From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards‎ | confirm‎ | 2009
Warning The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

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

  • Languages: sr, en-4, de-1, hr-4, bs-4, mk-1
  • Personal info: Well, I've been a steward for a year now. A quite active one, at that. Not much has changed since I was elected. My statement from roughly a year ago pretty much sums it all. Moreover, I enjoyed serving the community as a steward and hope to be able to keep contributing in the following period.
  • 言語: sr, en-4, de-1, hr-4, bs-4, mk-1
  • 候補者の情報: ええ、私は1年間スチュワードをしています。それも、とても活発なスチュワードでした。私が選出されてから、ほとんど何も変わっていません。1年ほど前の
  • Línguas: sr, en-4, de-1, hr-4, bs-4, mk-1
  • Informações pessoais: Bem, eu sou steward há um ano agora. Um dos mais activos, alias. Não mudou muita coisa desde que fui eleito. Meus comentários feitos à época da nomeação ano passado continuam dizendo o que acho. Além disso, gostei de servir a comunidade como um steward e espero poder continuar a contribuir no próximo ano.
  • Языки: sr, en-4, de-1, hr-4, bs-4, mk-1
  • Личная информация: Что же, я являюсь стюардом уже год. Весьма активным, кстати. С тех пор, как я был избран, изменилось немногое. Моё прошлогоднее заявление показывает всё необходимое. Кроме того, что сказано там, я хочу сказать, что рад обслуживать сообщество в качестве стюарда и надеюсь на возможность продолжать вносить свой вклад в будущем.
српски / srpski:
  • Језици: sr, en-4, de-1, hr-4, bs-4, mk-1
  • Лични подаци: Ето, стјуард сам већ годину дана. Заправо, прилично активан стјуард. Није се много тога променило откад сам изабран. Моја изјава од пре отприлике годину дана даје прилично јасну слику. Такође, уживао сам у опслуживању заједнице као стјуард и надам се да ћу моћи да доприносим и у наредном периоду.

Comments about Dungodung[edit]

  • Keep definitely! Majorly talk 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Slightly active in the SWMT-area, and doing a good job as a steward, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Doing a good job, and you are active. No concerns here. --Kanonkas 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You are doing a great job, thank you! --Thogo (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. miranda 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dungodung is active and does excellent work overall; keep.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - per Mike ..--Cometstyles 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also a good steward. Prodego talk 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Always there on IRC when I need advice, sage counsel on stewards-l. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Active steward and father of StewardBot.--Shanel 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confirm. Good work. MBisanz talk 06:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Essential... --Nick1915 - all you want 13:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Definite keep. Stifle 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confirm, he is always helping —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support -- Mercy (|) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Majorly. Razorflame 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 10:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're even more available than me. ;) Very active, very helpful person. Nick's "essential" seems to be adequate. :) Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support to confirm, -jkb- 14:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Coimeád - yup! - Alison 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very helpful and active. John Vandenberg 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep up the good work. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fine with me, thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quality Wikimedian, good experience and level-headedness. —Sean Whitton / 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --oscar 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confirm. — Dan | talk 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • useful fellow. DarkoNeko 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support.--Jusjih 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support---Zyephyrus 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose -- I didn't had intention to vote here. As things are wright now, my vote won't change the outcome of this voting. But, this edit [1] of Dungodung made me change my mind and to react, to inform others about few things. Calling an user as "major troll", just like that, is below the level of a person that is a candidate for a steward. Does he know the meaning of the word "troll"? Has Dungodung ever read the rule WP:ETIQUETTE? How can he be sure that his message [2] wasn't a kind of trolling (provoking another user's response by posting provocative messages; see wictionary: troll: A person who posts to a ... in a way intended to anger other posters... )? That message of Dungodung was unecessary. Ordinary pouring of oil on the fire. Something else was "on the table"; why had he wrote something that could distract the discussion? Why hasn't he used the word "user who is unnecessarily too cautious"? Dungodung, here're my contributions on meta [3]. You can see my voting pattern. Are you so superficial that you haven't seen that? I cannot believe it. Or your pride is so hurted by having a vote against you 2 years ago (98 "yes" and 2 "oppose")? We don't have to have acclamatory elections. Giving powers to a user is a serious thing. Taking them away is much harder thing. If a user mentions unpleasant questions and "kills the acclamation mood on the party", that doesn't make that user a troll. To make things worse, you've added [4] "major troll, who is constantly trying to obstruct the procedures"??? Do you know the meaning of the word "obstruct"? And after all these personal attacks (what about policy WP:NPA?), Dungodung continues with [5] " I cannot really judge, seeing as I'm not in the community". Then why is he messing (and throwing mud on other user) into something that he cannot really judge, as he personally admitted? What does this mean [6] "Kubura's obsessions and phobiae shouldn't be solved in this manner". Dungodung, you're a steward, bureaucrat, admin. You've forgotten how is to be the ordinary user. You don't know how it feels when a user with undeserved wiki-powers (admin, bureaucrat etc.), a user that's not eligible for those powers, makes an idiot of you and whole community. And you cannot do a damn thing, since that uneligible user is protracting any procedure (in criticism of his/hers work or a removal attempt) by tedious, foggy, "play dumb" arguments. Kubura 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your vote opinion. --FiliP × 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, Keep forever! One of the best, always ready to help. Exelent job Filip!--Laslovarga 13:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Dolledre 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support call him an oger next time, perhaps he likes that better than "troll". Woudloper 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support Thanks for the job you're doing. Finn Rindahl 12:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support--Sadik Khalid 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Unbelievably bad check on a solid user. Synergy 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One problematic check out of how many? Majorly talk 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the opinion, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. Do you find that my "inconclusive" results are not valid? You know, this was discussed among other stewards; I just did the check. --FiliP × 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Majorly: yes, this is the problem. An experienced CU would never have done a check on such poor evidence (unless I have it completely backwards and switching my identity = sockpuppet), and as such I don't think you can be trusted Dungodung. Frankly, all the stewards could have been there "talking" but at the end of the day, you ran the check, not them. Synergy 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, I think an experienced CU probably would have. DarkoNeko 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Concur with DarkoNeko, any of the stewards would have taken this on. This opposition is absurd. bastique demandez! 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I really don't know enough details of this, but seriously, I can't imagine that any steward would run a checkuser on evidence like this without some additional information. What additional evidence did you guys look at before you ran the check? NuclearWarfare 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirming the fact that I think the steward body as a whole (at least those that were active) did not research enough before running a checkuser. NuclearWarfare 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See above. Opposing Dungodung on what any steward would have done is absurd. bastique demandez! 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bastique, I would be fine with Dungodung retaining stewardship. But there is no other place to really register my dislike for the checkuser, so I must do so here. If only those IRC chatmasks and logs were used as the basis for running the CU, I think we need a reexamination of our checkuser policies. NuclearWarfare 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, active. Alex Pereira falaê 15:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. In April 2008, Dungodung checked my FaWiki ID with another user and an IP, just based on a baseless request by user:Mardetanha (see [7] for details). I had almost forgotten that incident, until I saw the comment by Synergy. It seems to me that these two examples show a pattern, rather than a sporadic non-important error. Alefbe 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yay, another troll. Thanks for the opinion. --FiliP × 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe this is a clear example of personal attack. Alefbe 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, The incidents don't outweigh Dungodung's positive contributions. Kylu 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support ...Aurora... 13:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --Meno25 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --Elijah/אליהו (Eliyahu)/إلياس (Ilyas) (Me!) 16:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep Very active and helpful steward. --Millosh 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep--Shizhao 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep Sebleouf 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep--BokicaK 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]