From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2024

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

  • 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.
  • ভাষা:
  • ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed
  • Sprachen:
  • Informationen zur Person: translation needed
  • Idiomas:
  • Información personal: translation needed
  • Nyelvek:
  • Személyes információk: translation needed
  • Lingue: it, en, scn
  • Informazioni personali: Sono steward da più di 12 anni e ho avuto modo di apprezzare l'opportunità di lavorare in un bel gruppo, con un buon ventaglio di opioni diverse nell'affrontare i problemi. Malgrado sia un po' preoccupato dal fatto che la sua consistenza numerica si vada riducendo, apprezzo sia i vecchi che i nuovi membri e l'impegno profuso dai clerk. Le barriere linguistiche continuano a essere un problema nel prevenire dei "fallimenti sistemici" di interi progetti, ma credo che comunque la consapevolezza complessiv adi tali problemi sia aumentata nel corso degli anni. Insomma, vorrei continuare a svolgere la mansione per un altro anno.
  • Taalvaardigheid:
  • Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed
  • Языки:
  • Личная информация: translation needed
Tiếng Việt:
  • Ngôn ngữ: it, en, scn
  • Thông tin cá nhân: Tôi đã là tiếp viên trong hơn 12 năm và tôi trân trọng cơ hội được làm việc trong một đội ngũ tuyệt vời, với nhiều ý kiến đa dạng khi giải quyết vấn đề. Mặc dù tôi lo ngại về sự thu hẹp đội ngũ, tôi vẫn phải ghi nhận sự cống hiến của các thành viên cũ và mới, cũng như các thư ký. Rào cản ngôn ngữ vẫn là một vấn đề khi ngăn chặn các thất bại mang tính hệ thống mới của các dự án, nhưng tôi nghĩ nhận thức chung về những rủi ro như vậy đã tăng lên trong những năm qua. Vì vậy, tôi muốn tiếp tục phục vụ dưới tư cách tiếp viên thêm một năm nữa.
  • 可说语言:
  • 个人资料: translation needed
  • 可說語言:
  • 個人資料: translation needed

Comments about Vituzzu[edit]

  • Keep Keep --Stïnger (会話) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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, made four consecutive edits [1], [2], [3], [4] 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 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 admins, who didn't block it at the time (they blocked it one year later, after my indefinite block on 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 and 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 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]
    1. 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?
    2. 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.
    3. 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 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 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 Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Titore (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Superspritztell me 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 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 Remove--Fenikals (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 [5] 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 Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep A very valuable steward. --Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep * Pppery * it has begun 19:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 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 Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?) 21:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Prodraxis (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep A pillar of this wigwam. --Pequod76(talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep One of the best users of the whole Wikimedia movement. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Torsolo (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per EPIC. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove-Juandev (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Remove per Gitz6666 and Red-tailed hawk. --Nemoralis (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 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 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 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 Remove loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz6666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN466 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 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 mailing list that I was wrong in claiming that the stewards had cleared me of the doxing and threats allegations [6], 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 [7] 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 [8] - 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 [9] 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 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 admin and/or try to contact 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 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 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 (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 (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 (Hypergio was the 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 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 [10] [11]), 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 [12]). 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 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 [13], 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 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 [14].
  • 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]
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 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


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 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.



--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 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 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 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! - εΔω 01:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Concerns about canvassing; moved to Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024#Canvassing concerns per TmV. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 Keep As for what I've seen so far, a good user and steward. --Borgil (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Spinoziano (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Keep -jkb- 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 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 Remove per Bovlb/Barkeep. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove —per Red-tailed hawk and others. Loss of trust... --Silverije 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep he has my trust, even more after what I read in this procedure --Ombra 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep don't touch my breil Vituzzu --Mastrocom </> void ClickToInbox(); 07:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 [15] [16] [17]. 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 JN466 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 my identity was not visible to all those capable of reading but only to those who were admins and had access to this diff [18] 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 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 JN466 10:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surname in the link to pdf [19] 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 and also on since I started to get more involved there in 2021. Your 20 June edits on 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, (there is a user retired from 9 years from, 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, 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, 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 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 (" 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 Remove. I've lost confidence in this steward per the concerns expressed above. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Remove--Zangala (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 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 Remove Per above. — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Julius 12345 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Keep --Noce09 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 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 Remove No confidence after seeing candidate's demeanor in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 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 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 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 [20]. 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: [21]

Primo motivo, “Abuso di pagine di servizio”. E’ il motivo indicato da Actor poche ore prima alla base del blocco di una settimana [22]. 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 [23], 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 [24]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: [25].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 [26]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.



8 June email

Caro Parma,

  • cercando di dare un senso al tuo silenzio e al silenzio degli altri admin di, 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, [27], era di gran lunga migliore e più neutrale della "pagina di attacco" uscita fuori da due mesi di discussione nelle bozze, [28]). 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 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 ([29]). Volevo sapere come comunicare il COI senza violare le regole sul doxxing (sebbene bloccato su, non volevo compromettere il mio account su e sugli altri progetti). Mi hanno consigliato di contattare i burocrati o gli admin di 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 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 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.



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 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
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 mailing list [30].
  • 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’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 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.
  1. You may have drawn a mud avalanche on you
  2. 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 users, has no appeal process against sanctions. This is unfortunate and incompatible with the UCoC. So you are right when you say that you 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]
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 admins reverted and blocked editors who added these sources to the article and its talk page. Andreas JN466 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 admins to this page have by and large only served to increase the perception that this may not have been an isolated case. --Andreas JN466 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 JN466 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 JN466 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]
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 Remove because of the Gitz affaire. And indirectly because on 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 user LuxExUmbra at Vituzzu's confirmation as admin in 2022 [31]. LuxExUmbra was indefinitely blocked for publicly reporting the issue [32] (as LuxExUmbra recently explained here [33]), which suggests once again the existence of a culture of admin abuse on 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 [34] 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 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 Remove per Gitz, Barkeep, and Yngvadottir. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Barkeep and Yngvadottir. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 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. --WikiKiwi 11:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --ArtAttack (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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]
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 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 [35]; 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 [36]), 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. [37][38][39][40], 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 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, 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]