TL;DR while stressing that I'm pretty busy these days [...] (although in the same post you did find the time to speculate about other aspects of the issue that you were - by your own admission - not familiar with, and to defend past actions of other itwiki admins).

It's only now that your steward confirmation hangs in the balance that you finally start providing some of these answers (below, and IMHO raise additional questions and concerns). - This very much gives the impression of a steward who does not feel accountable to the global community for his actions, and is only motivated to publicly address concerns about his use of the rights that this community entrusted him with when it seems necessary to get something he wants (here, a confirmation as steward).

I didn't override any local consensus. In fact, the itwiki community can revert/contest any actions I do whenever they want - that's a rather strange logic. Neither the itwiki community nor any other project community had the ability to revert your global lock. And whatever his other failings may be, on the English Wikipedia, Gitz6666 was and is an editor with an empty block log, with over 7000 edits since 2015. So obviously the enwiki administrators had not come to the same conclusions as your itwiki admin colleagues, but your steward action removed them of their agency in that matter.

Since you still have not addressed several points raised in my above linked comment from June 20, 2023, I'll reiterate one question here. The page Global locks says the following:
Reasons to request a global lock
The below reasons are not community-approved policy. Usually, global locks happen in clear-cut situations; in more complex cases, stewards may decide whether to impose or lift global locks in a case-by-case basis.
[...]
Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them.
[...]
(my bolding)

Can you confirm that this was the reason that your global lock was based on? (I don't see how the other bullet points in that list could be relevant here, but happy to be corrected.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I don't feel accountable to the community for my actions. Everything was still unfolding at the time, and I couldn't keep up with that discussion as well. One of the main differences now is that I can focus on publicly addressing concerns alone, which is still not exactly easy for me since I'm trying not to cause misunderstandings in English. To answer your question, in my view that was the relevant bullet point in that list. Sakretsu (炸裂) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakretsu was right about Gitz. As we say in Italy, time is a gentleman. --Pequod76^(talk) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Friniate (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Stewards can do great work, but they need to be able to know when to step back on activities that involve their home wikis in their capacities as Steward. To this day, I have not seen a satisfactory explanation of the way the Gitz case was handled, nor have I seen satisfactory apologies made about it. It was a bad global lock that was overturned, and it essentially kept one of the communities on which Gitz was quite active (the English Wikipedia) completely blindsided. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grazie. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without any comments on whether the reason to lock was valid or not, I agree with Red-tailed hawk that they shouldn't have acted in the first place because of home-wiki rule, but not a significant reason to not keep (atleast for me), they have done good work otherwise. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)and[reply]
Remove Loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz6666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN 466 22:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great steward. I agree with CptViraj's comment. --valcio ••• 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Spinoziano (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — per User:HaeB ——SerialNumber54129 18:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Haeb and Hawk. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to know how Sakretsu interprets "home wiki" in the Stewards policy. Is itwiki one of them? Above I read "It's true that itwiki is my homewiki", but the stated reason for using steward buttons to intervene on an itwiki matter does not seem to be one of those allowed by the policy ("clear-cut cases (such as self-requested removal) or emergencies"). Nemo 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Andreas JN 466 07:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy speaks about "actions taken on the home-wiki". But no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu, Gitz was blocked before and has remained blocked after. You could talk about the oppotunity of having a steward from a specific home-wiki blocking another user from that home-wiki in other wikis, but not of an infringement of the policy.--Friniate (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sakretsu actually took an action on it.wiki in their capacity as it.wiki admin: they blocked me indefinitely [1]. So I don't understand your comment, @Friniate, no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu. If I'm not mistaken, however, the point is different. By globally locking me, Sakretsu changed my rights (e.g., I couldn't be unblocked by another it.wiki admin, I couldn't log in and receive notifications, etc.) and they did so in their home wiki and in a case that was not "clear-cut" or "emergency". If that is so, then they had a conflict of interest as defined by steward policy [2]. But let's hear from Sakretsu on this. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely true, you should provide the complete blocklog, Sakretsu did not block you indef, you were already blocked indef from the 23rd of May. --Civvì (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you perfectly know, Sakretsu simply changed the rationale, he did not "block you indefenitely". And he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity, accountable to the it.wiki community. He did not use his role as a steward to influence the internal dynamics of his home-wiki, that's what it matters to the policy. Then of course, everyone can have different opinions if something, although allowed by the policy, is also appropriate.--Friniate (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu" seems to contradict "he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity" Levivich (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had forgotten the change of rationale otherwise, I would have specified "no action was taken by Sakretsu on it.wiki as a steward". It doesn't change the core of what I was saying anyway, Sakretsu did not alter Gitz rights on it.wiki, he was blocked before the glock and has remained blocked thereafter (and by the way, it seems rather obvious that the policy doesn't forbid Sakretsu to take actions as an admin on it.wiki, otherwise we would require every steward to step down as a local admin...).--Friniate (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I have misunderstood but as I understand it the sequence of events is this:
As at itwiki admin, Sakretsu blocked Gitz

Later, as a steward, Sakretsu globally blocked Gitz

BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Nemo. Yes, I can confirm itwiki is my homewiki. To further answer your question I'll also say that I don't think locks fall into the definition of "changing rights" (see User rights management). All Wikimedia wikis can ask stewards for user right changes, and in that case the possible COI that I see would be to use the steward flag in order to act as a bureaucrat on one's homewiki without going through a local election, for example. Locking an account does not change user rights but rather prevents access to it on all wikis. It's one of the technical functions that only stewards have. Of course the policy says "avoid conflicts of interest" which is a broad concept that can be applied to locks too. However, I didn't make a lock as another way to (say) block a user on my homewiki. As has been said, I locked a user who had already been blocked by someone else on itwiki in accordance with community consensus. The lock reason was also different to the local block reason. Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lock reason still concerned a local, it.wiki dispute though. Only Italian users were involved. Andreas JN 466 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether globally blocking an editor is changing their rights, why did you think it was a good idea to use your position as a steward to take action against an editor in a dispute you were already involved in through your position as an itwiki admin?

This wasn’t an urgent or obvious case; shouldn’t you have left it for one of your colleagues to address? BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the glock complied with Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest or Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock. What turned this from a local dispute on one wiki, into a cross-wiki dispute, was the glock. That sort of escalation is the exact opposite of what I'd expect from a steward: stewards should be putting fires out, not spreading them from their homewiki to other wikis. Levivich (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer, Sakretsu. If a lock is subject to lower standards than a change of local user rights, I consider that a puzzling outcome. Most changes to local user rights can be reversed locally, while a lock is pretty much final. Had it not been for press interest, we would probably never have learned that the English Wikipedia community didn't quite agree with the lock. Further, the lock made it effectively impossible to reverse the local block: with knowledge of the local community, you may have correctly assessed that the block was unlikely to be reversed anyway, but I wonder if a steward's job really includes predicting outcomes of local block appeals on their homewiki.

My personal opinion is that the lock was definitely and obviously a case of conflict of interest, but the policy provides an exception under which such an action would be permissible: an emergency. I was convinced at the time that you had determined there was an emergency. However you're not claiming it was, so I'm really confused. If it had been an emergency decision, there would have been ways to remedy it (for example, asking an uninvolved steward to look at the evidence and "take over" the lock). Do you intend to continue locking users in such circumstances even without an emergency rationale? Nemo 07:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo what I meant to say with my previous reply is that because a lock is a different kind of action it can have different implicatures. I didn't mean to say that a lock is subject to lower standards than a change of local user rights. On the contrary, from the perspective of local standards I believe that when I made that lock I was completely uninvolved with the itwiki dispute according to enwiki policies too, but I still agree with BilledMammal that it would have been better if I had left the Gitz6666 case to fellow stewards. That would have avoided confusion and doubt over my role in the case. Given that we're talking about a steward action that most other itwiki admins could not revert, I can see where you're coming from with your arguments and I understand your concerns. The fact is, I don't think a steward's lock is pretty much final at all (stewards don't have such power) nor is a steward's job to predict the outcomes of local appeals on not only their homewikis but also any other wiki. It's always been possible for stewards to receive unlock requests. Just like fellow stewards did review my actions in this case without any interference from me, they could have handled an unlock request following a positive outcome of a local appeal on itwiki. This is just to further explain why I don't feel like I had a COI when I made that lock (sorry for being lengthy), but my answer to your question is still no, I don't want my actions to be controversial, I don't mean to dismiss concerns from other users, and as such I do not intend to do that again. Hopefully I'll not see another case like this on any wiki. Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ilario (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confused about why home wiki rules didn't stop Sakretsu from being the one to do the ban. However, even if he was wrong that is a single event that does not suggest he cannot continue good work as a steward. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I have some questions for Sakretsu. My apologies if some of these have been asked and answered elsewhere, but I think it would be helpful to have a brief summary here for the assistance of voters.
- Like HaeB, I find it puzzling that you didn't mention the Gitz6666 case in your request for confirmation as it seems like something that ought to be considered by any voter. Could you please explain this omission?
- Gitz6666's block log is certainly complex, and there have been many hands in it. Could you please explain your action of 2023-06-09T17:07:55?
- Regarding the same block log, I note that three of the actions have had the username removed. This seems like an extraordinary action, as admins are usually expected to stand behind their actions, so I'm not sure what would justify this. Not only is it concealed who performed these administrative actions, but it is also unclear who made the concealments. Can you tell us who made these concealments and why? What is the relevant policy that governs such actions?
- On 2023-06-09T16:11:56 you globally locked Gitz6666's account for "violation of the UCoC, threatening and intimidating behaviour". Obviously you cannot reveal private information, but can you please briefly explain what the basis was for this action?
- On 2023-06-09T16:11:56 you unlocked the account ("appeal accepted"). Do you still believe that the original locking was a correct steward action based on the information available at the time?

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bovlb, thank you for your questions. I'll try to answer them although it's been eight months since the Gitz6666 case occurred and I don't quite remember all the details.

I'm indeed accountable for the actions I did back then, and I agree with you that they're something that should be considered. However, the Gitz6666 case mainly involved other people's private lives, and it makes me feel uneasy to bring up topics like this in public space. Other users are free to do that, it's just not gonna be me the one that does it. I wouldn't do that so as to put myself in a better position to hold onto my steward hat either. That's not what matters to me.
It was an action that I did on my own initiative in my sysop capacity on itwiki. Since the block in question was getting media attention, I restored the original block reason thinking it would be much more comprehensible to all users and readers. It was also an attempt to shift media attention away from the sysop that was being targeted/harassed for simply having issued a block in accordance with community consensus.
The user that did those actions was the sysop that would later be targeted by media. They resigned when I was still unaware of what was going on. After they got renamed, I made the concealments on my own initiative as part of my attempts to shift attention away from their account and their private life.
It all started with a series of email exchanges in Italian revealing background details on all the actors involved in the case and their interactions/relationships. I was neither the sender nor the recipient of those emails. I read them and considered them to be concerning enough to warrant a lock. More private information that came later made the case even more complex. I'm not going to pretend that I handled this case as flawless as it could be, but my sole intention was to protect the users. I didn't interfere with the rest of the steward team and anyone else reviewing my actions. I didn't have anything to hide, for that matter.
My personal opinion is that it was, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do anything differently if I could go back in time. I haven't changed my mind that what happened was very concerning, if that's what you want to know. I believe the movement should have someone that can make a fair and informed decision in such situations where it's not possible to start a global RfC and thus it's not possible to let the global community decide. It goes without saying that that someone doesn't need to be me, nor I want to impose decisions on the community.

I hope the above makes sense.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Maybe I'm wrong, my my perception is that this was the most controversial and highly-publicized steward action of the year, hence my surprise that you chose not to mention it.

If I might ask one more question: What have you perssonally learnt from the Gitz incident that will change the way you perform steward duties going forward? Bovlb (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be more cautious since then as I obviously don't want my actions to make situations worse, let alone situations that are this delicate. There's no doubt I underestimated the complexity of the Gitz6666 case, and in hindsight I should have assessed the situation better and should have consulted fellow stewards as early as possible, before doing any actions. I'm sure that would have helped a lot despite the steward team is not an arbcom or some sort of body that makes decisions. There are many competent stewards that can deal with such cases way better than me anyway. I also didn't realize at the time that there might be concerns over my homewiki being itwiki. When I did that action I was caught up in work, and I think that's another mistake I should note to myself.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stïnger, ValterVB, EPIC, JrandWP, Titore, Prodraxis, V0lkanic, Superspritz, Torsolo, Ajraddatz, Atlante, Novak Watchmen, Ruthven, Pppery, SHB2000, 9Aaron3, and Bramfab: Please forgive the mass ping, but I have a couple of questions for you. Being a steward is usually a fairly boring job: There is generally little after-action discussion, and actions are seldom reversed. In the Gitz affair, we had a steward action that proved to be extremely controversial, generating a lot of discussion, including coverage in the national press and an article in the ENWP Signpost, and subsequently being reversed. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter, it seems to me that this affair is materially relevant to any consideration of Sakretsu for reconfirmation as steward, yet they chose to omit any mention of it, and it was not raised here until after your vote. My question for you is: Were you aware of this matter when you voted? If not, would knowing about either the affair itself or Sakretsu's choice to conceal it have affected your deliberation? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ero al corrente della situazione e non ho riscontrato problemi tali da inficiare le riconferme. (I was aware of the situation and did not see any problems that would invalidate the reconfirmations.) ValterVB (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in national press (5 June) was not about Sakretsu's lock (9 June) but it was about the user who blocked Gitz6666 on 23 May. The disclosure on the newspaper of this admins personal data and workplace caused them issues in RL, for this reason, as an extraordinary action, their username was removed from the log. --Civvì (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiedo scusa ma scrivo nella mia lingua...

Bovlb non capisco proprio di cosa stai parlando e ancor meno perché chiedi conto a me. Per dare un'attestazione di stima bisogna conoscere quello di cui parli, altrimenti il voto non è valido? Se è così mi scuso, altrimenti gradirei non essere chiamato in causa solo per soddisfare curiosità di cui non capisco l'utilità. Spero ti possa bastare Torsolo (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been aware of the case prior to voting but am up to date now. Overall I think the communications around the lock are not ideal, nor is the fact that this was handled entirely by stewards from itwiki. But I also see that this is one case among thousands of actions between the two stewards involved this year, and the motivations seem to be good (preventing harassment). I also don't think that this was intentionally withheld by Sakretsu; honestly as a steward it's pretty common for a few actions to be controversial over the year - it's not always clear which actions will stay in the memory enough to generate opposition at the confirmation, and I think it is safe to assume good faith in this case. So still in the keep camp at this point, though also following the discussion and I think the remove reasons are valid concerns. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

honestly as a steward it's pretty common for a few actions to be controversial over the year - I'm not aware of any other steward action this past year which reached even remotely this level of controversy; do you happen to have some examples? How many other steward actions were repealed last year? (The Wikimedia Stewards User Group annual report doesn't seem to contain that information.)

And I do not buy the argument that a case of misuse or questionable use of the steward tools should be outweighed by thousands of actions that were uncontroversial, i.e. that an abusive steward should be able to avert consequences by racking up a high enough number of routine, non-abusive actions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking only of my own experience, though the mistakes I made as a steward were more along the lines of "oops, I had 20 contributions pages open and blocked the user on the wrong wiki" rather than conflict of interest/inappropriate intentional use of the lock button. Your point is well taken - I do think that this was an instance of a bad lock (setting aside the COI issues, I don't think global locks should be used on users who are in good standing on other projects except in the rarest of circumstances), but Sakretsu later reversed their action and admitted their fault. I definitely don't think that we should have tolerance for abusive stewards who make some good contributions; I am just not sure if this one case rises to the level of abuse. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: Could you please point to where Sakretsu "admitted their fault"? The latest we have is here, where in answer to the question "Do you still believe that the original locking was a correct steward action based on the information available at the time?" they responded "My personal opinion is that it was, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do anything differently if I could go back in time." Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, this lock was not handled entirely by itwiki stewards. There was significant internal discussion, and uninvolved stewards handled the appeal. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty clear that when Ajraddatz wrote that this was handled entirely by stewards from itwiki, they were referring to the global lock action itself and the decisionmaking process that lead to it, perhaps also the initial fielding of public community questions about the action (on the Signpost talk page and other talk pages) - not the appeals process. Do you agree with Ajraddatz that this was not ideal, or are you saying that itwiki stewards deciding on such a global lock by themselves in this situation was just fine?

But thanks anyway for clarifying just in case and for confirming that [t]here was significant internal discussion (I had conjectured as much [3], but it's good to hear it confirmed).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was not ideal; I was not aware of this case until after the user had been locked and concerns were raised. In general, when a likely-controversial action is to be taken, it's best to discuss it beforehand with uninvolved stewards. Though this is a process where all actions are technically that of an individual (unlike an arbcom), controversial actions are optimally done with group agreement.

I will note that this was an exceptionally complicated case, mired in uncertainty. Fortunately, further analysis of evidence and Gitz's appeals were sufficient to assuage concerns and result in an unlock. Though I of course cannot discuss specifics about our internal discussions, Sakretsu was open and transparent throughout and supported constructively in collective evaluation of evidence and risks. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Based on Vermont's assurances that the initial glock was not handled exclusively by it.wp stewards,~~ I have decided to stay out of this particular confirmation. SashiRolls (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Your comment above "this lock was not handled entirely by itwiki stewards" appears to be a novel claim that was not made at the time by Sakretsu. Indeed both Sakretsu and Vituzzu appear to have defended the idea that it was reasonable for an itwiki steward acting alone to impose this lock. If this new claim is true, it would completely change the situation. Could you please confirm that you are referring here to a consultation process preceding the lock, and not the subsequent discussion that led to the unlock? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am referring to subsequent discussion and the appeals process, not discussion preceding the lock. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bovlb, in the future, please do not mass-ping commenters like this. We do not want to encourage repeated mass-pings whenever new information is introduced. If commenters are interested in following later discussion, they can add this page to their watchlist. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Thank you for the feedback. I thought hard before making a mass ping and decided that in these special circumstances it was an appropriate course of action. A steward seeking reconfirmation drafted a summary of their activity over the last year that failed to mention their involvement in what was arguably the most controversial steward action of the year. This is not mere new information, but seems like an astounding omission. I don't want to throw out accusations recklessly, but since you are questioning my action here, I will share that I am concerned that this omission might rise to the level of seeking reconfirmation under false pretenses, and I wanted to gauge the extent to which it might have affected voting. In order to form a better sense of that, I asked the questions above of those who voted before the matter was mentioned. Since you feel this was inappropriate, please help me see the flaw in my thinking here. Of those I pinged, only one (Torsolo) appears to object to the ping, and I have the impression that they simply failed to understand my question and somehow thought I was accusing them of something. Stewards ought to be accountable to the community, but in practice these reconfirmation votes/discussions are the only opportunity we have to do so. Given that, it's important that they are effective in that role. Bovlb (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional context, that makes sense. I don't think it warrants the mass ping, but I understand your thoughts behind it. Note that confirmations are not a pure vote - it depends on the concerns raised, the arguments made, and the resulting discussion, which is eventually reviewed by other stewards. How the discussion changed after new information was introduced is part of what we review. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral After much consideration (and annoying others with my many questions), I have decided that I have no objection to this reconfirmation. I do not expect humans to be perfect. What matters to me, in someone trusted with advanced permissions, is how they handle the possibility of error. I still don't know what happened in the Gitz affair. I don't think Gitz is 100% innocent. I don't think Sakretsu acted perfectly. Sakretsu says that the global lock was the right call, given the information available at the time, but was not done in the best way. I think some reasonable doubt has been cast on that claim, but I don't have enough information to form a clear judgement one way or the other. I still think that it was a poor choice for Sakretsu to omit this incident from their summary of the year, but the privacy argument has some merit. I do see that Sakretsu was willing to accept feedback, consult with others, and reverse themselves. I also see that they want to learn from this experience how to do better in the future. Some days, that's all you can ask. Bovlb (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I was aware of the affair and certainly more than you (for example, the press coverage was a single article that did not produce any echo worthy of relevance). It was a complex affair, of which not everything is clear to me, and could potentially be framed in the context of attempts to pollute those encyclopedia contents related to the war in Ukraine. For example, I would like to have the detail that I have just indicated in Vituzzo's reconfirmation clarified.--Bramfab (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to notice this ping. The answer is no - I do not entirely know what has happened, and I want to hear both sides of the story in this case. EPIC (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: «It all started with a series of email exchanges in Italian revealing background details on all the actors involved in the case and their interactions/relationships. I was neither the sender nor the recipient of those emails.» So where did this happen? Did the global lock arise from a discussion in a mailing list or something? Nemo 07:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: Yes, I was and I am fully aware of the whole "Gitz affair", including many details that did not come up in this discussion and that keep me firmly convinced that Sakretsu operated correctly and adequately facing this situation. By the way, things did not happen as per Gitz reporting both in Signpost and in this thread (including Vituzzu confirm). I assume good faith on those who believed blindly in his version of facts, just because they are not aware of the full history and of the full details, that would put Gitz in a total different light. He's everything but a victim. And based on your question, I guess you too are not aware of the full picture (and I never saw you involved in this on it.wiki). I also add another point: I am used to vote every time there is a confirmation or a steward election, so for me it was normal to vote also this year and this time (and I expressed myself not only on stewards coming from it.wiki, as Check User I know also other of them and I am in the position to express my opinion based on sound knowledge). For me, voting here is "business as usual".

@Nemo bis: the global lock is outside the scope of it.wiki admins. Gitz was blocked indefinitely on it.wiki because he missed to accomplish the commitment he took publicly with the it.wiki community when he was unblocked. For the global lock, you have to ask stewards, it.wiki sysop are out of this part of the history.--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: yes, I was aware about the matter and I found no reason to deny confidence to Sakretsu; also in relation to what he wrote in replying to you. --9Aaron3 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bovlb: I undestand your rationale a little better now, but I must say the mass pings did make me raise an eyebrow. Yes, I was aware of the lock, yet I think it was solely done to protect the Wikimedia movement and its users, so no loss of confidence from me whatsoever. I do realize it can be seen as controversial, but I think by now the following answers by Sakretsu shed some light on the matter. Titore (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seawolf35 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great steward, thank you for your work. --Er Cicero (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - εΔ ω 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I think that this user's actions and comments related to the global lock of the user discussed above by multiple voters fell short of the standard we should expect from someone who holds advanced permissions. Hatman31 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on fact-checking Gitz on other topics Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove —per User:HaeB and Red-tailed hawk. Loss of trust... --Silverije 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Borgil (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precious user, he knows how to handle technical issues --Mastrocom </> void ClickToInbox(); 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Red-tailed Hawk, et al. LindsayH (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, pending reply to above questions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the replies to the above questions, I'm still neutral on this confirmation; they addressed some of my concerns to the extent that I don't actively oppose this confirmation, but not strongly enough to convince me to support it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though hesitant --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Redtail hawk. Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per HaeB and failure to respect the principles of avoiding conflicts of interest. Daniel (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I've lost confidence in this steward per the concerns expressed above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Zangala (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. --Wolverène (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per others. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still have great respect for Sakretsu for their handlings of matters related to Croatian Wikipedia 3 years ago. I don't think one mistake should (or even can) define Sakretsu's tenure as a steward; it's not a pattern. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lesson was learned. No doubt from me on the future activity of Sakretsu as steward. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on promise that the same mistake is not going to happen again. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Titore --Fresh Blood (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems straightforward compared to Vituzzu's case. All I'm seeing is a mistake... and that's it? Leaderboard (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question: (apologies for the long comment: it's my first and possibly last opportunity to address the glocking steward) Sakretsu, I didn't vote for your removal because I don't doubt your good faith and competence. Mistakes happen, your workload is heavy, we should be wary of removing you for a single mistake. Besides, if stewards are always removed when appeals against their actions are accepted, it will become increasingly difficult for the steward team to accept appeals. I also appreciated your answers here. Acknowledging one's mistakes is often sufficient for the purposes of accountability: mistakes will not be repeated by you or others with a sense of impunity or entitlement. I have a few questions, though, which might turn my non-vote into a convinced "keep".

I understand your mistake to be twofold: escalating a purely domestic dispute of your home wiki to the global level despite the lack of cross-wiki disruption, and failing to consult the non-it.wiki stewards beforehand, or better still, failing to let them take the action. Do you agree with this summary?
You mentioned earlier that a global RfC was not possible. When I was glocked, I was sure that the reason was the accusation of doxing based on the fact that I have leaked diffs that were then shared with the press (and perhaps others) thus provoking public scrutiny on it.wiki but also harassment and possibly legal action. I did not try to eschew responsibility for this and have always acknowledged my behaviour (e.g., my 8 June email to Parma1983, my 14 and 23 June emails to VRT, re "appeal" and "timeline", and on WO). I understand that this behaviour makes me incompatible with it.wiki (which is obvious), and in principle it could also make me incompatible with any WMF project. But on this there is room for disagreement, a meaningful RfC where I explain my reasons and document admin abuse could not be ruled out. However, Vituzzu in his confirmation explained the reasons for the global lock differently: the first one was the report that you were responsible of an off-wiki threat to the blocking admin (...). The second reason was an email you sent about another admin whom you considerd to be acting in COI. I've never had such idiotic and nasty behaviour, and an RfC on these "purely factual" accusations was clearly pointless. Do you agree with Vituzzu's summary of the case?
My previous question depends on the fact that a broader interpretation of the UCoC on doxing is not impossible. Taken broadly, the ban on sharing information concerning their [contributors'] Wikimedia activity outside the projects could prevent editors from going to the press, and also from sharing their views off-Wiki, posting on blogs, publishing academic reasearch about WP, and the like. As an editor and owner of a blog that routinely describes and criticises on-Wiki behaviour, I'm interested in this issue. So the question for you is: has the issue of interpretation of the UCoC provision on doxing been addressed by you stewards? Were there different views within the steward team? If so, sooner or later the issue will come up for discussion again.
I think some of the complexities of this case (those resulting from my attempt to inform about a second COI unrelated to the Orsini article) would have been avoided if it.wiki bureaucrats Euphydryas and Jaqen had responded to my messages on Meta-Wiki [4][5]. As you know, the steward team on 1 June advised me to try this approach with them. Had the bureaucrats responded, you would have known for sure whether my intention was to threaten and blackmail or to cooperate. To the best of your knowledge, have you or any other steward had any contact with the bureaucrats or other it.wiki admins about this matter? --Gitz6666 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 thank you for assuming good faith and competence. I often doubt my competence myself, but let me see if I can address your questions:

I agree on the second mistake. As for the first one, it's a matter of fact that there are users who see it that way. To me the local dispute was irrelevant instead, and it obviously wasn't my intention to unnecessarily escalate it to the global level. Regardless of who did what, according to my understanding of the global policies the things that happened on the background of this case were the kinds of serious violations that are not acceptable on any Wikimedia project and that therefore inherently constitute the start of a crosswiki issue, i.e. legal actions, harassment, reputational harm, doxing, etc. Despite this, I've still acknowledged above that I should have avoided acting as a steward in a situation involving my homewiki.
I think the case summary doesn't really depend on me and the original reasons behind the lock. I learned about that off-wiki threat and that email after locking your account, but I guess 'the Gitz6666 case' may be summarized in different ways now. Other users may also have other information and/or think that the lock was warranted for additional or different reasons. Anyway, I personally don't see the point in proposing (somehow) a global ban after eight months and in rehashing old things that may further harm the private lives of the users involved. I want to reassure you that when I made that lock I wasn't driven by some vague revenge as you initially thought, in fact I have no interest in persuading anyone that you are incompatible with the movement and I think we should look forward.
No, actually the responsibility for providing a correct interpretation of the UCoC, doxing included, doesn't rest on the steward team.
I haven't delved into that matter too, but I know what you are talking about and I think that, because of your contacts with XXX (that's how you called that person on Vituzzu's confirmation page) and everything that followed, there will always be concerns that you find out more about other users' private lives, despite all the merits that your reports to the community may possibly have.

--Sakretsu (炸裂) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will have to be discussed again. Of course we should talk about your users' problems again.. Although you have admitted your incompatibility with it.wiki, I think you have demonstrated that you are incompatible with any wikimedia project. Last year you only mentioned your version. You mentioned it well, I must admit, but sooner or later the truth always comes out. I won't respond to your replies, I've known you for a long time now.. Kirk39 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have demonstrated that you are incompatible with any wikimedia project: What utter nonsense. Gitz has over 8,000 edits on the English Wikipedia and a clean block log. On the other hand, what I have read from Italian admins in these discussions makes me think that the Italian Wikipedia's admin corps is at least as problematic as the Croatian one was until the WMF stepped in and cleaned house. Andreas JN 466 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of attempts to capture a wikipedia edition and transform it in a tool of a politically oriented propaganda, I guess that the guilty dog barks the loudest...--Friniate (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas please don't talk about other people's nonsense, thank you. Maybe we need to know the facts better. But let's talk about it with you too, given what I'm reading about some user who defended the same one you're defending. Kirk39 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirk39: Sooner or later the truth always comes out. I'd prefer the truth to come out now, so I want it to be known that you are one of the main culprits in the Orsini fiasco on the it.wiki side. For the purposes of accountability on it.wiki (in case anyone is interested) I remind you that from March 2022 to May 2023 you bullied numerous good-faith users on that page, warning and blocking them to prevent any changes to the article you had helped write (e.g., [6][7][8][9] plus several IPs). Your contribution to article writing? Orsini should not be described as a "sociologist" but rather as an "essayist" (saggista) because a pubblicazioni accademiche non c'è quasi nulla di rilevante ("hardly anything relevant in terms of academic publications") (see talk page). Without any prior discussion or clear consensus, you removed a well-argued POV tag (whose rationale can still be read here [10]). You dismissed my BLP objections and restored Orsini's (low) grades in high school and extensive quotes from only negative reviews of his book on the Red Brigades, including the former R.B. militant's blog (deleted diff [11] and [12]). You explained that negative reviews are much more meaningful since positive reviews are just academic chatter while the negative ones are the real thing (deleted diffs). You applied an indefinite block to a newcomer [13] who was making good contributions: they had written a neutral stub on Orsini which you and others draftified and turned into an attack page. You blocked them because they wanted the stub moved to article space, and rightly complained about your rudeness and censorship. [14] This was a blatant administrative abuse, which Vito himself turned into a week-long block on his own initiative [15] (commendable but IMHO still unfair). You complained on Vito's talk page claiming that users who might have been prompted to edit WP by Facebook posts should be indeff'd.[16]

To sum up: when I acknowledge that I'm incompatible with it.wiki, it is also because I'm incompatible with your approach to editing and adminship. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on Orsini now has no relevance (which I certainly didn't write). But I would say that the time is right to review some things about you, Andreas, the admin removed from ArbCom, Dronkle, etc. etc. it is not a steward reappointment. But I'm a little perplexed to read insults like this ( Jun 20, 2023) from one of your biggest defenders even on SignPost. Very perplexed. The most serious fact is what I read just a few days ago on Just Step Sideways, for the simple fact that he is still admin. Kirk39 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove due to using steward powers in response to an issue on their home wiki --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, concerns with judgement -Fastily 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to the inappropriate and out-of-process global lock of Gitz666. I'm not convinced that the lock was at all necessary given that it involved an (alleged) incident that occurred in relation to only one wiki. If a lock was indeed necessary, it should have been performed by a steward whose home wiki was not itwiki after discussion on the stewards' mailing list. That, combined with the lack of accountability or explanation from Sakretsu, convinces me that this editor can no longer be trusted to hold steward permissions. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 19:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sadly, I must fall here. I respect the opinions of the editors in the Support section, but I cannot trust this user as a steward after the Gitz6666 incident. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After thinking it over a bit more and reading the supports, I am not sure that this one incident is enough to remove this user as a steward, especially since the victim supports their continued stewardship. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Preemptively addressing the controversy in the candidate statement would probably have been a good idea, but I'm willing to let this one slide, mostly per Barkeep. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Thank you Sakretsu for your answers to my questions. A brief reply:

On this, I agree with Levivich's comment: the escalation from a local dispute on it.wiki into a cross-wiki dispute is the exact opposite of what I'd expect from a steward: stewards should be putting fires out, not spreading them from their homewiki to other wikis.
This is important and confirms what I've always thought: I was glocked because of the Hypergio/Fatto quotidiano issue. IMHO that was a questionable but reasonable glock on your part (you lacked some information). However, the rationale of the glock changed after my 14 June appeal, which I believe was quite convincing on the point of doxxing: I was able to prove that I did not disclose any nonpublic information. But then new "complexities" were added to the case, possibly by Vito, and the glock was reframed and justified (e.g. to the English ArbCom) as involving threats and harassment on my part. Those allegations were false and outrageous.
It's quite hard to enforce the UCoC without interpreting it.
I'm afraid that either you missed the point, or you decided not to answer my last question. --Gitz6666 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sakretsu, I'm now deleting my "keep". I'm quite disappointed by the lack of an answer to my fourth question. I fear that this silence covers up responsibilities that have not yet come to light. --Gitz6666 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I wasn't sure it was appropriate to insist on answering that question. No, I don't know about fellow stewards but I didn't ask why you didn't get a reply from Jaqen and Euphydryas. As volunteers, they're not compelled to handle requests anyway. I also think that if they had responded it wouldn't have changed much per the reason stated above. If this answer still doesn't make sense to you, I probably missed the point of your question then. Sakretsu (炸裂) 06:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me this is the only remaining blind spot in this matter. So as far as you know on 2 and 4 June User:Jaqen and User:Euphydryas knew nothing about my 1 June email to the steward team describing two cases of COI? Gitz6666 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Gitz6666. I do hope their communication improves though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I spent a few hours reading all of the back and forth and looking at the logs and while I know something’s are indeed private, I have to agree on a removal as I feel this was an abuse of the super mop and should have been a temp block locally and explained in detail to the parties why and confer with others on the correct path instead of making a hastily decision as this steward did. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since his appointment as steward, Sakretsu has proven he can handle complicated situations competently and brilliantly. In previous reappointments, indeed, he received unanimous endorsements, and was acknowledged as 'polite and friendly', stressing the 'lot of good experience with him'. In sum, the value Sakretsu brings to Wikipedia is cristal clear to me and, to be honest, I would find it rather odd to give weight to a controversial incident whereas even the alleged victim has confirmed his trust in him. --Argeste (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After all, let's keep him ... Spielvogel (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ArtAttack (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single reverted lock cannot be the subject of this long and tedious story imho. Sakretsu has always worked well, he has never backed down when facing with the most complicated or controversial situations and in this case he chose to act (as a steward should always do when he think it's necessary to protect the projects). I don't feel like considering it a conflict of interest also because Sakretsu doesn't seem to have intervened in those topics locally! I may have blocked users who I had previously blocked on itwiki too, perhaps without even remembering (and I don't think this is a problem). Furthermore, it was Sakretsu himself who carried out the unlock, concluding the appeal. So I don't see the problem if someone eventually self-reverts resolving an issue!

On a side note I'd like to say that we can all make mistakes and evidently he thought that was the right thing at that moment. I see no reason to condemn or accuse him for this. Stewards are subject to making important assessments and we may not agree with decisions but this cannot affect the trust that exists in them. The technical knowledge and the precision and passion that he puts into his work has always been enviable. And, yes, I'm from itwiki too, but the interactions with him have always been of a technical nature, and to those who have accused of canvassing on other pages, I also reply that Sakretsu has not been active in the itwiki communication channels for years, this must be said! --Superpes15 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Superpes15 and many others--Parma1983 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Amarvudol (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --DannyS712 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I honestly don't think the incident mentioned above, is a major red flag. --Borschts^Talk 02:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Onverwacht (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not study the case that has caused concerns in detail, so I would not judge whether Sakretsu was right or wrong in how they have handled it. That said even if their judgement was indeed wrong there, I see no systemic failure of judgement basing on that. Single mistakes are virtually unavoidable for everyone, and that is okay. What is not okay is when mistakes stack or cause further problematic behaviour, I see no evidence of this just yet. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schniggendiller[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de-N, en-3
Personal info: Hello, I'm a steward since 2019, so this is my fifth confirmation. Mainly, I'm active in counter-vandalism and dealing with LTAs (long-term abuse). I try to look at least once a day at Steward requests/Global; and often people in my home wiki (German edition Wikipedia, where I'm also an administrator) reach out to me when they notice that someone is doing "bad things" in other wikis, too.
I'm not the most active steward, due to real life circumstances. Nevertheless, if you still trust me I'd be more than happy to serve the community another term as a steward. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Schniggendiller[edit]

Keep good anti-vandalism work --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Codc (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bubo 容 14:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wandelndes Lexikon (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Aspiriniks (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brettchenweber (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will ja nur Spaß haben ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Squasher (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matthiasb (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RudolfSimon (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Killerkürbis (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ra'ike (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 94rain ^Talk 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Pentachlorphenol (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Superpes15 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiale[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: ko, en-2, ja-1, zh-1
Personal info: Hi all. Yeah, I have a fourth confirmation with you. Some people were curious about what I would say this time. Oh, but don't get your hopes up :p
As you all already know, I am the fairy(~~=automated bot~~) of SRCU. Of course, it feels like the fairy is getting older, but it still has about 67% of SRCU requests in 2023 and seems to have covered the main zhwiki checkuser case and global ones. I've handled a variety of other requests, and even if I don't mention them, that's what you remember me for. I guess.. it still has its own usefulness?
As always, I'm going to keep doing the same things I've been doing. As always, it's up to you whether you want to leave it to me or not. As always, thank you all for trusting me. --Sotiale (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Sotiale[edit]

Keep--Nemoralis (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zhuofan Wu 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for your service on SRCU for zhwiki! --Luciferian Thomas 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you for your fairy magic on SRCU :) --Ferien (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't even imagine what the state of SRCU would be like without Sotiale to help out. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ~~fairy~~ queen of SRCU indeed... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust... or is it? Ah, and Keep. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 감사합니다! --Tmv (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns, always helpful. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great steward :-) thank you for your service! --Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~S i d~~ 14:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for PlanespotterA320 case. --Lemonaka (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meiræ 15:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needed. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Kasaki Mizore^Talk 16:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Steven Sun (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Faz um trabalho louvável e bastante responsável com as diversas questões que envolvem a ferramenta de verificação, em especial nas wikis chinesas.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for continuing to work and not letting controversy get you down! Dealing with CU is always very delicate and you handle it very well --Superpes15 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully trusted.Manchiu (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Takipoint123 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you. — Jules* ^talk 12:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SCP-2000 12:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you for your good work. --Borschts^Talk 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Onverwacht (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stryn[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: fi, en-3
Personal info: Hi. I've been a steward since March 2015 and I would be interested to continue for another year. I know my activity has dropped compared to previous year, but I still believe I can be helpful in this position now and in future. My steward activity has been focused mostly in blocking cross wiki vandals and spammers. I'm available on IRC when I can and I read actively my email. I count as my home wikis the Finnish Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikidata, in which all I'm an administrator. I'm also a checkuser on Finnish Wikipedia.

Comments about Stryn[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Telaneo (User talk page) 14:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Minilammas (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taylor 49 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Julius 12345 (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lentokonefani (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
zomg, 3 subs, what's your channel? Keep ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -kyykaarme (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Frühlingsanfang (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no issues. Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yona B. (D) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superpes15[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1, la-1
Personal info: Hi all :) This was my first year as a steward. I've tried, as promised in my application, to be active in all areas of steward competence. I've always tried to do as much as possible, despite some periods of inactivity, above all favoring quality over quantity. I won't talk about statistics or particular numbers (even though I know that mine have been high in most of areas and next year I will hardly be able to replicate this activity), I think those count relatively, the important thing is to always give your best. As always, my focus is on the well-being of all users and communities, and I would like to continue in this role to help and serve where and when needed. There are several areas that are improving and others that can still improve, but I appreciate a lot how the wiki environment remains one of the healthiest on the internet. Since it's always pointed out to me that I tend to talk a lot, I won't go further. I can only promise to try to give my best even if I cannot guarantee an exceptional activity in 2024 due to some stuff in RL. I just want to say thanks for the trust you have had in me, and I hope to deserve it for another year. I await your comments and any criticism you have towards me and and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have (about me, this year, my actions, etc). Thanks! --Superpes15 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Superpes15[edit]

Keep often seen on SRGP / SRG --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Hide on Rosé ^t 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always friendly, great first year as steward --Ferien (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Minilammas (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - duuhh - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a huge backlog with steward work, being a strong argument against removal of stewards. OTOH this comment posted on the behalf of third party is absolutely unacceptable. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrongly or "on behalf of a third part". I always try to be as correct and impartial as possible and to help everyone. When I think you're right I say so, when I think you're not right I say so. I can certainly be wrong, but my opinion doesn't have to be right. If a user asks to be admin to block another user I obviously have some doubts, but if you ask for a CU between two users without sustainable on-wiki evidence (and going back to editing after a long time individually is not) and I perform a check, I'm committing an abuse sanctionable by WMF and the Ombuds commission. Furthermore, if I mentioned old facts, I'm sorry, but it was only to make clear the climate that prevails on that project, given that not everyone is an expert on all projects and I've followed eowikt closely since I became GS (and you know it well how many times I've processed your requests). I apologize if all this has bothered you but I'm always sincere and transparent, above all very frank and direct, and I understand that sometimes this can cause problems! In this case we saw several discussions (sometimes with less than friendly tones) on eowiki and eowikt that moved to the pages dedicated to stewards (2 requests on SRP and 1 on SRCU). Is there a need to continue discussing on the service pages? I don't think so. I respect your comment and will always work to improve myself, but I don't think that in practice I have harmed users or projects, we can all exaggerate when we are directly involved and there is nothing wrong if someone reminds us that it is better to calm down! Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CU request has evidence. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand @Taylor 49:'s point - Superpes15's response seems appropriate to me and it isn't clear when he has posted "on behalf of a third party". Leaderboard (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check those 2 messages linked above, including name of user who posted? Taylor 49 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nice first year! --Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stay as you are ;-) --Civvì (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 21:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually found to be active most of the time and very friendly in discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You fill us with pride. :D --Pequod76^(talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🍕 Superpes15 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quote Pequod76. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fcarbonara (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep Why not. :) --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Actormusicus (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great steward, thank you! --valcio ••• 09:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gitz6666 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — User:Taylor 49's comments are odd, verging on bizarre. A mountain has been made out of very little stone! ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How come? Indeed Superpes15 was very helpful all the time (during ca 2 years) until RG72 reuested from Superpes15 to attack me and Superpes15 indeed did so!. Subsequently Superpes15 continued the off-topic discussion with the customer RG72 on a service page where I according to Superpes15 must not comment all. Occasionally strange things happen here at meta. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 01:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Grasmat (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Er Cicero (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - εΔ ω 00:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Borgil (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- gives replies and has some humor.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A great steward. Grazie mille per essere qui per noi! Deauthorized (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good guy! :) --Ombra 04:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pizza84 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Spinoziano (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meiræ 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His technical proficiency is almost overshadowed by a so friendly approach. --Argeste (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bom primeiro ano. Já entrou pronto para o trabalho!—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fresh Blood (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Parma1983 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Amarvudol (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 🍕 --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tegel[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: sv, en-3
Personal info: I have now been a Steward since 2012. My activity this year has been similar to previous years with a lot of spam-bots and cross-wiki vandalism. I can often be found on IRC for dealing with emergencies. With your support I would like to continue for another year. -- Tegel _(Talk) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Tegel[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Helpful and active steward but communication really needs improving. It took months to get a response at Steward requests/Global/2022-w29#Global unlock for Eaglestorm and once he asked a question, he did not return when it was answered. It was another steward who actually went ahead and fulfilled the request after it being left for over 3 months, that appears to be largely down to the lack of communication from Tegel. I noted this in 2023. I noticed again while reviewing requests for unblock that this is an issue again at User talk:2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:7F where Tegel was pinged over 2 weeks ago now but still hasn't given a response. I'm afraid I cannot vote to keep Tegel with this poor communication until it is addressed. --Ferien (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I encourage you to take Ferien's concern into account as it's reasonable to hold stewards accountable for this (despite it being easy to forget a ping). Leaderboard (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to sway your vote or anything like that, just thought it might be worth noting with the 2022 situation, there was a ping and multiple talk page messages (see User talk:Tegel/Archive/2022#Steward requests/Global#Global unlock for Eaglestorm) but these didn't really impact Tegel's response time. --Ferien (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an svwiki user, on his talk page on svwiki he has usually been quick to answer me when I have contacted him there (e.g. here). I don't know what happened in this Meta-Wiki case (perhaps the notification was drained, or something similar). EPIC (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might have turned off notifications for mentions (which can be understandable when you're an LTA target but I don't think is the best idea when you're a steward/functionary and need to respond to potential queries regarding your area of accountability); however, that does not explain the talk messages being ignored. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I would hope to see Tegel improve on the issues mentioned by Ferien. Why I'm voting keep for you and not others with similar issues is you at least responded, even though it took months. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bjelica (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no big concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not responding for ~ 3 months is not ideal. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Silverije 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Drummingman (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diligente e consistente em sua atuação como Steward.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Atlante (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teles[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: pt-N; en-3; es-2
Personal info: Hi, everyone. My name is Lucas Teles, I live in Brazil, and, since 2012, I have been a Steward (with an exception for 2020 when I resigned for a year). Here is my last year confirmation. Past year, I remained active on dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, ~~smashing~~ locking spambots and sockpuppeteers, globally blocking IP's. For those that like numbers, in comparison with last year my activity numbers decreased by half. I brought another little Teles to this world and had to share more time with her. Still, I believe I can provide help to reduce the backlog, specially on SRG, that is my most visited page. I have been working more recently on replying to the older cases, opened for a long while, but also kept an eye on ongoing LTA, spambot, cross-wiki vandals, etc. Things are settled now and I have no plans on reducing my availability. Thanks for participating.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Teles[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns, congratulations :) -- CptViraj (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 01:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep the good work @Teles:. --Eta Carinae (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meiræ 15:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep awesome, and congrats! ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Eta Carinae said :) --Superpes15 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CasteloBranco^msg 19:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Atlante (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tks4Fish[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: ~~Tks4Fish didn't submit their confirmation statement in time. This is a placeholder. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Stricken after comment —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contrib} (he/him) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! As you've probably guessed by now, unfortunately, I won't be standing for confirmation. I do mean the unfortunately part as I love wikiing, but right now I don't have any time available for that. I tried to, but life just keeps straying me from wiki, and that stuff takes precedence over it. I'd like to thank all my colleagues for the partnership throughout all these years, and the community for the trust laid upon me. I do intend to come back when life eases up, but right now I'm leaving :(. All the best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contrib} (he/him) 14:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Tks4Fish[edit]

Remove ~~No Statement~~ + Inactivity. --Stïnger （会話） 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Remove, sorry. Hide on Rosé ^t 14:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ~~No statement, and~~ they appear to be virtually inactive. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly seems to have disappeared, only one edit since February 2023 and lost adminship everywhere else, except testwiki. I'm not voting just yet, however, but my vote can change if the user submits a statements. EPIC (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that a statement has been submitted, I would like to thank you for your work and hope you volunteer again in a future election. EPIC (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unscorable candidature, and you've been penalised even otherwise for your poor response to questions on a talk-page (which has been a recurring issue with you). Leaderboard (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: No comment upon notice of resignation (such users don't typically get a response from me at this stage); this is not meant to be a fault of Tks4Fish in any way. Leaderboard (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Leaderboard and inactivity since last year. Thanks for your service. --Ferien (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service :) and all the fish --Ferien (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sorry, you have been too inactive to be here. Thanks for your service and I hope you should be able to return. JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your continued service! (plus the fish) I wish you the best for your future. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. --Eta Carinae (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So long, and... ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No statement speaks for itself. --V0lkanic (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- We need active stewards. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Inactive. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Alas, inactive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. I wish you the best going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
moral keep Please submit your statement on time next year. --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- moral remove Нажалост. Захваљујемо вам се на досадашњем раду и труду. --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove sadly inactive Thanks for your Service! --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove with regret, inactive. Thank you for your service. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see you again soon. Spicy (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work; good luck with real-world research --Tmv (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments, just going to ping folks so you know I've submitted my statement (not standing for confirmation) and if (I doubt it) you want to change your comment. @Stïnger, Hide on Rosé, Victor Schmidt, EPIC, Leaderboard, Ferien, JrandWP, SHB2000, Eta Carinae, 1234qwer1234qwer4, V0lkanic, Maximillion Pegasus, FenrisAureus, Red-tailed hawk, Novak Watchmen, Pppery, TenWhile6, Prodraxis, Spicy, USSR-Slav, Tmv, Lookruk, and Cyfraw:. All the best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contrib} (he/him) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said in my reply - thank you for your work and hope you run again in the future if you become more active again. EPIC (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service. I will add a translation later. Hide on Rosé ^t 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your service as a Steward. Hope to see you run again sometime in the future. Prodraxis _(talk) 15:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service, hope to see you back. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your many years of service. Hope you can come back one day. -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your past work. Just hope you'll become active again someday. --Stïnger （会話） 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks again for your service. Come back soon! --cyrfaw (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for your service. Here's some more fish. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your past service, hope to see you around still! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you intend to come back and I hope that life eases up for you soon then :-) Thank you for your service, it was a pleasure working with you--Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service, --Mtarch11 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. I hope you came back. --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your great work as a Steward. I hope to see you return to activity sooner than later. Java Hurricane 11:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though User:Tks4Fish knows what's best for them and that they should be proud of their service and for resigning in a noble manner. Your Servant! ——SerialNumber54129 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👏 kudos to your service. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service, really hope to see you around soon! 👏 --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service! Taivo (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. --Phyrexian ɸ 11:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Borgil (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Kadı Message 13:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — per above. --Silverije 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service, and thanks for all the... Sennecaster (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Gereon K. (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your past service and hope to see you around again. Elli (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Well, I join in the thanks. --Wolverène (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service! Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. I hope you came back. --Fresh Blood (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigado pelo trabalho oferecido. Volte quando quiser e puder.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your volunteering!--reNVoy (user talk) 22:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to write "remove" after the statement imho. Tks4Fish have made it clear that he will not seek confirmation so he will be deflagged in some days. I have no words to thank him for all the work and I hope to see Tks4Fish active again soon! Wish the best for the RL :) --Superpes15 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Antoine.b (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per resign --Lemonaka (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Thank you for your work.--doramiso-meta (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Many thanks for your good work. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk)
Thanks for all your work, Tks4Fish. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. Darkhan 10:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I do hope that once you take care of you deal with your real life business you will come back. You are a valuable asset to the Wikimedia community as a whole and to stewards in particular. --Base (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, I hope to see you active again! --M/ (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hi all!
This marks my second year as a steward, and I have become more comfortable working in a variety of steward areas, including SRG, SRP, CU and OS requests, appeals, and others. Aside from steward work, I am an admin and CheckUser on Meta-Wiki and the Simple English Wikipedia.
Since February of last year, I have been the stewards' observer on the Ombuds Commission. This is a new role, and has provided me the opportunity to support the Commission on investigations that would benefit from a steward perspective.
If you're interested, I recommend reading this year's Stewards User Group report. It is written by DerHexer, and outlines a lot of the changes, challenges, and improvements that have occured over the last year. One highlight is that the stewards email queue is down to less than 100 emails, from over 4,000 a year ago.
As a disclosure, I work for the WMF as an associate in Movement Communications. In that role I primarily work on Wikimedia Answers and the Diff blog. I am also currently working on a blog post series aimed at new translation admins who are unfamiliar with the extension, and hope to publish that soon :-D
Thank you for your time and consideration! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Vermont[edit]

Keep, one of our most valuable contributors. Giraffer (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brilliant as per last year --Ferien (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takes a very professional attitude towards their work here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sohom (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meow! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always friendly and a great Steward. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
me when the Keep bottom text ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nehaoua (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with confidence --Tmv (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unhappy with your handling of my WMF researchers request in March 2023 (with no real avenue given for me to appeal or give evidence on what I've actually done), but I'm not going to make a formal vote in your case. I do ask that you improve your handling of similar cases in the future; the comment is not meant as retributive but as feedback for you since it's challenging to contribute when issues like these occur with no useful alternative presented. Leaderboard (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for comment/Global ban requirements seems like a bad idea. There's a lack of lack of accountability, due process, and adherence to actual site policy in both local blocks such as on enwiki and in global ban RfCs on meta (generally speaking, not of Vermont per se) It seems unwise and unnecessary to make it even easier to globally, permanently ban someone. In the same vein as Leaderboard's comment, I intend this as public feedback and not a formal vote. AP295 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on that. I will note: it wouldn't make it easier to ban someone, only lowers the bar to start a discussion. The TL;DR of the concerns I raised back in 2022 are that some users' actions may necessitate a global ban even if they aren't blocked on two projects, e.g., off-wiki problems or project capture (like hrwiki) situations. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that in the RfC and I'm not familiar with the incidents you refer to, but at any rate I think the Global Ban RfC process here is too casual, capricious and lacking in reasonable due process to bear wider applicability without changes. AP295 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking Lizthegrey (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Last year, I was indefinitely blocked by Vermont on Meta. It seems reasonable enough to think that some form of block was justified. However, in that block communication on my talk page (User talk:Dan Polansky#Block), Vermont referred to Wikipedia non-policies ~~WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and~~ WP:SEALION (all essays) as if they were policies. It is not known to me that Meta adopted the policy that "Wikipedia non-policies are Meta policies". By my lights, the role of a steward (even more than that of an administrator) should require meeting a high standard of formal correctness and should very carefully distinguish policies from mere essays.
On a different note, the statement "it wouldn't make it easier to ban someone, only lowers the bar to start a discussion" on this page is untrue: if the bar for discussion, which it is not since it is de facto a mere numerical vote, is lowered, that makes it then easier to ban someone.
On another note discussed above: a capture of, say, Croatian wiki does not require a global ban. Other solutions are available. One solution is to ban indefinite blocks on a project suspected to be captured, limiting the block length to, say, one year. And that solution would be much more effective since it would impact behavior of all admins, not just selected one. Another solution is externally-forced desysop of Kubura (if this is what we are talking about): he would be able to contribute, but not harass others with powertools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly for uninvolved readers, a clarification: I blocked you for violations of the Meta-Wiki civility policy, which is made quite clear in the block message: "Multiple users have raised concerns with your conduct, and you have done nothing but double down. I want you to understand that your style of engagement is harmful to constructive community discourse, and is not welcome on this project in line with our civility policy.

I linked to the English Wikipedia page on "sealioning" purely for a definition of the term, which I used in describing your conduct on this project. There was no implication whatsoever that it was a policy.

Regarding the "bludgeon" and "wikilawyering" essays...you brought those up, not me. They appear nowhere in that block message. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be my mistake (I may have been confused by messages directed to me in Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2)), and therefore, I have stricken out the part of my above response that is wrong/inapplicable. Vermont did use the word "wikilawyering" on my talk page in connection with my block, but not in the original block message. This is just a quick correction; I may post more later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, your comments were uncivil and were rightfully blocked by Vermont. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I was vulgarly insulted/attacked in the English Wiktionary by two editors who today are administrators, that was fine; one of them got a month block (he also wished me death) and today is an administrator, another one did not receive a block for that vulgar insult, went on to vulgarly insult other editors, has hounded me for months on end and is an administrator who, in a desysopping vote after his repeated misconduct, received a broad editor support. But when I engage in the so-called "sealioning" (asking too many incovenient questions, etc.), that is "uncivil" and requires an indefinite block at the point at which my block log on Meta was clear (zero previous blocks). Ehm. --Dan Polansky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Again I'm not familiar with the incident or the RfC in question but if I understand the grammar of his argument you reference on his talk page, he seemed to be making reasonable points. Generally there's a wide double standard and a lack of objectivity when it comes to enforcing rules. Users can be summarily blocked, often disproportionately and without due consideration, let alone due process. If one points out that a sysop or admin hasn't followed the rules, one is accused of wikilawyering and often subject to further sanction. This seems like a good example. I'm not sure that all of his statements were relevant, but by any reasonable standard a few irrelevant comments are not grounds for an indefinite block in and of themselves. While I don't see any breach of civility, I should hope truth and objectivity are held in higher regard than politeness. Again, consider my comments as general feedback and not statements on behalf of any particular user. AP295 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I should hope truth and objectivity are held in higher regard than politeness", this is explicitly not the case. Wikimedia projects are community-built, and maintaining community health means enforcing a high standard of civility. This misunderstanding seems related to your indefinite blocks on the English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and I would recommend reading over the Meta-Wiki civility policy: its first section provides a concise, useful description of the necessity of maintaining civility on a community project. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several times how sysops/admins who've decided they simply don't like a user harass and bait them until finally they get irritated and angry, at which point WP:CIVIL is invoked and a block is issued. This sort of behavior is no less harmful to the project than impoliteness. I'm not saying you do that nor that WP:CIVIL is an illegitimate rule, merely that there's a double standard and that losing one's patience is not an unforgivable offense. Regarding my blocks, I think my appeal on enwiktionary, which has been ignored for two months, speaks for itself. I sense this could go downhill and so I'll drop the stick and leave it at that, having made my point. AP295 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that w:WP:SEALION is merely an essay. To charge someone with incivility while citing w:WP:SEALION is contradiction of terms, namely that "civil pov pushing" is "uncivil". Since an RfC is by nature intended to solicit others' comments, POV-pushing seems a questionable charge to make in that context to begin with. This isn't to say that pov pushing doesn't occur in RfCs but in my experience it's usually those with minority opinions who are accused of and sanctioned for pov pushing, regardless of whether they are correct or not. There have been instances where I could quite easily have accused someone of POV pushing but did not. I had no need to, because the substance of their argument was easily refuted. If I find myself temtped to avoid the substance of an argument, I usually take it as a cue to reconsider both that argument and my own position. This is the essence of my point and it's not always an easy thing to do. I hope you will take as constructive feedback. AP295 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good point: Wikipedia:SEALION points to Wikipedia:Civil POV, and yet, "sealioning" is allegedly "uncivil" => a contradiction. The text of Wikipedia:Civil POV does not mention the term "sealioning" except in a link to Wikipedia:Sealioning. Then, Vermont's claim "I linked to the English Wikipedia page on "sealioning" purely for a definition of the term" rings untrue. A corrective action: delete "Wikipedia:SEALION" as an inappropriate page with an inappropriate target. Even better: move all those bad essay currently in Wikipedia namespace away from that namespace, to eliminate a whole class of maladministration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in that the enwiki target of that redirect is not useful in explaining the term. I should have linked to the mainspace article about it.

You are patently incorrect in implying that I cited it as policy, or that I based my argument on it. It is a hyperlink in the first sentence of a 9-sentence block message. Like your conduct in the arguments that led you to being blocked, here you continue to highlight miniscule details as though the entire rationale for your block were that hyperlink. It is not: I included diffs of your unconstructive conduct which necessitated the block, I mentioned the multiple users' complaints about your behavior, and I contextualized it for you in the context of this project's civility policy.

Last year you were indefinitely blocked on your home project, the English Wiktionary, for "Unacceptable conduct: continued overt racism...long history of obstructionism, disruptive edits and personal attacks, and refusal to change their behavior". In your Meta-Wiki unblock request last May, you recognized that your conduct on this project was unconstructive and provided assurances that you would change your manner of discussion. It seems to me like this has not happened, unfortunately. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My conduct on Meta was indeed problematic in some regards and I acknowledged as much, and I still do. But as for the above "your unconstructive conduct which necessitated the block": it is not true that it necessitated the block, since other options that would effectively solve the problem were available, e.g. blocking me from the vote page. My block message in the English Wiktionary, while to some extent accurate, is on the whole unsubstantiated libel, but I am planning no lawsuit; it is not allowed to do so unless one wants to be blocked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to add that my behavior in the English Wiktionary did in fact turn problematic in January 2023, but I have later acknowledged that to the extent applicable. I was called "full of shit", "an utter thickwit", and "a complete pseud" by a person who then became administrator and my behavior turned for the worse. Whether there is any connection between being insulted and harassed and subsequent deterioration of behavior is perhaps for professional psychologists to judge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clovermoss (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very satisfied with their steward work. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concern. --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 10:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to complain about. --Borgil (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hatman31 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theknightwho (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, this is Squirrel Vermont!--Lemonaka (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Zangala (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful and kind. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vermont is one of the most profound stewards. Granted they even blocked me. But they communicated why in very clear and concise terms and answered any questions I had. They were fair in their dealings. I’ve never seen them make a rash decision and every comment is carefully laid out and backed by proof and policy. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great skills, excellent communication, excellent work, never holds back and is always present! Squirrel, with a big thanks 🐿 --Superpes15 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Atlante (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 🐿️ --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vituzzu[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: it, en, scn
Personal info: I've been a steward for more than 12 years and I've been appreciating the opportunity to work in a great team, with a good panel of diverse opinions when tackling problems. Although I'm concerned by its shrinking, I must appreciate old and new members, but also clerks' committment. Language barriers are still a problem when it comes to prevent new systematic failures of projects, but I think overall awareness of such risks as increased in years. So, I'd like to serve for another year.

Comments about Vituzzu[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove On 9 June 2023 steward Sakrestsu globally locked my account. Vituzzu justified Sakretsu's action to me by email [Ticket#2023060910010749]. I appealed to the stewards, on 19 June "The Signpost" published an article about this, which led to long talk page discussions. On 7 July the stewards accepted my appeal and the global lock was lifted. All's well that ends well - no hard feelings on my part. But there are some disturbing facts that have not been made public. On 20 June 2023 Vituzzu, who doesn't usually edit en.wiki, made four consecutive edits [17], [18], [19], [20] to correct the spelling of my name in references to a volume I edited. This was actually a threat of doxing because the next day he wrote to me that confidentiality is in favour of all involved parties (also in favour of you) [Ticket#2023062110003761]. He mentioned that I had made COI edits per WP:SELFCITE back in 2014 when I used an alternative account to restore a work of mine from the bibliography of a now-deleted it.wiki article. Back in 2014 I had made less than a couple of edits on any WMF projects and I knew nothing about COI, socks, or any other WP policies and guidelines. I never used that sock again and in June 2022 I voluntarily disclosed its existence to it.wiki admins, who didn't block it at the time (they blocked it one year later, after my indefinite block on it.wiki). On 13 July 2023 Vituzzu made good on his 21 June threat by posting this comment in the Signpost discussion. The comment contains a link to the edit history of my old inactive sock, which shows only one edit, this one, on which my name appears. In so doing, Vituzzu exposed my personal identity, which I had never revelead on site. Editors from it.wiki and en.wiki wrote to me asking if Vituzzu had just doxed me, which I couldn't deny. I wrote to the English Wikipedia Oversight asking for Vituzzu's edit to be suppressed; my request was denied but Vituzzu partially self-reverted explaining I took its publicity for granted, I was wrong. But given his edits of 20 June and the content of his 21 June email (confidentiality is in favour of all involved parties) I strongly doubt that his mistake was unintentional. A few months earlier I had been threatened on Wiki, so revealing my identity in such a highly visible discussion at "The Signpost" was very poor behaviour on the part of a steward. --Gitz6666 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you ask for the relevant diffs to be suppressed? And why are you giving so much visibility to them?
On at 12:06 CET on the 26 January 2014 you wrote, in an article talkpage, with your main account Gitz6666 here (now deleted) you revealed your identity on wiki. When I stumbled upon your abuse of multiple accounts to push your works, I looked for more and I found that some citations (added by other users than you, thus perfectly legit) were mistyped.
According to en.wiki policy If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. i.e. your allegation is, as usual, twice false: I was dealing with a COI and you self-identified. Vituzzu (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you stumbled upon [my] abuse (the 2014 COI edit with a self-citation), I think you were there to retaliate. My sock had been inactive since 2014, I had lost its password, I had publicly revealed its existence in June 2022. But it was blocked in June 2023, after the "Alessandro Orsini affair" that led to my local indef block and global lock - maybe to have a linkable connection between Gitz6666 and that old COI edit?

Honestly I don't remember the deleted edit of 26 Jan 2014, it may be true that I revealed my identity then - as I said, I was not an active user at the time. But I do know that on 20-21 June 2023 you threatened to reveal my identity and that on 13 July 2023 you did so. I'm not overly concerned about my privacy, but I think others should be made aware of your behaviour.

Finally, I did ask for the relevant diff - that is, your comment at the Signpost - to be suppressed. Oversight didn't accept my request possibly because, as you now explained, I had already revealed my identity in that deleted diff of 2014, and so you were allowed to use such information in appropriate forums, although I'm not entirely sure the Signpost discussion was an appropriate forum.
Gitz6666 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, in short, I didn't any doxx. Fine with me. Vituzzu (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vituzzu:, can you explain why some of the entries of that user's block log has the blocking admin's name revision-deleted? Is this normal in it.wiki? Leaderboard (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to sound rude, but how is this question related to my confirmation? Vituzzu (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vituzzu, aren't stewards there to answer questions from the community, regardless of how related they are to your confirmation? --Ferien (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are here to ask questions about their own actions, even about their own wiki-related views, but there are more appropriate venues for generic questions. Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vituzzu:, the reason I was asking this is that I was trying to understand what was going on with that user, and was confused to see the revision-deletion on the user name (which is very unusual from my experience). I do apologise if it sounded irrelevant, but that wasn't the intent. A single sentence or two would have been enough - I wasn't looking for depth here. Leaderboard (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. Btw as a general matter, such actions are justifiable only under wiki-related issues impacting real lives. Vituzzu (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment above me took my attention. But overall I don't know the whole story, Vituzzu's work has been good, they are a great steward and I've not seen anything which indicates a lack of trust. EPIC (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~I see no issues with Vituzzu's actions in the case above.~~ Good work overall as usual, and tends to be responsive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pillar against all kinds of POV-pushing and against all attempts to transform wikipedia in a tool of politically oriented misinformation and propaganda.--Friniate (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Fenikals (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak remove. The whole Gitz affair leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Stewards can do great work, but they need to be able to know when to step back on activities that involve their home wikis. I'm not quite sure why a Steward who is an administrator on ItWiki was so heavily involved in reinforcing this global lock that was later overturned, and I've been unsatisfied with all explanations I've heard since. This is weak only inasmuch as there may be some plausible explanation for why the actions were appropriate, but I haven't heard nor seen any, and it's been months. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't involved in any local block, I think I never interacted with Gitz6666 before endorsing his global lock for reasons which appeared pretty strong to me at that time. Actually it was me to ask for further opinions/comments by fellow stewards which lead to the unlock. What I regret was being dragged in a toxic discussion which followed the unlock. Vituzzu (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Red-tailed hawk claims that you had been involved in any local block.
Actually it was me ... - it is good to know that you apparently had concerns about Sakretsu's highly problematic global lock and helped overturn it. However, that was certainly not the impression one got in this discussion, where you were a vocal defender of it. In particular, you second[ed] Sakretsu's word one by one [21] in reference to a statement that, as explained in detail here I considered to be very weird coming from a steward in Sakretsu's situation, also because their action raised some serious questions with regard to Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest, Stewards policy#Check local policies and en:Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure everyone here is perfectly fine with the simple fact that asking for comments by trusted volunteers is a standard practice in complex cases. Anyway can you please detail my alleged conflict of interest? I'm lost about this new allegation. Vituzzu (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vituzzu, this obfuscatory, misleading and combative communication style is quite concerning for someone laying claim to one of the highest positions of trust in the global Wikimedia movement. To highlight in detail how it manifest just in the example of this comment:
Regarding can you please detail my alleged conflict of interest?: I'm unsure what you basing this demand on or where you see such a new allegation being made. The reference to that COI policy was obviously with regard to Sakretsu who had used his steward rights to take this highly problematic action that was later repealed, rather than you (again, I explained the concerns with regard to these three policies in much more detail back in June on the linked Signpost talk page, where you and Sakretsu entirely failed to address them, despite your heavy activity in other parts of that discussion). The fact that you yourself were so heavily involved in reinforcing that problematic action - as Red-tailed hawk summarized it - casts serious doubts on your judgment as steward, but is not necessarily covered by the letter of that particular steward policy. - In other words, you are using a strawman tactic here, and that right after I had called you out for similarly insinuating that Red-tailed hawk had said something that they did not actually say.

I'm pretty sure everyone here is perfectly fine with the simple fact that asking for comments by trusted volunteers is a standard practice in complex cases - what is the point of this remark? Again, nobody had criticized you for "asking for comments" by other stewards. Rather, what's strange is that despite having insisted incessantly in public that Sakretsu's action was not a mistake, you now appear to claim credit for its correction (Actually it was me to ask for further opinions/comments by fellow stewards which lead to the unlock). And this is especially strange if, as you say, this kind of notification is just a run-of-the-mill "standard practice" - not to speak of the fact that an appeal was filed in the case, which you fail to include in your theory of what "lead to the unlock". - Rather, what sounds more plausible to me as a possible substantial segment of the causality path is that other stewards - likely including some who are less directly involved with itwiki - looked at the matter, shook their heads and made it clear to Sakretsu that his decision could not stand. (If that is what happened, credits to them for doing the right thing.)

And you are playing all these rhetorical games while still avoiding to address the wider issues with regard to the three aforementioned policies.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tackle hounding, it's even harder to tackle a similar framing. Anyway, let's go back to the scratch: I've been accused of doxxing, I brought proofs that I didn't doxx anybody. I've been asked to justify my upholding of a global lock performed by a fellow steward, and I did or, at least, I don't see more questions about this point, but rather my answer being given extra meanings (and you're going on down this path). What I can't do (it would be quite unfair) is replying about actions which weren't performed by me. Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very valuable steward. --Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard remove – sorry, no, doxxing is a massive no as an admin for me, let alone a steward. And instead of apologising for what is rather an otherwise frightening action, they doubled down. Not the behaviour I'd expect from a steward. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly deny any doxxing allegation, both in the letter of the policy (user declared their identity) and in intentions. Vituzzu (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC) - I have reflected upon the matter and believe it is appropriate for me to add a few comments to my vote. I am a long-time Wikipedian, and since my early days in this fantastic project, I have always considered Vituzzo, aka Vito, to be a member of the community to look up to and to consider in his opinions, even when they publicly diverged from my own. I have sincerely never seen him do anything wrong, much less anything that could be harmful to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, he has always acted in its defense. This is what I require from a steward, just as I require a doctor to cure me. If, in addition to curing me, the doctor is also very kind, this is a bonus that I certainly appreciate. However, between a kind doctor who is afraid to intervene and a brusque doctor who intervenes and cures, I have no doubt in choosing the latter. The difficulty that Vituzzo has faced, and from which the motivations against his reconfirmation have emerged, is clear for all to see: this reconfirmation vote has been taken hostage by one person and targeted, I can find no other term, with more than 80 edits (see crono) made at this point, for the sole purpose of supporting a negative vote. Regardless of the outcome of this reconfirmation, everyone will certainly draw their own conclusions. --Bramfab (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pillar of this wigwam. --Pequod76^(talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best users of the whole Wikimedia movement. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Torsolo (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EPIC. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove-Juandev (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per w:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media Levivich (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. upholding that a certain global lock was warranted? Vituzzu (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that you upheld it, but how you upheld it. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The that part is not acceptable: different opinions about cases is the only thing which prevents the creation of ego chambers. About the how I pushed for transparency (e.g. asking the locked user to user VRT instead of private emails) and broader opinions (e.g. gathering the permission from *every* involved party to read and share with other functionaries). There's a framing of this whole case as a vast plot against an user, but while two Italian admins ended up being seriously harrassed, from stewards perspective it was the reviewing of a decision with no drama at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find you to be dishonest in your answers, in your description of what happened in the past. I found your answers on the Signpost page to be dishonest (and those of others involved), and I find your answers and descriptions here to be dishonest. This is disqualifying in my views for any advanced permissions. To use an American idiom, you "circled the wagons," and you added a lot to the drama, as evidenced by your comments on that Signpost page. Here, you are similarly adding to the drama by pretending like you didn't do and say what is recorded on Wikipedia, or that there was "no drama at all," or that your being "hounded." Voting against your confirmation is accountability, not hounding. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all, it can be confirmed by anyone who partecipated. Accusing me of being "dishonest" while I try providing any possible proof is a bias which I'm pretty sure I have no chance to overcome. Coordinating comments and votes on external forums is hounding, by definition. Vituzzu (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The drama I refer to is your comments on the Signpost page I linked to. Another example of "dishonest" is your comment here, "The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all." Like no kidding, you know I don't know what the discussion among the stewards was since I'm not a steward. So you know by "drama," I wasn't referring to the discussion among stewards. I was referring to the Signpost page. And you know this. But you pretend like "The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all" is somehow responsive to what I said. It isn't. I know it, you know it, everyone reading this knows it, but instead of honestly addressing the thing I'm actually talking about -- your comments on the Signpost page -- you act like the discussion among stewards is relevant. That's just dishonest. Levivich (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that from stewards perspective it was the reviewing of a decision with no drama at all, but you wrote that [I am] pretending like [...] there was "no drama at all. I know that being dragged into endless polemic about details by several users at the same time is exactly the way hounding is carried out, but I can't accept to be called "dishonest" in a such plainly false way. Vituzzu (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Gitz6666 and Red-tailed hawk. --Nemoralis (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Have been reviewing this for a while and I can't really comment on the Gitz6666 situation. But I'm far from impressed from the reply to Leaderboard above. I don't want to sound rude, but how is this question related to my confirmation? I would expect stewards to be answering questions they receive during confirmation, regardless of how much they relate to them actually being confirmed, as stewards should be open to the community. Ok, this might not have been a necessary question to ask, but Vituzzu did respond and chose to question the question instead of just answering the question at hand to resolve the concerns raised. That isn't the attitude I expect from a steward. --Ferien (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed that the action in question wasn't performed by me. Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you choose to question the question instead of just giving that answer? Or answering what you know about that situation with RevDelling admins names, as an itwiki admin? --Ferien (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the principle that anyone should be accountable for their own actions only (rather than others') is non-negotiable. BTW why did you assume that the action in question has been made by me? Vituzzu (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I assume the action in question was made by you? --Ferien (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, in this whole "case" I've been subject to a (still ongoing) severe hounding, so I'm glad I draw a wrong conclusion. Vituzzu (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Gitz-related accusations (to which I do not agree) are based on actions that Vittuzzu made as a normal user (he backed - not performed - the glock, which could have been done by any user) and not as a steward, hence they must be discussed in an appropriate place and are not a valid reason for his removal. valcio ••• 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look into any of the context to be clear, but if a lock they supported is the issue, I don't see how this can be irrelevant to their role as a steward – doesn't it mean they would have performed it themself too? Sure, any user can request the deletion of a page, but does that mean submitting bad deletion requests can be ignored as "irrelevant" when electing an administrator? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the main arguments agains their confirmation are edits done on en.wiki prior to the global block. As for the legitimacy of the lock’s backing, your comparison kind of misses the point: the action has been controversial and even if it was eventually lifted, multiple stewards agreed on it at one point; there have been no abuses, only different interpretations of the guidelines which were eventually resolved with the locks’ lift. But that is no one’s fault. valcio ••• 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edits done on en.wiki prior to the global block This must be a typo or a mistake by Valcio: the edits were made after the global lock and also (most importantly) the day after the publication of the Signpost article, on 20 June. Sorry, this cannot be a coincidence: as Vito made clear in his emails, he was reacting to that publication by shifting the ground of confrontation elsewhere - my alleged COI editing per WP:SELFCITE, the risks to my privacy. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed misread the dates, please do ignore that one information but notice that this does not affect my initial comment or previous reply at all.

I honestly can’t reply further as instead of replying to my comment you are stating your allegations again. Not having access to your private conversation, I could not possibly address them even if I wanted to. valcio ••• 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't feel that we ever got to the bottom of what was going on in the Gitz6666 affair, but one thing that seems clear (per the Signpost discussion) is that Vituzzu does not respond appropriately to criticism. Again, I have not reached a conclusion about the doxxing allegations above, but I can conclude (from the comments on this page) that Vituzzu would rather use flippant rhetorical tricks to close off discussion than actually engage with the issues raised. I expect a steward to operate with appropriate transparency, be prepared to justify their actions, and to handle criticism with due humility. Based on these two issues alone, I lack confidence in Vituzzu's suitability to be a steward, without having to reach a firm conclusion about their conduct in the underlying cases. Bovlb (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair to draw similar conclusion upon a single discussion in which I've been targeted with false accusations, tho. Vituzzu (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz6666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN 466 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orsini? Vituzzu (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another small but telling example of the kind of misleading, combative rhetorical tactics that Vituzzu has now been called out for by several people on this discussion page alone.

Anyone spending half a minute to, say, check the Signpost's summary of the affair will understand Andreas' reference; it is very hard to believe that Vituzzu has forgotten that name. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat the question in a more clear way. Which actions of mine should I justify/explain in "Orsini affair"? Vituzzu (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to disentangle your responsibilities for my global lock from Sakretsu's here? In my eyes yours are far greater than Sakretsu's - mistakes happen, although it would be nice to acknowledge them and apologise. But yours are on a completely different level. Between 9 and 22 June you wrote me six emails on the subject, justifying Sakretsu's actions and asking me questions about my behaviour. You suggested that I inform my hysterical wikipediocray friends that confidentiality was also in my favour, while correcting the spelling of my name in four en.wiki articles. You made 25 comments in the Signpost discussion calling me out for very minor misbehaviour (COI editing for self-citation by a good-faith newbie) that had occurred nine years earlier. After the global lock was lifted, you wrote on the it.wiki mailing list that I was wrong in claiming that the stewards had cleared me of the doxing and threats allegations [22], thereby reinforcing the absurd notion that I had engaged in such despicable behaviour. I'm not asking for apologies but why couldn't you simply admit that mine was a bad glock, e.g., "after reviewing the matter more thoroughly, we came to the conclusion that there was no basis for claiming that you doxed or threatened anybody"? No, you said to that small and cohesive editorial community, "It does not seem right to embroider and attach completely arbitrary meanings to our actions". Very bad attitude, shameful and pointless behaviour. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six emails through VRT: any communication between me and you had been carried out through transparent means per my sole choice. Those emails were the core of the investigation about you. About self-citations, you weren't longer a newbie when citing yourself in 2021, and I focused upon your self-citations for two reasons: they'd been done both in a fraudolent way (socking, in 2014) or not (in 2021) and you threatened (in my opinion) another user for the same behavior. As I already wrote, we set a high standards of "due process" and I concurred that evidences weren't clear-cut to hold a global lock: I think that out of the two main allegations you are responsible of only one of the two, but the relevant email can be also read as "goofy" rather than "threatening". At the beginning I thought it was a 2/2. Resorting to any means, including exploiting the worst case of doxxing ever, to be right at all costs and making your opponents look bad is exactly the behaviour that led to your final indef block on itwiki.

Back to the topic, how am I involved in "Orsini case"? Vituzzu (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, we need to be very clear about this. If the "Orsini case" is a group of admins publishing an attack page against a public figure and then preventing any changes to that article for over a year by intimidating and blocking editors who were trying to fix that blatant BLP violation - yes, you had nothing to do with this and probably you didn't like it. If the "Orsini case" is an admin in COI indefinitely blocking me [23] for having made a single edit (not an edit war) to that forbidden article, mentioning WP:BLP in the edit summary - you're right again, it wasn't you. If the "Orsini case" is two Italian stewards globally locking my account following the publication in the national press of an article about this incident [24] - sorry, it was you and Sakretsu.

And you are still trying to smear and provoke me. I didn't threaten or dox anyone, though I received threats and my personal identity was divulged by you. The idea that I threatened a user because they had made a self-citation is false and also ridiculous, as I have already demonstrated in the appropriate venue (I didn't threatened them and self-citation was not the point at issue).

You claim that I've made a second more recent COI edit in 2021: this one [25] creating an entire section on the constitution of Israel and citing, alongside other sources, an article in a book I co-edited. But I was not the author of that article and I had no financial, academic or other interest in its circulation on Wikipedia. It was not COI editing, at least not according to it.wiki standards. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you finally admitted you're putting the blame of everything you didn't agree/like/whatever on me. Although you later admitted to be involved with the article, it is not something which triggered the lock. The lock, as you already know, was due to two reasons: the first one was the report that you were responsible of an off-wiki threat to the blocking admin. This report proved to be unverifiable and, I'm almost sure it wasn't you to be responsible. The second reason was an email you sent about another admin whom you considerd to be acting in COI (according to your personal definition). In the second case, to me, you meant to be threatening, but I accept the email in question could be read in a non-threatening way. Vituzzu (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you've just said is correct (except that I don't blame you for everything). It is an accurate summary of the case. There's just one important piece of information missing: I was instructed by the stewards themselves on how to report this alleged case of COI editing. On 1 June (i.e. before my global lock) the stewards suggested a procedure (write to a trusted it.wiki admin and/or try to contact it.wiki bureaucrats on Meta) which I followed step by step. But the bureaucrats never replied to me, so I was prevented from sharing this information with them, and when I wrote to the trusted it.wiki admin, I asked for nothing in return and made it clear that I had no intention of sharing this information with anyone else - so there was no doxxing and no threats on my part. On 5 June il Fatto Quotidiano published their article on Gitz/Orsini (without my input, interview or other information from me) and on 9 June I got globally locked. As far as I know, all it.wiki users are still persuaded that I engaged in doxxing and threats. --Gitz6666 (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you later admitted to be involved with the article No, sorry, this is not correct. I became "involved" only after my indefinite block on it.wiki (24 May). Before then, I was in no way "involved" or in COI.--Gitz6666 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

It seems to the that this sentence "Il Fatto Quotidiano published their article on Gitz/Orsini (without my input, interview or other information from me)" does not fit with what you wrote on 19th June in a well known external forum "I have only shared privately (via email) diffs documenting Hypergio's activity on it.wiki (by the way, I didn't even send them directly to the journalist, but to a friend of mine who forwarded them to the journalist and possibly other people)." --Civvì (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are consistent, actually. I did privately share diffs documenting Hypergio's activity on it.wiki (Hypergio was the it.wiki admin who indefintely blocked me as a result of my editing on the Orsini article). It is likely that these diffs were then shared with others - they are inherently public information. But this was not done at my request or under my supervision. I've never sent or received an email (phone call, whatsap, etc.) from Il Fatto Quotidiano regarding the Orsini affair: they did not get any information from me (they got information from others). By the way, I don't think that when I subscribed to the WMF Terms of Use, I waived my right to speak to the press (which didn't happen), or to share diffs privately and comment on Wikipedia's life. We are not a sect, we are not a gang, we are an open digital community. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to protect the reputation of it.wiki by correcting that attack page, which had been online for more than a year. After you kicked me out (and kicked other editors out for the same reason [26] [27]), protecting it was no longer my concern. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is not completely clear to me, you shared information concerning the Wikimedia activity of a user unaware that this would be passed to other poeple or even end on a newspaper? So you shared it whithout any other purpose, just for the joy of sharing? --Civvì (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For being totally innocent in the intimidation case, you were strangely well-informed. So much well-informed that there were details that I learnt from you, they were not public before you told them. How strange, isn't it?--Friniate (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvi. I told them, do whatever you want with this. With regard to Hypergio specifically, their identity had already been discovered by others since (as you know) they had been "doxxed" on a blog unrelated to me a few months earlier (quotation marks are needed here because, as Vituzzu explained above, it is not properly doxxing when the user has voluntarily posted their own information on Wiki). So I shared by email the diff where they identified themselves (I did not post them online as Vituzzu did with me at the Signpost) and I shared the diffs where they edited the article about the NATO agency they worked for (diffs revdeleted for no apparent reason by Gianfranco, if I'm not mistaken [28]). I also shared diffs about the positive reviews of Orsini's book being removed from the article, about editors being threatened and blocked for protesting, their edits with sources being removed from the article talk page, their request for comments on admin behaviour being annulled for no apparent reason. By your admins. Under your eyes.

@Friniate, I don't understand what you are saying or implying. intimidation in the glock terminology refers to something different (my second allegation of COI editing mentioned by Vituzzu here at 07:42, 9 February 2024, which did not concern Hypergio). I was well-informed, yes, but the information I had was what you can get from article histories and the WP search box. Sorry, maybe I didn't get what you mean. Gitz6666 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to understand, so sharing the diff from the very first edits of the history of a user (Registered: 13:42, 25 June 2013) who had not even made "a couple of edits on any WMF projects and knew nothing about COI, socks, or any other WP policies and guidelines" to a third party in order to "do whatever you want with this." is perfecly ok for you? Let me also clarify that Hypergio did not block you "as a result of my editing on the Orsini article". He blocked you because back in December 2022 when you were unblocked from your previous indef block the community set the conditions that you should stay away from controversial topics and recentisms. Which you did not. And those are not "my admins" and this did not "happen under my eyes" because, as my edit history clearly shows, I never edit on recentisms or BLPs if not to revert blatant vandalism nor do I follow those articles or the discussions about them. --Civvì (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I said By your admins. Under your eyes, I meant "you Italian users", not you Civvì personally.
If you work for a NATO agency and you block a user who is trying to remedy a blatant BLP violation against a vocal critic of NATO policy, the resulting shitstorm is on you, OK? Sorry, that's your fault, not mine. WP:COI is there to protect WP credibility and reputation, but also your reputation and that of the other interested parties (NATO, in this case). Besides, they found out who Hypergio was without my help. But even if I had been the first one to point the finger at their COI, it would have been my right to do so: no Italian admin would have ever responded to my appeal requests (which on it.wiki can only be made privately, by email). So, if I can't lodge a proper appeal, if I can't tell you about the COI of the admin who blocked me, and you wouldn't do anything about it anyway, I'll tell the world.
On the merits of Hypergio's block, however, I agree with you: COI aside, it was a good block. My editing and behaviour at Orsini were impeccable and no, there was no topic ban in force - I could edit whatever article I wanted. Please share a diff showing that there was a community-imposed restriction on my editing rights (the closest thing to a T-ban was this comment by Actormusicus [29], which doesn't mention controversial topics and recentism). But it was a good block nonetheless, and when I decided to edit the Orsini article, I knew this would happen. I knowingly and deliberately violated the informally agreed conditions of my readmission to the community: no drama, no flames, no fuss. As soon as I saw the way it.wiki admins had treated the good-faith editors who had tried to edit that article, I knew that I was incompatible with your project. Unfortunately Il Fatto quotidiano also thought (without any input from me) that the administrative management of the article was very poor and that the indefinite block of an apparently good-faith editor added something to the whole story. Were they wrong? And whose fault is that? But Hypergio's block was good, I accept that, and in fact the only reason I asked to be unblocked was to voluntarily retire from it.wiki [30].
This is all off-topic. Users are not reviewing Hypergio's block here, but Vituzzu's and Sakretsu's global lock. Your comments may suggest that their sanction was not based on the UCoC, but on a different universal code of conduct: "revenge revenge revenge! You fucked Hypergio? and now we fuck you". I suggest that an uninvolved editor place a collapse box around this flame. I will not reply any further.

Gitz6666 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was not clear at all.
It never crossed your mind (nor that of your friends involved in this) that working for an agency X does not automatically mean that you are in the control center, never heard about offices having a canteen, a cafeteria, a purchase departement for stationery, or cleaning or maintenance people, drivers, janitors or other roles far far far away from the ivory tower. No, they work for agency X SO they are for sure and automatically in the center of the global conspiracy and that's enough to crash in people's lives, doxxing them on newspapers, harming them in their RL. Nice, so long for AGF. Besides, AFAIK there is no obligation for admins or functionaries to disclose their working place and, as far as I checked there have never been other edits then those done as a newbie on the article of that agency by that user.
Yes, it was a good block. The admin never edited the article we are talking about, he was not involved in the controversy. You wrote it, there were conditions to your readmission. The whole discussion about the lifting of your indef block was based on an edit of yours (19:35, 6 giu 2022) I will not link it because it discloses your IP address but you can easily find it in which you made very precise declarations about what you would not do again, one of those was "Voglio evitare le voci e le pagine di discussione delle voci collegate all'Ucraina." In the reasons for your unblock it is stated "acquisito l'impegno dell'utente" so the terms of the agreement with the community were quite clear. Unfortunately we do not have a nice template for the talk page "Dear user, we are lifting your block and these are the conditions" but it is a good idea, we could create one for the future. But I am sure that a template would not have stopped you from overriding community decisions.
No it is not OT, because together with what is visibile there were a lot of private exchanges and I very much hope that those who have access can read those exchanges within the context of the whole picture. This is the last message for me too, nothing more to be said. --Civvì (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vituzzu is an hard worker and a great user, one of those who are fully devoted to the movement. He's been a steward for over a decade and has done an immense work so far. I always appreciate his honest opinion, especially on complex matters. Definitely keep, otherwise I believe it would be a great loss for the steward team--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure what the Gitz affair is about, and a couple of Vituzzu's responses here are not ideal; but what I have seen doesn't really change my general view of Vituzzu as a good Steward. Java Hurricane 11:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what it's about, then your view is incomplete. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make Sakrestu's words my own. --.av gas 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove — L'affaire Gitz demonstrates less than sound judgment. ——SerialNumber54129 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Levivich et al. - Rotary Engine (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Responses here do not show the temperament one would wish of a steward, who must deal sensitively with a variety of users, even those who question or criticise. They tend to reinforce the bad impression from the approach taken at the Signpost talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove To respond to the glocking steward's (Sakretsu's) comment above, this is a media where anyone can be replaced by a cooler-headed anyone. SashiRolls (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The comments on w:en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media are outrageous. Whether or not they are correct is one thing; the manner in which you handle disputes—a manner you double down upon in this section—is unacceptable. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to the Gitz Affair. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lollo98 Text me 02:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Red-Tailed hawk, Levivich, Andreas etc. Not the behaviour expected from a steward. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I understand correctly, Vituzzu above acknowledged that he handled a request to the stewards@ mailbox on the matter of an action taken by Sakretsu on itwiki. Is it common practice among stewards to have a steward take an action on their homewiki and then have another steward with the same homewiki review it/handle requests/appeals? Nemo 06:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like an answer to this as well - comments from other stewards would be welcome too. Additionally, I want to know if it's standard practice to global-lock users like Gitz for a UCOC violation where there are issues at a single (or two) projects, by an admin who is involved in it (irrespective of whether this is justified on merits). Leaderboard (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an action on it.wiki, but a global one. Sakretsu locked Gitz6666 for off-wiki harassment, and I endorsed the lock, basing upon the information we had at that time. Later investigation/discussion brought to the lock to be reversed, with the highest transparency possible (given privacy policy bounds). Vituzzu (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a global action taken in response to matters that were entirely local to it.WP.

Surely you can see that it looks improper for two Italian Stewards to handle it, especially one whose name already appeared in Gitz's it:WP block log. Andreas JN 466 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ilario (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove At some point Vituzzu lost perspective on the issue with Gitz. People above have identified a number of concerns, for me it's several comments in the Signpost discussion which I find over the line and unacceptable for someone with the permissions a Steward has. Everyone can make mistakes and I had hoped he'd have been able to regain proper perspective in the months since. His conduct here shows this hasn't happened. Vituzzu's badgering of several editors voting remove and his choice of rhetoric when replying has caused a loss of trust for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; it sums up my perspective perfectly. We still don't know exactly what happened with Gitz, and the main reason for that is the lack of transparency and defensiveness shown by Vituzzu and others. To have any chance of reconfirmation here, they would have had to shown that they had learnt something from the experience, and that they have the humility to consider that they might have been wrong. Instead they are doubling down on the same arrogant, dismissive attitude. Utterly disqualifying for a steward, I'm afraid. The community can't afford to hand advanced permissions to loose cannons who refuse to admit mistakes. Bovlb (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I lost my temper rather than my judgment: I found that one of the accusations towards Gitz6666 wasn't provable. Following the heated discussion at Signpost I choose to abstain even from checking/blocking his local block evasions. Vituzzu (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested at the time that you lost your temper rather than your judgement. I think differently now because of your replies here; they are what make me question your judgement now and in the future. For example, you wrote below "I never had a conflict with Gitz6666". When you replied to Gitz's private request you did so as a Steward - no conflict with Gitz. You then edited English Wikipedia about Gitz. Those edits created a conflict with you and Gitz that wasn't you performing actions as a Steward. You don't seem to agree with that and that is an example of why I've changed my mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it was just ordinary housekeeping. I was looking into self-citations, I didn't find new ones but I found some mistypes to correct. Vituzzu (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lost confidence on him after the whole Gitz debacle.- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My trust in him remained unchanged, I would even leave him my house keys. It would be very detrimental to the project to lose his contribution as a steward (but I'm sure his fellow stewards already know this). --Horcrux (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phyrexian. --Er Cicero (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hypergio, now known as Vengo dalla Luna, is frustrated by being brought up in this conversation when it's irrelevant. His disillusionment with Wikipedia began when Gitz6666 blackmailed Hypergio, warning of potential repercussions if actions were taken against him, Wikipedia and the Agency he supposed to work for. This led to Hypergio stepping back from Wikipedia to avoid the negative attention stemming from an article in Il Fatto Quotidiano. Not due to any conflict of interest, but simply to shield himself and his family from the ensuing controversy. It's curious how Gitz absolved himself of responsibility for the article while admitting to passing information to a journalist through a friend, thus evading accountability. Now, Vituzzu is targeted, simply for not aligning with Gitz's viewpoints. Hypergio wishes to disengage from this discussion entirely. The focus should remain on evaluating Vituzzu's capabilities as a Steward, without involving Hypergio. From my side, there are no doubts about Vituzzu's suitability for the role. --Vengo dalla Luna (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gitz6666 blackmailed Hypergio, warning of potential repercussions if actions were taken against him, Wikipedia and the Agency he supposed to work for. This never happened. The email I wrote to you on 1 June (which I first forwarded to the stewards on 15 June) is not blackmail. Since this is a very serious accusation, I'm now going to publish it here below in a collapsible box, both in Italian (original text) and in English; I will highlight the sentence to which you refer. Gitz6666 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 June email by Gitz6666 to Hypergio + English translation

Ciao Hypergio,

ho saputo che sei un dipendente o un collaboratore dell'Agenzia di informazione e comunicazione della NATO (la "NCIA", su cui ha pubblicato la voce nel 2013). Non so se le tue mansioni abbiano a che fare con il tuo ruolo di admin, ma quando hai deciso di bloccarmi a infinito per le modifiche alla voce su Alessandro Orsini, annullando il blocco temporaneo applicato da Actormusicus, eri in conflitto di interessi.

Ricapitoliamo i fondamentali:

Le mie modifiche alla voce su Alessandro Orsini del 22-23 maggio 2023 erano volte a rimediare a una serie di violazioni BPV (alcune delle quali rimosse da altri utenti dopo il mio blocco), in pieno rispetto di WP:BOLD e WP:BPV, senza guerre di modifiche e senza attacchi personali. Ho aperto discussioni in talk, condiviso fonti e argomenti (tra l’altro anche fonti "contro Orsini", perché non sono un POV pusher) e ho fatto modifiche migliorative che hanno raccolto il consenso di tutti, fuorché una. Non ero né in COI, né convocato da una WP:campagna.

I miei commenti sulle talk di Danieleb2000 e Luix710 sono stati ugualmente civili e corretti, a meno che su it.wiki sia vietato criticare le decisioni amministrative.

Tu hai annullato la decisione di Actor. Ti sei consultato con lui prima di farlo, come previsto da WP:WW, o hai fatto di testa tua?

Orsini è noto soprattutto "per le sue controverse opinioni sull’invasione russa dell'Ucraina del 2022" (cito dalla nostra voce su di lui); su giornali mainstream e trasmissioni televisive a diffusione nazionale, Orsini ha espresso varie critiche alla politica della NATO nei confronti della Russia. Perciò il blocco a infinito applicatomi da te, dipendente o collaboratore della NCIA, non solo è privo di qualsiasi fondamento nel codice di condotta di WP, ma è anche affetto da un probabile conflitto di interessi.

Non ti rendi conto che, annullando il blocco temporaneo applicato da un altro admin e bloccandomi a infinito per attacchi personali inesistenti (se mi sbaglio, condividi un diff) e per "modifiche senza consenso" (cioè, bold edit), potresti aver attirato una valanga di fango su di te, sull'Agenzia per cui lavori e anche su Wikipedia?

TI chiedo perciò di annullare immediatamente il blocco a infinito. Se lo ritieni, apri pure una UP su di me (ma sarebbe meglio che lo facessero altri) e, in base ai commenti degli utenti, valuterò se ritirarmi volontariamente dal progetto oppure no. Non me ne importa nulla di essere antipatico a te, a Superspritz, Gac & C., non dobbiamo mica andare a cena assieme. Siete utenti come gli altri e, in quanto amministratori, dovreste applicare il codice di condotta anche a protezione di utenti in buona fede che vi sono antipatici. Saluti, Gitz

TRANSLATION

Hi Hypergio,

I understand that you are an employee or collaborator of the NATO Information and Communication Agency (the "NCIA", on which you published the article in 2013). I don't know if your duties have anything to do with your role as an admin, but when you decided to block me indefinitely for editing the article on Alessandro Orsini, overriding the temporary block applied by Actormusicus, you were in a conflict of interest.

Let's recapitulate the key points:

My 22-23 May edits to the article on Alessandro Orsini were intended to remedy a series of BLP violations (some of which were removed by other users after my block), in full compliance with WP:BOLD and WP:BLP, with no edit wars or personal attacks on my part. I opened talk page discussions, shared sources and arguments (including "anti-Orsini" sources, by the way, because I am not a POV pusher), and made improvements to the article which, except for one edit, achieved everyone's consensus. I did not have a COI and was not notified by a WP:CANVASS

Also my comments on Danieleb2000's and Luix710's user talk pages were civil and appropriate, unless on it.wiki it is forbidden to criticize administrative action.

You reversed Actor's action. Did you consult with him before doing so, as required by WP:WW, or did you go your own way?

Orsini is best known "for his controversial views on Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine" (I'm quoting from our article on him); in mainstream newspapers and nationally broadcasted television programs, Orsini has expressed various criticisms of NATO's policy toward Russia. Therefore the indefinite block you applied to me is not only unfounded under WP code of conduct but, since you are an NCIA employee or contractor, it is also likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.

Don't you realize that by undoing the temporary block applied by another admin and blocking me indefinitely for nonexistent personal attacks (if I'm wrong, share a diff) and for "edits without consensus" (i.e., bold edits), you may have attracted an avalanche of mud on yourself, the Agency you work for, and Wikipedia as well?

Therefore I ask you to immediately lift the indefinite block. If you are so inclined, you may open an UP on me [Utente problematico: community discussion about user behaviour, roughly comparable to WP:AN/I] (but it would be better if it were others to do so) and, based on editors' comments, I will decide whether to voluntarily retire from the project or not. I don't give a damn about being disliked by you, Superspritz, Gac & C., it's not like we have to go to dinner together. You are users like others, and as admins you should enforce our code of conduct also to protect good faith users you dislike.

Regards,

Gitz

--Gitz6666 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno a tutti, sono Gitz ... Non sono un POV-pusher sull'Ucraina: ho opinioni mie, naturalmente, ... penso che tenermi lontano dall'Ucraina (in senso lato) possa essere un modo per rendere più semplice la mia reintegrazione nella comunità. Nel rispetto delle regole 1 e 2 potrei partecipare alle discussioni ai progetti e al bar, ma mi impegno a tenermi lontano da NS 0 e NS 1. ... 20:35, 6 giu 2022 (CEST)

Unfortunately, the commitment Gitz made to the community, for which he was unlocked, was demonstrably not fulfilled, as indirectly confirmed by Gitz itself in the aforementioned email.

Furthermore, since the blog mentioned by Gitz only revealed Hypergio's first and last name, without indicating his occupation, was the doxing on his RL that connected him with their workplace carried out directly by Gitz or by someone who then transmitted it to him and was promptly accepted by him? This is a detail that I would like to be clarified.--Bramfab (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which doxing on his RL that connected him with their workplace are you referring to? Where did Gitz6666 publish this information? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In several places, including the email above that you can read. This states that "I understand that you are an employee or collaborator of ". The link between "Hypergio" -> "real life person" -> "his employer" was not present in a single source (i.e. the blog mentioned, which is also a small and well-defined niche), but a targeted doxing action was necessary to find the right connection between the two ends of the chain. Who made this doxing? I would like to know this detail because of the context that I indicated in response to your ping in the discussion on Sakretsu."--Bramfab (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very strange response. My question was specifically "Where did Gitz6666 publish this information?" (emphasis added) And I had already read the email above when asking it.

Doxing generally involves the *publishing* of personal information, see e.g. w:en:Doxing or wikt:en:dox#Verb. Even the most stretched version of the term will not include a private email sent to the "doxed" person itself - after all, they already have this information. Or would you also argue that Vituzzu doxed Gitz6666 merely by sending him an email telling him that he was aware of his (Gitz6666's) real life identity, by (to reuse your words) "find[ing] the right connection between the two ends of the chain"? (As reported above, He mentioned that I had made COI edits per WP:SELFCITE back in 2014 when I used an alternative account to restore a work of mine from the bibliography of a now-deleted it.wiki article.) That's not what people mean when they allege that Vituzzu may have doxed Gitz6666, rather, these concerns are about Vituzzu's public edits.

I would like to assume that there is merely a language problem here, but on your user page you claim to have an "advanced knowledge of English."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem of not knowing English perfectly (let's strive to be inclusive, please), but of not using words to hide or obscure reality. Someone investigated to the point of connecting Hypergio with his employer. Who found the connection? (or which organization?) This is the detail I'm asking for. The connection was then kindly passed to a friend of a journalist who "naively" passed it on to a journalist. Everything written after that sounds like an "excusatio non petita" to me.--Bramfab (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who first discovered the connection, Bramfab, but it wasn't hard to find. A friend of mine who is not a wikipedian asked me "Is this the Hypergio who blocked you?" and gave me the URL of a blog that claimed Hypergio's name was XY and the URL of a LinkedIn account that said XY worked for the NCIA. I typed "XY" into the it.wiki search box, found the diff where Hypergio reveals their identity, looked at Hypergio's contributions at the time, and found the diffs where they edit the NCIA article. I was then able to confirm Hypergio's identity by sharing those diffs. As far as I know, there was no organisation involved, just private individuals interested in the Orsini article. Gitz6666 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detail clarified. So you finalised this investigation! for a so 'private' interest that you communicated directly or indirectly to a journalist from a newspaper with a bias towards Ukraine and NATO? --Bramfab (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one who is biased. It was you who included in the article body the verbatim quotation from the blog of a convicted member of the Red Brigades who was harshly critical of Orsini's book on that armed organisation. This content was contested on the article talk page and you repeatedly insisted that it should have been retained. This was in blatant contradiction to it:WP:BLP (Fanzine, forum e blog personali non possono essere utilizzati come fonti per informazioni riguardanti una persona vivente). We were "private individuals", I said, but it was a matter of upholding public values, including the integrity of WP's editorial process and article content. Gitz6666 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, the detail is clarified, that's all I need. Your additional comments are completely off-topic regarding the purpose of this page.--Bramfab (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the article by the scholar, a former Red Brigades member, is a critical review of the book and the thesis contained therein, and does not disclose anything about the life of the living author, on which it does not even dwell.--Bramfab (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That mail looks pretty threatening to me. If that's the kind of mails that were being sent over to fellow Wikimedians volunteers I'm inclined to grant Vituzzu any possibile mitigating circumstances for "loosing his temper" (which, for the record, I don't think it warrants his removal in this complex case). I don't see any doxing by Vituzzu either, neither apparently did who was asked to oversight the edit, neither the user seems to mind since he's giving his name even more exposure with this discussion, so how that could be used against Vituzzu's confirmation is beyond me. On the other hand, after reading this mail I find it very difficult to believe that sharing diffs of the blocking sysop was done with no malicious intent. I don't care if it was done publicly or privately or to friends who know a friend, it's still accountable to me and sounds very fishy. I find it baffling that's even used as some sort of "defense" in this whole affair, it makes me stand by my support to Vituzzu and Sakretsu even more.--Titore (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep! After reading and pondering all of the allegiations written here and elsewhere, I am even more convinced that Vituzzu is a very precious asset for all the WikiMedia projects. Peace! - εΔ ω 01:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Neutral --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerns about canvassing; moved to Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024#Canvassing concerns per TmV. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This section has since been moved to Talk:Stewards/Elections_2024#Canvassing_concerns. Victor Schmidt (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a trusted person I heard about a company against this Wikipedian and came to support him in this situation. Lvova (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for what I've seen so far, a good user and steward. --Borgil (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Spinoziano (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove sorry, but the whole Gitz issue was and is not properly handled. A straight forward apology would have been way better.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I think that this user's actions and comments related to the global lock of the user discussed above by multiple voters fell short of the standard we should expect from someone who holds advanced permissions. Hatman31 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on fact-checking Gitz on other matters I cannot believe a word he says about this steward Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Bovlb/Barkeep. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove —per Red-tailed hawk and others. Loss of trust... --Silverije 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has my trust, even more after what I read in this procedure --Ombra 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't touch my ~~breil~~ Vituzzu --Mastrocom </> void ClickToInbox(); 07:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Barkeep49 and others. The impression is that this user feels somewhat above accountability. LindsayH (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Barkeep49. Nobody is above accountability. HouseBlaster (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying being accountable for almost two decades, and this is what actually lead to some conflicts or troubles (including a court case) I could had avoid by simpling ignoring requests/whatever. This doesn't mean I've always being successful, expecially while being dragged into polemics. Vituzzu (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The badgering this user has done above, especially to editors asking legitimate questions about their actions as a Steward, lead me to believe that this user should not retain the rights. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered some questions to be in bad faith, mainly those holding me accountable for thing I've never being involved into. I was influenced by hounding at signpost discussion, wikipediocracy canvassing posts, etc, and a series of elements which are quite hard to tackle or ignore. While I must apologize for heating up I strongly deny that my actions in any of the functionaries roles I hold were influenced by this conflict. Vituzzu (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove irrespective of the actual details of the original issue, the way this candidate has responded to enquiries and concerns in this thread is unacceptable as a steward in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Par Barkeep; repeated poor judgment. The argument that it was ok to edit citations involving the supposed real-life identity of an editor you had conflict with because they had disclosed it and then removed it years ago doesn't hold up-- it's simply a bad idea. Moneytrees (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never had a conflict with Gitz6666, I don't think I never interacted with him before the allegation he had phoned to the workplace of a former it.wiki administrator tho. I took for granted his identity was known (he wrote about it in long topics while quarreling with the subject of a BLP) and I didn't mean to be threatening at all. Vituzzu (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Gitz affair is very confusing for outsiders to understand. Thank you for confirming a key point, that it was alleged that they phoned an it.wiki administrator at work. Who made this allegation? Was this allegation the basis for the UCoC determination and the global lock? Is this phone call the same one referenced in the artlcle as "contacted by Il Fatto , he did not want to reply, subsequently making himself untraceable on social media"? If so, do we know whether the reporter identified themselves with name, occupation, and place of work? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The details of the call didn't match with the article. Now I can say I suspect it was the same call, but it has been done by some journalist and Gitz6666's self-admitted involvement was just referring doxxed identity to a 3rd party who later referred it to FQ's journalist. Vituzzu (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full confidence in capability and objectivity. The accusation of doxing, with which the matter opens - and all that follows - does not stand up. The identity of the subject was well known for 10 years, always remained visible to all those capable of reading and doing 1+1+1 [31] [32] [33]. The blocking, applied by me, of his first sockpuppet, Muenzer75, on 5 June 2023 was a due act, resulting from a very clear but fortuitous technical outcome; until then it had remained at large as a form of courtesy, letting the correspondence between users and person go unnoticed, since, as the links show, there was an obvious match. --Elwood (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, the UCoC defines Doxing as follows:
- Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
In other words, whether someone ten years ago left breadcrumbs (two IP edits and one logged-in edit) that can be used for detective work to guess their identity today is immaterial and forms no part of the Wikimedia definition of doxing. The only thing that matters is whether you have obtained explicit consent to share someone's name on the Wikimedia projects. If you haven't obtained such explicit consent, you're doxing. Note: the UCoC demands explicit consent, not implicit consent.

Moreover, blocking an alternate account that made one (1) edit a decade ago and since then had been silent, and using that as a tool in a BLP dispute – concerning a case where Italian admins circled wagons to protect what was a clear BLP violation – seems like battleground behaviour and an abuse of admin privileges to me. That is the sort of thing that saw the Croatian Wikipedia go down the drain. Andreas JN 466 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict.) So the reason you blocked that long-dormant sock, Muenzer, in June 2023 was not to protect the encyclopaedia from any disruption coming from me, but to retract that form of courtesy that let my personal identity go unnoticed. That's exactly how I understood it and in my eyes it looks like a questionable rationale for your action. Note that on it.wiki my identity was not visible to all those capable of reading but only to those who were admins and had access to this diff [34] shared by Vito - I myself had forgotten that I had disclosed my identity, as this happened on the talk page to a deleted article. Finally, prior to Vito's 13 July comment at the Signpost, my personal identity was unknown to en.wiki and other WMF projects users. According to en:WP:HARASS, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia [...] The definition of "on Wikipedia" has previously been the subject of dispute. A September 2019 RfC clarified that even if a user voluntarily posts their own personal information on a Wikimedia project that is not the English Wikipedia, it may still be outing under certain circumstances to re-post that information on the English Wikipedia. It is generally more acceptable to reference information voluntarily disclosed only on another Wikimedia project if it is clear the user does not mind wider dissemination [...]. Editors are urged to take care to err on the side of privacy". Regards, Gitz6666 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) No, it was the consequence of a CU check which revealed anomalies that needed to be fixed and about which I am not required to give further details. --Elwood (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there has been much discussion, it cannot be denied that "The identity of the subject was well known for 10 years."--Bramfab (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this because he signed with his first name in one message and the surname could be guessed from the context in another? So if someone used Fede/Federico (a similarly common name) in their username, and provided sufficient context for the surname to be inferred, should we also consider that to be a well known identity? I don't know, this seems a slippery slope. Nemo 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Orsini BLP dispute had absolutely nothing to do with Gitz6666's identity. Bringing it up as part of opposition research and instrumentalising it in this manner is admin abuse, plain and simple. Andreas JN 466 10:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surname in the link to pdf [35] indicated in the discussion of the SP.--Bramfab (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 as I already said, there were self citations in 2021 and I focused upon this because the email in which (according to my reading of the email in question) Gitz6666 threatened another focused also upon self-citations.

Btw there are more appropriate venues to discuss about this, above all there are people entrusted with doing this in an unbiased way. But, just to clarify the point, full name has been used with no apparent problem by Gitz6666. Again, from my perspective, given his tone in discussion, edits, even socking itself, it was something pretty uncontroversial and public. When Gitz6666 changed his mind, I eventually seconded his wish by editing my message at the Signpost. Vituzzu (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When Gitz6666 changed his mind No, I have never changed my mind. I have always kept my identity private on en.wiki and also on it.wiki since I started to get more involved there in 2021. Your 20 June edits on en.wiki and the content of your 21 June email to me suggest that you were threatening to reveal my identity. The fact that at the Signpost discussion you brought up the trivial and completely irrelevant issue of my 2014 COI editing suggests that you were acting in retaliation. If an alternative explanation is possible and I misinterpreted your behaviour, I apologise. Gitz6666 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) --13:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: Please, but are you Gitz's lawyer? Because I see that you put his reconfirmation on your user talk, in sign post (summer 2023), are you in this forum too, wikipediocracy.com? (there is a user retired from 9 years from en.wiki, ok..) Now, if I tell you that Gitz told less than 30% of the truth, do you believe me and others 10-20 admin of it.wiki, or do you believe him? I'll wait for the answer and I'll tell you. Because he talks about doxing of Vituzzu, but he doxed at least half a dozen admins. Don't want to make people think otherwise Gitz, martyrs are something else. Te lo dico in italiano Gitz: sei diventato il peggior LTA della storia di it.wiki, era questo il tuo obbiettivo, sei contento? Ma veramente? Perché a quel punto sei arrivato. Se ti fa piacere, buon per te, ma se importuni pesantemente qualcuno, almeno per la legge italiana, poi non lamentarti se nessuno crede alla storiella del martire, di la verità su ciò che hai combinato, sii sincero per una volta, perché non hai mantenuto una sola parola di quel che avevi promesso ;-) I'm sorry (for now), but I have to copy this from another admin (to Bovlb, Jayen466, in your talk page, is it Wikipedia:Canvassing?) : By the way, things did not happen as per Gitz reporting both in Signpost and in this thread (including Vituzzu confirm). I assume good faith on those who believed blindly his version of fact, just because they are not aware of the full history and of the full details, that would put Gitz in a total different light. He's everything but a victim. Kirk39 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk, perché non dici chiaramente che cos'è che credi di sapere su questa storia? Che cos'è il 70% della verità che non avrei detto? Come avrei "importun[ato] pesantemente qualcuno, almeno per la legge italiana"? Come avrei doxxato "at least half a dozen admins"? Non puoi fare affermazioni così gravi e non dare spiegazioni (come ieri ho detto anche a Superspritz via email).

Se ti stai riferendo al mio blog e non lo vuoi nominare, chiunque può verificare che Wikipedate (qui) non fa doxing. Su quel blog, la mia critica a it.wiki è civile, corretta, rispettosa dei fatti e delle persone, argomentata. Non c'è doxxing da parte di nessuno dei suoi lettori o collaboratori. E il blog è stato aperto dopo il global lock di cui qui si discute, nell'agosto 2023. Gitz6666 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E chi parla del tuo blog? L'hai linkato tu ora per promozionarlo? Kirk39 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain what you were referring to. Gitz6666 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know well what I'm referring to, but I know well what can or cannot be disclosed. --Kirk39 (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a clue what you are referring to but I know that anything can be discussed publicly without disclosing nonpublic information. Just avoid mentioning names; consult with a fellow wikipedian whose judgment you trust, e.g. Vito, Sakretsu or Superpes. But you cannot leave my questions unanswered. You have made very serious allegations hinting at a legal threat against me ("...la legge italiana") and I insist on an explanation. Gitz6666 (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another itwiki admin making extremely strange claims and insinuations on this page. To highlight just one absurdity here:

are you Gitz's lawyer? Because I see that you put his reconfirmation on your user talk

That "Steward elections and confirmations" line on Jayen466's talk page is part of a very widely used template (en:Template:Centralized discussion), and was added there by entirely different enwiki editors (as every year).

Yet Kirk39 interprets this as part of a campaign to defend Gitz6666 or besmirch the honor of Vituzzu. And no, I do not think that users who spread such easily disprovable falsehoods about public communications should be blindly believed when it comes to vague insinuations about nonpublic communications. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is campaign. The problem is that seeing what you wrote last summer, I don't think you were the right user to do it. Kirk39 (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I've lost confidence in this steward per the concerns expressed above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The candidate's responses here are disqualifying enough even if I didn't have misgivings about their conduct in the Gitz affair. Responding to concerns with combative dismissal on a reconfirmation vote is... a choice, and not one that makes me want them to remain a steward. David Fuchs (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Zangala (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vituzzu is serving since 2011. The plenty of actions he has performed as steward during these 12+ years prove not only his technical competence, but also his compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of what is expected in whom is asked to intervene, with the special rights assigned to them, in thorny situations. It is no coincidence that the few dissenting opinions Vituzzu received in previous confirmations came from users who had been involved in (if not directly affected by) his actions as a steward.

What is happening here above is perfectly in line with the past confirm procedures: Vituzzu is under attack, for a single episode, by a group of users vote-stacked on an en.wp page related to that episode, as well as on external sites. To me, this reliably explains why this confirmation is numerically not as obvious as the past ones.

I feel it is fair to pay attention to all opinions, although it is very difficult to delve into them when those who support those opinions are constantly changing their version of events as they are disproved. For instance, it is weird that Vituzzu, who has always been considered to prefer action to talk, is this time accused of providing answers to those who have attributed false accusations to him or facts that are true but do not violate any rule. For instance, it is weird that User:Gitz6666 is complaining that Vituzzu has renewed visibility to personal data that Gitz6666 himself had disclosed (an did not attempt to keep confidential at all), whereas he is the same user who revealed personal details about other ones (that they had never declared within Wikipedia), while talking with journalists and lawyers engaged in a dispute over a Wikipedia entry, and the owner of an off-wiki website wherein he discusses personal details of other Wikipedia users, e.g. alleged COIs.

I feel that it is understandable why such users seek some kind of revenge on those who belong to a language edition of Wikipedia from which they have twice been expelled. Nonetheless, the elements they have brought do not make me stop to believe that depriving Vituzzu as a steward is a net loss for Wikipedia as a whole. --Argeste (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This candidature is nearly unscorable for obvious reasons, and hence I may change my comments depending on how this goes. I'm seeing a few things here:
- (i) there appears to be controversy on whether Vituzzu's actions would constitute a CoI problem. I do think there is evidence to suggest a CoI issue, though the one thing I'm not sure is whether this is normal practice (i.e, whether it'd be OK for a en.wiki CU to subsequently global-lock a user... I know that this has happened on en.wikibooks, though it was usually either obvious spam or otherwise uncontroversial).
- (ii) some accuse him of doxing. I don't see sufficient evidence to support this claim, on the basis that whatever he did must have been valid under the rules, if not necessarily on spirit (otherwise he would have been sanctioned already).
- (iii) many accuse him of unprofessional behaviour. I mean, there are many ways to handle something like this, and it doesn't strike me as unusual that he's choosing himself to defend from the accusations (and it isn't like he's spitting nonsense or is lying). If he kept quiet, I think we would be accusing him of not being responsive instead...
  As a result, I am leaning towards a keep on this user, with the evidence I have at least. This is clearly not the "obvious remove" case that we've seen in the past, though I'm a bit surprised Vituzzu is in this mess, as I recall him being the "quiet and competent" user in previous steward confirmations. Also: some of the mess was very easy to resolve, such as his odd initial response to my query about the blocking admin being revision-deleted. Leaderboard (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit (and apologize) because I thought your question weren't in good faith. TBH I don't see any CoI in this matter: I just endorsed a lock and later its overturning. About the last point I think you said it all, although I surely must blame myself for getting heated about this mess. Vituzzu (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a complicated issue. If nothing else, I'm sure Vituzzu acted in good faith. I'd like to add that it seems to me many who have given their opinion have done so on insufficient grounds and without regard to context (e.g. allegations of doxing) --Shivanarayana (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Julius 12345 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Barkeep49 and Yngvadottir. No matter how the Gitz issue began, these responses do not show the temperament needed of a Steward. The Wordsmith (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Noce09 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The evidences brought to this discussion are very tough to endorse any support. --Eta Carinae (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No confidence after seeing candidate's demeanor in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very sorry to have to intervene in this intricate issue (those who know me know that I don't like getting involved in similar matters and above all I don't like attacking users), but, out of fairness to all the users who were involved in the Gitz affair, I can't help but highlight that some untrue things have been written above, which have influenced the judgment of many users who participated in the reconfirmations of Sakretsu and Vituzzu.
First of all, the block given on it.wiki by Hypergio to Gitz on 23 May 2023 had nothing to do with his possible COI on Orsini's voice, in which moreover he had never intervened. The block was a direct consequence of the conditions not respected by Gitz at the end of the request for opinions concerning him. After his first block infinite, he was allowed to return after six months on the condition that "infinity on sight" could be applied in case of new problems. The promise had not been kept and, before the block, Hypergio had reported to Gitz that he was dangerously close to the conditions of a new infinite block. Gitz had recognized it by replying "eh, in effetti..." (heh, actually). Unfortunately, and I am sincerely sorry, the situation did not change and a few hours later he was given a new one-week ban by Actormusicus. Hypergio noticed this and consequently applied the infinite block provided for the request for opinions in case of new problems.
Secondly, I am aware of some elements that demonstrate that the events of the following days, before the global blockade by Sakretsu, did not unfold exactly in the way that was described above by Gitz. Some things have been omitted above and other incorrect things have been written, but I cannot publicly report here the contents of two emails that Gitz sent me on 7 and 8 June 2023, asking me to be unblocked in order to withdraw from it .wiki alone, and that he published on wikipediocracy only partially--Parma1983 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part of your comment: as I've said on multiple occasions, I made a conscious decision to leave it.wiki when I decided to edit the article on Orsini. It was then that my "incompatibility with the project" became evident to me and others, as I've already acknowledged in my 24 May email to WikiIT-l [36]. However, I don't agree with the second part of your comment mentioning elements that demonstrate that the events of the following days [...] did not unfold exactly in the way that was described above by Gitz. So I'm including in a collapsible box my 7 and 8 June emails to you. They are in Italian, they are long and terribly boring, but they are also honest and detailed and contain no threats, as everybody can see (I highlighted the relevant part). For privacy reasons, I omit nonpublic information (names).

7 and 8 June emails from Gitz6666 to Parma1983

7 June email

Caro Parma,

credo che gli utenti bloccati abbiano il diritto a chiedere una revisione del blocco a un amministratore non coinvolto. Tu sei un amministratore non coinvolto – tra l’altro, uno dei pochissimi, visto che non sei mai intervenuto sulla famigerata voce su Orsini. Inoltre ti conosco come una persona capace di giudizio indipendente e oggettivo, che dimostri ogni giorno nelle PdC, quindi spero che tu voglia ascoltare con attenzione le mie ragioni qui di seguito e decidere nel modo più giusto.

Il blocco a infinito è stato applicato da Hypergio annullando il blocco di una settimana disposto da Actor, senza che tra il blocco di Actor e quello di Hypergio intervenissero comportamenti nuovi (violazioni del blocco, ecc.) ma solo in base a una diversa valutazione della mia condotta. Hypergio era probabilmente in COI quando mi ha bloccato, perché la mia condotta alla base del blocco riguarda le discussioni e le modifiche alla voce su Orsini, che è noto soprattutto in quanto critico della NATO, per cui Hypergio lavora. E’ possibile che Hypergio si sia dimesso da admin il 1 giugno proprio a causa di questo COI e del polverone mediatico che ha sollevato. Peccato che prima di farlo non abbia autoannullato il blocco in COI. Ti chiedo di rimediare.

I motivi dati da Hypergio a giustificazione del blocco non sono difendibili e sembrano quelli tipici di un admin in COI, che aggiunge ogni e qualsiasi cosa gli venga in mente per rafforzare una decisione discutibile: [37]

Primo motivo, “Abuso di pagine di servizio”. E’ il motivo indicato da Actor poche ore prima alla base del blocco di una settimana [38]. Si riferisce al mio commento nella talk page di Luix710. Ora, a parte che Luix mi aveva pingato e che Actor si era rivolto anche a me (“è inutile che vi tiriate i capelli”) sollecitando quindi una mia risposta, in che senso la mia risposta è un abuso? Mi sembra il genere di commento che ha senso fare sulla pagina discussioni utente, perché riguarda il comportamento dell’utente in questione ed è espresso in modo civile, non eccessivamente ostile, utile nell’intenzione di spiegare all’utente le nostre linee guida e, implicitamente, di rimproverare Actor per aver bloccato Danieleb2000 per “atteggiamento non collaborativo” e non Luix per edit war e POV-pushing. Comunque sia: se anche tu pensi che il blocco di una settimana per quel commento sia giustificato, certo il blocco a infinito è un’assurdità! Leggi per favore il mio commento [39], ti sembra così grave?

Secondo motivo, “modifiche senza consenso”. Modifiche senza consenso è un altro nome di “bold edit”, che le linee guida ci incoraggiano a fare. Se uno non le condivide, le annulla, come ha fatto Kirk [40]e nessuno si fa male per questo, ma si discute in talk, come s'è fatto. Anzi, prima di fare questo bold edit (una serie di quattro modifiche consecutive) ne ho spiegato le ragioni in talk e ti prego di leggere quel commento: [41].Noterai che offre argomenti forti (violazione di BPV) e fonti di qualità (sia pro- sia contro-Orsini: non è il commento di un POV-pusher). Infatti dopo l’annullamento di Kirk la discussione è proseguita per due giorni, il 22 e il 23 maggio. Molti admin l’anno vista o hanno partecipato ma nessuno, tranne Hypergio, ha applicato sanzioni. La situazione è “precipitata” il giorno dopo, quando Luix ha fatto una edit war, annullando il mio annullamento di una sua modifica che ulteriormente sbilanciava la voce [42]e Actor ha reagito… bloccando Danieleb2000 – decisione che io ho criticato, sulla talk di Danieleb2000 e di Luix710, provocando il blocco di Actor e dando occasione a Hypergio di rincarare la dose con un blocco a infinito. Ma il problema è che le mie modifiche senza consenso erano conformi alle linee guida WP:BOLD e WP:NPOV, anzi erano il tentativo di rimediare a una violazione BPV abbastanza smaccata: perché pubblicare una ricerca originale sull’impatto del libro di Orsini? E perché farla selezionando solo le recensioni negative e tralasciando quelle positive? Perché riportare per esteso estratti dalle recensioni, se la voce è su Orsini, e non sul libro? E il problema è anche che Hypergio era in COI a valutare il consenso sulla voce su Orsini e lo sapeva benissimo (infatti negli ultimi anni si era tenuto alla larga da Ucraina, NATO, ecc.).

Terzo motivo, “attacchi personali”. Questa per me è la prova che Hypergio oltre a essere in COI era anche personalmente coinvolto e non neutrale. Non c’è stato nessun attacco personale. Io non faccio attacchi personali – sono una persona educata e corretta. Visto che non potrai certo leggerti tutte le discussioni (tutte ormai cassettate da Gac) ti incollo qui di seguito gli unici miei due commenti che sono stati considerati sull’orlo dell’attacco personale dagli utentei cui erano rivolti: “Tu proprio non hai capito che cos'è WP:NPOV. Perché non ti rileggi quella pagina? E' una linea guida importante” (rivolto a Luix710, 11:10, 23 mag 2023); “Immagino che tu sia di cattivo umore per conto tuo, quindi non prolungo questo scambio” (rivolto a Superspritz sulla sua pagina di discussione, 17:53, 22 mag 2023; non c'entra con Orsini ed è mia opinione che Superspritz avesse cercato apposta un conflitto con me, certo era stato molto sgarbato). Questi non sono attacchi personali e tali non sono stati considerati né dagli utenti coinvolti né da altri admin, a parte Hypergio.

Quarto motivo, “incompatibilità col progetto”. Può darsi che ci sia del merito in questo motivo e io stesso vorrei ormai ritirarmi volontariamente da un progetto con cui collaborare mi è impossibile. Per collaborare bisogna essere in due e la mia impressione è che ci sia una diffusa, irrimediabile ostilità nei miei confronti, che rende agli altri difficile presumere la mia buona fede e di fatto mi impedisce di fare contributi utili alle discussioni (nel senso che temo che i miei contributi vengano senz’altro respinti da alcuni utenti per il solo fatto che li ho proposti io). Tuttavia, non accetto un blocco a infinito disposto da un admin in COI per incompatibilità col progetto. Per incompatibilità mi ritiro volontariamente io, oppure può bloccarmi la comunità, se lo ritiene, dopo una discussione (UP): non è un motivo che giustifichi il blocco disposto da un admin senza discussione comunitaria, tanto più se l’admin è in COI.

Per queste ragioni, ti prego di annullare il blocco di Hypergio con motivazione “Blocco in COI” oppure (meno controverso) “Non ci sono stati attacchi personali” o con qualsiasi altra motivazione che tu ritenga giusta, e di consentirmi il ritiro volontario.

Ciao,

Gitz

8 June email

Caro Parma,

cercando di dare un senso al tuo silenzio e al silenzio degli altri admin di it.wiki, ho buttato giù questo email che integra quello di ieri con una serie di informazioni di natura "procedurale" (e non solo).

1. Ho scritto a Hypergio due volte, la prima il 24 maggio subito dopo la rimodulazione del blocco da parte di Actor per consentirmi l’invio di wikimail. Gli ho chiesto di consentirmi il ritiro volontario e Hypergio ha rifiutato con la motivazione che leggi qui sotto. Il 31 maggio ho saputo del suo COI dal giornalista del Fatto: la fonte dell’informazione è il blog di XXX, più il profilo LinkedIn di Hypergio; a quanto pare lo stesso Hypergio ha rivelato il suo nome e cognome sul sito nel 2013, oltre a creare la voce sulla NCIA. A quel punto ho scritto a Hypergio una seconda volta, il 1 giugno. Non sapevo ancora che aveva chiesto il deflag, immagino anche lui a seguito di un contatto col giornalista del Fatto. Mi sono lamentato del suo COI e ho chiesto l'annullamento del blocco. Se vuoi posso girarti anche questa email, a cui lui non ha risposto.

2. Ho scritto alcune email alla mailing list di WikiIT (il 24 e 26 maggio e il 5 giugno) chiedendo l'annullamento del blocco. Nessun admin ha risposto e non so quindi se qualcuno ha valutato e respinto il mio appello; se è avvenuto, nessuno me ne ha comunicato le ragioni. Quando ho scritto quelle email ero arrabbiato (e lo sono ancora) ma le ho rilette ora e non noto nulla di inappropriato.

3. Prima che di venire a sapere del COI di Hypergio ho avuto un scambio di email con Actor, ma non ho chiesto l'annullamento del blocco - Actor mi ha consentito di scrivere una wikimail a Hypergio, ma rispetto alla faccenda del blocco si considera admin coinvolto. Dopo aver saputo del COI ho scritto anche a Pequod, ma non gli ho chiesto di rivedere il blocco disposto da Hypergio e comunque non ho ricevuto risposta. Quindi sinora nessun admin ha esaminato il mio ricorso ed espresso un giudizio nel merito.

4. Dopo il mio blocco, ho preso contatto con XXX, con cui ho avuto varie conversazioni e scambi whatsapp. Non intendo rivelare il contenuto di quegli scambi perché riguardano un'altra persona - XXX, appunto - XXX. Dico solo che da più di un anno discute con i suoi legali su come riuscire a ottenere la cancellazione della voce, che a suo parere è un attacco personale e politico (non sono vicino a XXX, ma condivido questo suo giudizio). Nei primi giorni di giugno era molto allarmato dall'idea che la NATO fosse dietro alla scrittura della sua voce, cosa che personalmente so essere falsa - e gliel'ho detto - perché so come si scrivono le voci di Wikipedia (o meglio, di come si scrivono nelle bozze, idea folle di cui alla luce di questa e altre esperienze dovreste pentirvi amaramente - i wikipediani doc pensano davvero di saper scrivere l'enciclopedia meglio degli altri? Lo stub pubblicato a marzo dal neoutente pov pusher Danieleb2000, [43], era di gran lunga migliore e più neutrale della "pagina di attacco" uscita fuori da due mesi di discussione nelle bozze, [44]). Quindi diciamo che dal 25 maggio in poi io sono oggettivamente in COI per quanto riguarda quella voce, ma prima di allora non avevo avuto nessun contatto con XXX, che non conoscevo personalmente e che non stimavo. Non sono arrivato su quella voce dietro sua richiesta e nemmeno in risposta ai suoi post su Facebook (che ho letto solo dopo). Il mio unico interesse era rendere quella pagina conforme a WP:BPV, linea guida che a quanto pare su it.wiki sono l'unico ad aver letto.

5. Subito dopo aver appreso del COI di Hypergio ho cercato l'assistenza degli steward della WMF per informarli della situazione ([45]). Volevo sapere come comunicare il COI senza violare le regole sul doxxing (sebbene bloccato su it.wiki, non volevo compromettere il mio account su en.wiki e sugli altri progetti). Mi hanno consigliato di contattare i burocrati o gli admin di it.wiki via email, privatamente, cosa che ho cercato di fare lasciando un messaggio in Meta a Jaqen e Euphrydyas, di nuovo senza ricevere risposta. Frustrato, il 4 giugno ho informato Pequod del COI di Hypergio e di un altro COI (questo non di dominio pubblico, ma di cui mi sono accorto tempo fa), senza ricevere risposta. Per quanto riguarda questo secondo COI, lascio la cosa nelle mani esperte di Pequod - non intendo renderlo pubblico, ma mi aspetterei da parte di it.wiki almeno un gesto di apprezzamento per gli sforzi che ho fatto (pur essendo bloccato a infinito) per comunicarvi questi COI senza violare le regole sul doxxing! Invece di un “ben fatto, Gitz”, trovo un muro di gomma.

Infatti, alla luce di tutte queste risposte mancate mi sembra che ci sia una strategia "don't feed the troll" condivisa dagli admin di it.wiki per (non) rispondere ai miei messaggi di qualsiasi natura. Se è così, vi sbagliate - questo atteggiamento è esasperante e antagonizza, non concilia. So che siete volontari non professionisti, ma avete assunto una responsabilità che secondo me include quella di esaminare gli appelli contri i blocchi e di offrire un'argomentazione in caso di rifiuto. Qui un admin in COI ha bloccato un utente che cercava in buona fede (perché prima del 25 maggio non ero ancora in COI) di rimediare a delle violazioni BPV. Dopo aver dedicato centinaia di ore di lavoro alla scrittura di wikipedia, credo di avere diritto quantomeno a una risposta nel merito ben ponderata e argomentata. TI ripeto quanto scritto ieri - non voglio collaborare con voi, so che è impossibile farlo per me, ma non accetto un blocco a infinito che è palesemente illegittimo e che mi danneggerà su altri progetti.

Fammi sapere per favore.

Saluti,

Gitz

Gitz6666 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: I thank you for recognizing the validity of what I wrote in the first part of my comment and for reporting the text of the two emails here.
In particular, in one of the underlined parts, contrary to what you said above, you wrote that you had had contact with a journalist from "Il Fatto Quotidiano" starting from May 31st (therefore a few days before the publication of the article on the Orsini affair on June 5th). The "friend" who provided you with the link to the "famous" list of names and surnames of numerous admins and users of it.wiki was therefore that journalist (perhaps the same one who the following day also tried to contact Hypergio, forcing him to resign on June 2, before the publication of the article).
Secondly, considering what would have happened in the immediately following days, it seems important also the part in which you wrote that you had had various conversations since the 25th May with the person XXX (who had hired lawyers for over a year in order to delete his article on it.wiki).
At this point, it seems reasonable to ask: 1) How did the journalist find you? 2) Is the person you shared the diffs mentioned above one of the ones mentioned here? Thank you--Parma1983 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your second question. Anyway, this is what happend. I wrote in the 8 June email to you Il 31 maggio ho saputo del suo COI dal giornalista del Fatto ("On 31 May, I learned about his COI from the journalist of Il Fatto") for the sake of brevity. I should have written more accurately "On 31 May I learned about Hypergio's COI from a friend XXX who leanrned about it from a journalist of Il Fatto". I did not specify the information because it seemed irrelevant at the time, and it still seems irrelevant: what would have changed if I had been contacted directly by the journalist? That didn't happen as a matter of fact and there has always been the mediation of a friend XXX, but that doesn't change anything substantial. This is the chain of events.

23 May I get indeff'd by Hypergio and write this email/appeal to it.wiki mailing list [46].
On 25 May I make contact with XXX for the first time (not a WP editor; personal name disclosed to stewards) and we start exchanging emails. I explain various WP policies (NPOV, BLP, etc.), share diffs from article history, and personal views about it.wiki’s malaise. I provide them with a detailed article history analysis - who did what on that page - including my block. They ask me if they can share this information with others people, I answer "share them with whoever you want". In my mind this includes journalists, lawyers, staff, Facebook, blogs, etc: whoever. There are no names in our correspondence, no doxxing.
A couple of days later XXX asks me "Is this guy your Hypergio?" and sends me URLs to YYY's blog and Hypergio's LinkedIn profile. I make a reseach on Wiki and reply "Yes" sharing a couple of diffs. So I learned about Hypergio's COI.
XXX asks me if I want to speak with a journalist. I say I'll think about it, but then decline. By the way, in my correspndence with XXX I also told them that in my view NATO had no role in the writing of the article.
On 31 May I contact the Stewards Response Team and on 1 June I contact Hypergio informing them of the incoming shitstorm. I don't make any threat or ask anything in return of the information; I had no bargaining power - it could not, even if I had wanted to, prevent Il Fatto from publishing their report.
I first informed the stewards of these contacts in my 14 June appeal, where I wrote: I confess to the following, though. When, at the end of May, an unnamed third party – someone whose privacy and tranquillity I intend to uphold here – informed me that Hypergio might be an NCIA analyst and pointed me to the LinkedIn profile of ***, I did a simple search on it.wiki and discovered the diff in which Hypergio discloses his real name. I browsed through Hypergio's editing history and discovered that in 2013 he had published, and until 2018 edited, the NCIA article (entries now removed by admin Gianfranco). I shared the information about Hypergio's editing with the third party I was in contact with, who probably forwarded it to the FQ journalist. I was also offered to get in direct contact with the FQ journalist, which, upon reflection, I declined.

Gitz6666 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: Thank you for the explanation. I apologize if I wasn't clear with my second question, but you answered that one too: that person was always person XXX (whose name was present in the emails)--Parma1983 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi scuso per l'italiano ma è indispensabile perché non ci si fraintenda e qui pare possa succedere... mi inserisco in una discussione che non mi riguarda e mi dispiace per Vito, ma il messaggio dell'utente ha tirato in ballo tutti gli admin... cos'è che hai scritto???: "Se è così, vi sbagliate - questo atteggiamento è esasperante e antagonizza, non concilia. So che siete volontari non professionisti, ma avete assunto una responsabilità che secondo me include quella di esaminare gli appelli contri i blocchi e di offrire un'argomentazione in caso di rifiuto."... sono uno dei "pochissimi" (lo dici tu con un esagerazione incredibile) admin che prima di questa votazione neanche sapevo chi eri e avrebbe preferito continuare così, quindi ti dico che non solo nessuno è tenuto a risponderti e se non l'hai capito non mi stupisco più di nulla... l'unica responsabilità che ha un admin di wikipedia (in lingua italiana e no) è verso i contenuti dell'enciclopedia e la comunità lo nomina per questo, non di correre dietro alle richieste d'attenzione (passatemi il termine) degli utenti... oppure mi sono perso una qualche policy ed ho sbagliato tutto in questi anni? e a tal proposito, ti è mai venuta l'idea che scrivere a raffica è - come dici tu - esasperante e antagonizza, non concilia?... ah, per finire... se vuoi replicare, fallo qui perché per me la questione con l'utenza Gitz6666 che afferma che invece di una RL e un hobby e nulla più chiamato wikipedia, devo essere ai suoi comandi se lo desidera è da intendersi chiusa...--Torsolo (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on 1 June I contact Hypergio informing them of the incoming shitstorm. I don't make any threat or ask anything in return of the information

Let's see.

Non ti rendi conto che, annullando il blocco temporaneo applicato da un altro admin e bloccandomi a infinito per attacchi personali inesistenti (se mi sbaglio, condividi un diff) e per "modifiche senza consenso" (cioè, bold edit), potresti aver attirato una valanga di fango su di te, sull'Agenzia per cui lavori e anche su Wikipedia? Ti chiedo perciò di annullare immediatamente il blocco a infinito.

You may have drawn a mud avalanche on you
I ask you therefore to immediately undo my undef block

AFAIK, sentence #2 is a request, and furthermore no kind request (immediately!). Adverb therefore (= consequently) relates it to sentence #1: since a mud avalanche may flow on you, I ask you to unlock me. Immediately.

On sentence #1 and its all Italian semantics I would invite our non-Italian fellow users to enjoy the most hilarious Gioele Dix's sketch Il finestrino del treno, on YouTube, with subtitles. From all my heart, I hope such semantics were unwanted.

And this was my only comment on this sickening old affair. Goodbye Actormusicus (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Torsolo Unfortunately for it.wiki users, it.wiki has no appeal process against sanctions. This is unfortunate and incompatible with the UCoC. So you are right when you say that you it.wiki admins have no duty to reply to private requests for unblock via email or to any other appeal whatsoever. Good for you.

@Actormusicus "Therefore" refers to the various substantive arguments I provided in my email to Hypergio (ricapitoliamo i fondamentali, "Let's recapitulate the key points"). If one wants to make threats they don't give you a list of policy-based reasons for the unblock. That was a reasonably argued unblock request by someone who was obviously angry but made no threat. There is no "otherwise..." in that email of mine. Gitz6666 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(email layout is, of course, full inconsistent with such a late explanation) Actormusicus (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "late"? Have you or others ever asked for an explanation before? Gitz6666 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise: I know you are a NCIA worker.

The bulleted points as a whole: you made a wrong block.

The conclusion: because of all this, mud may flow. So, unlock me. Immediately.

No need for “otherwises”, as in the sketch I mentioned above.

Very well. I must admit this is a very incisive style. Congrats :-) --Actormusicus (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're talking about my email layout, in your summary you should place a full stop (punto a capo) starting a new paragraph between "mud may flow" and 'So, unlock me". Gitz6666 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

Mud may flow.

So, unlock me immediately.

So subtle. My admiration grows up from minute to minute Actormusicus (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize:

Gitz admits to actively contributing to the collection, validation, and distribution of personal information on several Wikipedia administrators (without giving them prior notice or asking for their consent, a notification not required by law, but simply out of fairness). He also granted permission for this information to be shared "with whoever you want."

An unnamed third party informed Gitz that Hypergio might be an NCIA analyst, contradicting his previous claim that he discovered this information.

The entire incident revolves around a discussion about an intellectual and a newspaper that are actively involved in Ukrainian affairs and have a clear position on the conflict.

Is it not astonishing that the possibility of being unwittingly used for propaganda to undermine Wikipedia's neutrality has never been raised?

On the positive side, in spite of someone's efforts, there was no "shitstorm" due to the well-known position of the newspaper and the sensationalist tone of many of its articles. The lawyer, on the other hand, has been working on the case.--Bramfab (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personal information on several Wikipedia administrators. No, I shared diffs. Diffs are not nonpublic information. Bramfab including into ns0 a verbatim quote from the blog of the former Red Brigades militant Persichetti is not a "personal information" about Bramfab. I wanted to attract public scrutiny on how you admins wrote that attack page and "circled the wagons" around it for over one year. contradicting his previous claim that he discovered this information. I've never made that claim. If I'm wrong, share a diff. Gitz6666 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your previous reconstructions, you admitted to actively contributing to the collection, confirmation, and distribution of information about individuals, with all the consequences that this entails. Your latest statements do not deny any of this.

I don't understand what the book review article on Persichetti's website has to do with all this, which I'm linking here in case anyone is interested, but which is in no way connected to what you did.--Bramfab (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a self-published blog (by an ex-terrorist), so like Gitz I struggle to see why it should have been cited prominently in the biography of a living person. I also don't understand why numerous positive reviews of Orsini's work, published in top-class journals, were excluded from the article – and why it.wiki admins reverted and blocked editors who added these sources to the article and its talk page. Andreas JN 466 11:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more: what does this book review have to do with this steward's reconfirmation? I'm confused.--Bramfab (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a case of admin misconduct and policy violations from start to finish. The contributions of it.wiki admins to this page have by and large only served to increase the perception that this may not have been an isolated case. --Andreas JN 466 13:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if the simplest answer is not to seek conspiracies or fuel one-sided perceptions, but simply to note that the Italian administrators and Wikipedians who know Vituzzo's activity and the general situation of the Italian Wikipedia (which is not small) best are the ones who are surprised to find themselves the object of prejudice, moreover, traceable to a single source? Is there no room even for a little doubt? Only for absolute certainties worthy of a "Bernardo Gui"? --Bramfab (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at the Italian Orsini biography and the it.WP discussions, blocks and talk page deletions around it at the time, and was able to form my own opinion of what had been happening on it.WP. It matched Gitz's view.

Those interested can plug the Italian Wikipedia admins' version of Orsini's biography, as it was before the WMF removed it, into DeepL or Google Translate and compare the coverage of Orsini's "Anatomy of the Red Brigades" in that Italian article to how it is in his current English Wikipedia bio.

The missing academic sources, repeatedly deleted and suppressed by Italian admins, are obvious to see. The Italian bio, maintained by reverts and user blocks, was as clear-cut a case of an attack page as any I have seen. It was shameful; and even more shameful was that the people pointing the problem out were blocked rather than supported by the it:WP admin corps. Andreas JN 466 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The it talk page shows a broad and participatory discussion, with the search for consensus and support of reliable sources for a neutral bio, witch is not the en bio, where any criticism has been careful removed for example.

Plus: what does that have to do with this steward's reconfirmation? I'm still confused--Bramfab (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently. Andreas JN 466 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas gentilmente vorresti evitare di chiamare in causa tutti gli admin di it:wiki, perché mi sembra che tu stia facendo questo, altrimenti indicheresti con termini quali: "alcuni". "taluni", "certi" o simili che esistono - credo - come sinonimi anche in lingua inglese... solo per cortesia, perché su 120 circa admin, si e no saranno stati coinvolti quanti? una decina? una quindicina? ci si dovrebbe ricordare inoltre che questa è la riconferma di uno steward, che colgo l'occasione di ringraziare per il lavoro svolto che certo non si limita a questa sola questione, e non della gestione di un utente su una versione linguistica... --Torsolo (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gitz6666's private life was not exposed to the mass media as instead happened for his interlocutor. The heated discussion here is not a good presentation, but the difference between the two positions is clear - according to me. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep, according the same reasons expressed by Harlock81. Hi --Aleacido (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great and good job. He works hard. In here, there has been talk about his tones but he was dealing with manipulative behavior that would try the patience of even saints; it was an isolated case, semel in anno... See above for the rest: Civvì, Vengo dalla Luna, Parma...--Fresh Blood (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously I had limited myself to a simple, sterile {{K}}, not imagining that Vituzzu's reappointment procedure would become the strangely tortuous and bumpy path we are witnessing. In short I would like to express my full support for Vito as I see nothing in this excellent user, with years of experience behind him, that could be considered deplorable or wrong. In fact, I see a capable user, who knows certain mechanisms well and knows how to manage certain situations professionally. Given the enormous amount of comments, you will forgive me if I express one too, to be honest, not too long but fully in line with the topic in question.--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vituzzu is a valuable steward. --Sîmbotin (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ghilt (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to the Gitz6666 issue --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, concerns with judgement -Fastily 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The Gitz affair is not the first time I have seen subpar behavior from this steward, but it is the the worst example. Time to go, there's plenty of other Stewards. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is reported on this page, you wouldn't be in the position to comment. Playing with the rules and betraying the trust of the community by stirring up campaigns against a Steward and the whole group of the Italian sysops is a serious matter. Bad enough to shed a different light the whole so called "Gitz affair" and its implications for the whole Wiki community, going far beyond the English Wikipedia and its ArbCom.--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that you have to rely on Breitbart as your source, TrinacrianGolem, both your comment here and your overall credibility are substantially reduced. And those that go around telling people not to comment should generally take their own advice. ——SerialNumber54129 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So please rely on wikipedate XD --Actormusicus (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XD As usual: when you don't like what you read, then you criticize the source and whoever reports it.--Kirk39 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 I'm definitely not a Breitbart fan, but suspension because leakage is a fact.--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove because of the Gitz affaire. And indirectly because on it.wiki Vituzzu was informed of the ongoing "Orsini catastrophe" and the related admin abuses as early as 2022, but he did not react as he could and should have. Also of concern are the numerous violations of CU policy in 2019, as ascertained by the Ombuds Commission and reported by the it.wiki user LuxExUmbra at Vituzzu's confirmation as admin in 2022 [47]. LuxExUmbra was indefinitely blocked for publicly reporting the issue [48] (as LuxExUmbra recently explained here [49]), which suggests once again the existence of a culture of admin abuse on it.wiki. Danieleb2000 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false, tho, as explained by OC members here. Vituzzu (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some quotations are needed to explan the issue.

In that admin confirmation, Ajraddatz explained that the OC decided that Vituzzu acted in good faith, and has not recommended any sanctions. Superpes15 (then a member of the OC) said that la commissione non ha sanzionato nessuno, semplicemente perché nessuna violazione è stata ritenuta grave ("the commission did not sanction anyone simply because no violation was deemed serious"). The findings of the OC, as reported by LuxExUmbra (unchallenged), were that subsequent checks do violate the CheckUser policy.

If this is correct, we can conclude that there were some violations of CU policy, which were not deemed serious enough to deserve sanctions. Danieleb2000's comment is not false: at the most, it is incomplete. It's also true that LuxExUmbra was indefinitely blocked by Gianfranco for pointing out this issue, and that - I'd add - Vituzzu and LuxExUmbra had had a prolonged content dispute at it:Strage di Erba. Gitz6666 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored Faendalimas's comment. Unfortunately your hostility towards me prevents you from a balanced judgment: in short, it took the OC of time a year to reply (which weakened my possibilities to reply) to a complain by user:LuxExUmbra about me. Disclaimer: any information in this message had been made already public by the relevant parties. The user in question was unanimously considered a blatant sockpuppet. I checked them different times because they used only anonymization services which are routinely blocked. The OC told me this kind of check is out of scope, although it didn't involve any violation of privacy policy. Meanwhile there was a mess with the communications (OC accidentaly sent the wrong communications to the wrong parties). While I didn't fully agree with the reccomandation I strictly abide by it. Also it was quite positive because it gave the opportunity for some procedural improvements to the OC. Vituzzu (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unanimously in which set? Among itwiki checkusers? Among 120+ admins? Given that you are the only one who accused me of being a sockpuppet, this "unanimously" sounds to me like a way to spread your opinion over an unspecified set of other users. I had asked you already what evidence you had and you never answered, but given that you are confident enough to reiterate your claim in this page I guess you will be ready to state what other identities I had used in your opinion. I am 100% sure that this is pure gambling on your side, because (as I told you already) I *know* that I am not a sockpuppet and hence I am entirely sure that you do not have any evidence nor faintest idea of who else I might be.

Your first encounter with me was when I started to question this edit of yours and persisted based on plain, unquestioned consensus of the community on such matters. This was enough for you to decide that I deserved being checked for every single edit. But this makes no sense as long as there are no abuses nor evidence of sockpuppetry. This is what the OC told you and apparently you do not yet understand. You keep saying that I am a sockpuppet; just say why.

When I exposed the OC investigation during your confirmation again you kept mentioning my "abuses". I asked then (you did not answer) and I ask you again here: which abuses?? Can you provide even two links to make a plural of abuses on my side? Please, pick the worst two, so everybody here can check how fair and devoted to the good health of Wikipedia you are. --LuxExUmbra (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any judgement, balanced or unbalanced, about your behaviour: I know nothing about CU policy and have no opinion on this matter. I just wanted to correct your mischaracterisation of Danieleb2000's comment (This is false). Faendalimas's comment [50] expresses support for you, but says nothing about the point Danieleb2000 made, and certainly doesn't falsify their comment about numerous violations of CU policy in 2019. Gitz6666 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know who is right or wrong in the Gitz affair, but even assuming that all the accusations are true (except for the doxing, this claim isn't supported by sufficient evidence to take into consideration and should be handled via a different venue such as Ombuds), this would be an incident on a spotless 12 year long dillegent steward-term. Vitu has always been willing to adres the more difficult cases.. If I would assume the worst, Vitu made a grave lapse of judgement and didn't reflect on this to well. For me, this worst case scenario isn't reason to put someone aside after serving the community for more than a decade. Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Gitz, Barkeep, and Yngvadottir. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Barkeep and Yngvadottir. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have always found him to be fair enough, although sometimes rough, but this is only a personality issue and nothing related to his work. --Nicola Romani (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vito is hard-working and pillar of the project, I read through the discussion and I believe he acted in good faith and with the best interest of the project in mind. --Wiki Kiwi 11:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ArtAttack (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that the problem discussed here is the words and tones that Vito used (I was never able to completely follow the discussions and the matter in that period but, if I remember correctly, Vito never used steward right in this issue). Vito has never been a talkative person, I have practically never interacted with him neither publicly nor privately, but I have always recognized the excellent technical and managerial work he does as steward.

Having said that, I briefly explain my keep, with a simple reason: I understand why Vito said what he said and did what he did, because at that moment the situation on itwiki had totally degenerated, the morale after the massive doxxing was on the ground and honestly many sysops thought about giving up on wiki completely. It was a bad moment and in my opinion those who haven't experienced it first hand (myself included) cannot totally understand. Seeing a hard blow to privacy has stabilized me too, privacy is the thing we all have to care about, and personally it has always bothered me even trying to find out about people who use their real names and surnames on wiki (I've never done it). So let's imagine in a situation like this (in which I also thought about giving up). Personally, I have not lost trust in him, it can happen that I lose my judgment on a certain topic, or make an error of assessment or in choosing the right words (and, I repeat, I understand this more because of the situation that was created). The important thing is that the issue has been solved and stew flags have not be abused and, on a side note, for someone who accused Sakretsu, Vito and me of canvassing, I confirm that Vito is also outside the sysop communication channels, and I have never seen him there. Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - lost of trust in judgment per Barkeep and Moneytrees. Hostile responses in this discussion, per Z1720. It is the opposite of what I would want in a steward. starship .paint (exalt) 15:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Loss of trust from their handling of the Gitz affair, as above. Usedtobecool (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Mollypl (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vituzzu has been a steward for a long time and I know that he is very competent and technical and given his long experience I think he can still do a great work as a steward. Some users criticize him of his answers, but it seems normal to me that he defends himself against unfounded accusations. If he remained silent, he would be accused of not being responsive.

In Italian I could briefly say that since last year and in this discussion a certain user (it's easy to understand who I'm referring to) has "rigirato la frittata", but I don't know any English expression with that meaning and I have to explain it: in a figurative sense it's to twist a discussion, trying to turn it in your favour while you are obviously wrong. It means try to fool someone distorting the meaning of what happened, to make something look how you want and not how it is in reality. As I said a few days ago, users who wrote on this page don't know some details, just as they didn't know them last year. But as I wrote a few days ago it is not possible to make them public. The reasons can also be identified in this comment of Sakretsu.--Kirk39 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six months after my global lock was lifted, some it.wiki admins and check users still claim to have confidential information on my behaviour that would make me look bad (Superspritz: things did not happen as per Gitz reporting [51]; Kirk, above: users who wrote on this page don't know some details). I still don't know this information because neither they nor the stewards have ever shared it with me. When I asked Kirk and Superspritz for explanations, both on Wiki and by e-mail, either they did not reply to me or, as Kirk did twice (in his last comment and here [52]), they referred to comments by other users (by Sakretsu and Civvì), which say nothing clear. So I ask Civvì, Sakretsu and especially Vituzzu: is Kirk right? Is there any non-public information that, if you were free to disclose it, would cast a different light on my behaviour? Gitz6666 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light? I think that after 82 edits of yours in this page you do not need more light, really. We gotta stop talking about and with you. Enough of that. --Civvì (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my 80+ edits were copy editing and "fix transclusion" (e.g. [53][54][55][56], etc.). In fact, I've made 28 comments on this confirmation (29 including this one), which is a lot - sorry if I bludgeoned the process - but that's because I'm deeply involved in this matter, for obvious reasons. Bramfab has made 14 comments so far, Kirk 6, and you 5, and none of you or any of the other it.wiki admins have provided any evidence to support your vague and not so vague insinuations that I've lied. You haven't even specified what lie I told. Most WMF projects, including en.wiki, have a code of conduct that prohibits this behaviour: Civility, No personal attacks, re "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", Casting aspersions, re "persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations". It is particularly disturbing that when Kirk says that I have tried to fool someone distorting the meaning of what happened and I ask for explanations and evidence, instead of giving them, you comment here accusing me of talking too much and instructing the others not to answer me (We gotta stop talking about and with you). Gitz6666 (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC); edited 11:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the words of Superpes15: anyone who did not directly experience those events on itwiki in June 2023 cannot even remotely imagine how much bitterness and damage they caused in so many people. Unfortunately, for privacy reasons towards various people (including half a dozen it.wiki admins), it was not possible to describe in detail everything that happened. Since I have been informed of all the events, I can only say that my trust in Vituzzu has remained unchanged--Parma1983 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Amarvudol (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: come Quinlan83 sento anch'io la necessità di aggiungere un commento a giorni di distanza dall'asettico {{k}}, per ringraziare Vito di un lungo lavoro, prezioso e insostituibile, che è già riconosciuto per tale e consegnato alla storia. Ci pensiamo di rado ma tutti qui siamo alla storia, per fortuna, e la storia si ricorderà di noi, in un modo o nell'altro. Grazie Vito --Actormusicus (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As in other cases, what I see is a single incident. Vituzzu might have been right or wrong in it, but there is no evidence that either we are dealing with something grave or something systemic. Thus we learn the lessons from it and move on. --Base (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wim b[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: it, en-2
Personal info: I have now been a Steward since 2019. This year too, like the previous ones, I would like to have the opportunity to contribute as a steward, especially in the fight against LTA and Spambots. My work on Wiki always remains focused on the fight against spambots and LTAs, LWCUs, processing requests on SRG, etc. I was more active than the last year, since I solved some problems in real life, so I'd like to serve again for another year

Comments about Wim b[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pequod76^(talk) 23:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Tmv (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Horcrux (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Er Cicero (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zangala (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shivanarayana (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel safer with Wim_b around. - εΔ ω 16:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nastoshka (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Di Wimmo ce n'è uno. Come lui non c'è nessuno. --Superpes15 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Parma1983 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with gratitude for his selfless dedication to projects. --Argeste (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en-N, es-1, de-1
Personal info: Hello, this is my first confirmation. I'd like to continue to serve as a steward. My largest contribution has been processing the thousands-plus ticket backlog in VRT (to now <100). I'm currently leading the efforts related to how certain account vanishing requests may be handled in the future. Thank you.

Comments about Xaosflux[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Telaneo (User talk page) 14:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to do a lot of behind the scenes work as well, which is highly appreciated. A great first year as steward. --Ferien (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes please - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know how Xaosflux has enough time in the day to do all they do :) HouseBlaster (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have seen them around, Xaos can be bureaucratic, but given that they are literally a bureaucrat on enwiki, (and have a similarish role as a steward) I see that as a positive. Sohom (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great behind the scenes worker and a great first year as a Steward. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 07:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no problem--Tmv (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 18:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prodraxis--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Minoa (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nardog (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a mega admin stewart. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zangala (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wordsmith (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- by all means! -- Dolotta (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have seen them on the English Wikipedia and they have made a good impression. Grapefanatic (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bom primeiro ano. Continue o bom trabalho!—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep QuicoleJR (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great firs year. With his presence and activities (often behind the scenes) VRT stopped having a backlog. Thanks :) --Superpes15 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. --Borschts^Talk 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

علاء[edit]

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

<2024 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: ar, en-4
Personal info: Hello. This is my sixth confirmation. During last year I was active dealing with requests mostly on SRG and various other tasks from time to time (around 2,750 steward action in 2023). In addition, I used my steward access for fighting cross-wiki abuse/vandals/spammers and LTAs. Over the past year, I'm being active on SRG (especially global un/block), GSR, Global AbuseFilter, help on SRUC complicated requests and other tasks. Also, I cooperated with local CUs and sysops to solve cross-wiki issues.
Generally(CentralAuth), I'm bureaucrat, sysop and checkuser on Arabic Wikipedia, and sysop on multiple projects (especially Wikidata, Commons and Meta) -home projects avoided-. Over the years, I have made more than 540K edits on Wikimedia wikis.
I would be happy to continue for another term. If you have any questions or comments or suggestions, I would be glad to hear them. Thank you --Alaa :)..! 21:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about علاء[edit]

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always kind and helpful. EPIC (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question:~~ @علاء: What was your involvement in removing from public view the usernames of the editors who installed a mass-logout script in the Arabic Wikipedia's common.js file? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, sysop-level hide per community request. I'm sysop on Arabic Wikipedia --Alaa :)..! 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply. I do have one follow-up question @Alaa: Did you, at any point, add content to the common.js script or otherwise modify any script on the Arabic Wikipedia that resulted in users being unexpectedly logged out from their accounts? My assumption here is no, because you revdel'd the edits, but I do want to double-check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify as to why I am asking: I find the use of an enforced logout script (as opposed to something like a custom edit filter) as both reckless (inasumch as it would potentially expose IPs) and an extraordinary overreach by a local wiki (inasmuch as it logged people out of global accounts). The means of conducting the blackout were not well thought-through, and the implementation of that script honestly did jeopardize user privacy. If the answer is "no, I did not implement the mass-logout script", then I would be happy to support keeping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, sorry to say, but it's not that simple, because I tried to fix/remove the script per this request. I helped in my capacity as arwiki interface administrator. Also, I mentioned in the SMR regarding arwiki discussion, that "I did not participate in the discussion (due to personal circumstances)" --Alaa :)..! 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@علاء Could you comment on what options you chose (in the revdel form) during revdelling the edits you mentioned above ? I'm pretty sure the edits have been oversighted (two strikes over a piece of information tends to indicate oversighted data on MediaWiki wikis). Sohom (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta: The oversight came only after the revdels, by a different user, if I'm understanding them correctly. There was a log of the revdels at [57] which can be confirmed by looking at the internet archive or archive.today, but the log itself has since been revdel'd. I'm satisfied when the user says that they performed a sysop-level hide. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom, as mentioned above, that my action is a "sysop-level hide" not an "oversight". --Alaa :)..! 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk Oh right, point taken. I had interpreted the answer differently and though they were refering to the singular action of removing the edits from public view. (I was not aware of the seperate revdel logs). Sohom (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-steward comment Related: Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2023-12#Arabic Wikipedia protest forced logout script and Requests for comment/Violating the Neutral point of view in Arabic Wiki. Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, Alaa's conduct during the arwiki mass-logout script removal discussion has not left a good impression on me.~~lose confidence in their adherence to the Steward policy, particularly to section 3 (conflict of interest/impartiality) and section 4 (transperancy).~~ Sohom (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alaa is highly trusted user and very committed to the steward policy.--Faisal ^talk 19:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--باسم (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Always avilable to provide support for admins.Michel Bakni (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Freedom's Falcon (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a very impressive activity as a steward over the past years.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very active and trusted user.--Dr-Taher (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good, creative and active user, good luck. أمين (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The user is not the one who first installed the mass-logout script, and I frankly can't hold the rest against them. They've been transparent here about their role, and they are an active Steward. That the script was not immediately disabled as an emergency action is regrettable, particularly so after several alternatives were very quickly presented, but I don't think it's enough to warrant removal for a Steward who has contributed so much to the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepأبو هشام (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nehaoua (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ferien (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. كريم رائد (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Amr F.Nagy (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--ولاء (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The best possible representative for a huge area like the Arab world. Ahmed Naji ^Talk 09:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather keep the neutrality and logout script issues separate from Alaa's conduct as a steward - the latter is what we're focusing on and I can't find any issues there. The other issues are relevant to the ar.wiki community as a whole, and it would be inappropriate for that to effect Alaa (after all, it's not like he decides them per se). Leaderboard (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lolekek (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tmv (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leaderboard. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mr.Karhi (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I am sorry, but I have often encountered suspicious activity by him on the Arabic Wikipedia. For example, the site was recently blocked from editing for 24 hours and disconnected all users, which it took part in (and hiding any username that was related to the matter, against the policy). Neriah - 💬 - 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@علاء is not an involved party in that case. Please be careful before you vote. Lemonaka (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not an involved party in that case"? And what about deleting the name of the sysop who deleted the name of the user who did the action[58]? In addition, if I remember correctly he took part in writing the code in common.js.
I would be happy if علاء (Alaa) would address the matter. Neriah - 💬 - 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both points (hide + edit the commons.js) already clarified in my reply to Red-tailed hawk question above --Alaa :)..! 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the action was as an arwiki sysop, does that allow you to hide something from the public eye for no reason?
In addition, the Arabic Wikipedia has not yet returned the politically oriented logo to the old logo (it can be seen that the Hebrew Wikipedia did not do similar things at all, and did not publish support for the State of Israel). This violates the NPOV rules, and as a Steward who is very active on Arabic Wikipedia I would expect you to address this serious offense. Can you explain why you didn't do that? Neriah - 💬 - 18:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@علاء If possible, I still want to hear your voice on related RFC on this project. Requests_for_comment/Violating_the_Neutral_point_of_view_in_Arabic_Wiki#Analysis_of_Bharel's_allegations Lemonaka (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Mishary94 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, huge thanks to all your contributions over the years. Keep going! دنيا (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mahmood (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Mohamed Belgazem (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kind, helpful and active Wikimedian. --Sandra HANBO (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove.--Fenikals (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep علاء is a positive voice in the global community because of, not in spite of, their connections to arwiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work Seawolf35 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also quite satisfied with their steward work. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kadı Message 13:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Sakiv (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 94rain ^Talk 05:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --حبيشان (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lemonaka (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zangala (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to all your contributions. batoul84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very active steward with great work and great common sense, always helpful and nice --Tehonk (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mervat (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Aizenr (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Bizarre behavior. ——SerialNumber54129 13:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, helpful as a steward. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One bad JS edit does not a removal reason make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from the same reason as Neriah. Idoc07 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove doubts remain ... see Neriah's comment. Spielvogel (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alaa plays a pivotal role in resolving issues and fostering communication with external communities, while actively combatting global vandalism. His impartiality in decision-making has earned him the trust of the community. By leveraging his steward access, he contributes significantly to maintaining the integrity and security of Wikimedia projects. Supporting Alaa's reconfirmation is a vote for fairness, transparency, and community collaboration. لوقا (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --raedfares (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--Wertuose (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove יודוקוליס (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always present and helpful! Thanks for your work --Superpes15 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Firestar464 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- the role of ALAE has great value, he provides a lot of effort to help the community, develop the content of Wikipedia Arabic through projects, he is a model of perseverance who works with an open and supportive spirit despite his daily constraints Farajiibrahim (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Manchiu (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fresh Blood (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent blackout was decided by the whole arwiki community, instead of Alaa own decision. --SCP-2000 12:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Usamasaad (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unless:
Question: The matters of the script / blackout / banner, etc. on ArWiki bothers me. But, I would prefer not to be drawn into this case, and therefore, to get an honest and deliberately non-specific answer from you: What are the most essential aspects in which being a stewards forces you to be especially careful, even with non-steward actions? I don't care what done in the past until now, only to know your exhaustive principled point of view, and to see if it can confirm what is essential, according to my view, to a steward.
· Hyphen_෴ · 01:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Onverwacht (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This vote is not the right place to discuss local community decisions of the Arabic Wikipedia. No steward actions were made by Alaa, no further concerns voiced. --Base (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]