Talk:Stewards/Elections 2012/Votes/Teles

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment on vote of JSSX[edit]

JSSX (Eligible, checked by Wikitanvir)2012   In pt.wiki, one word about this user: Aggressive. JSSX 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone translate this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Blue Rasberry. I was sysop (twice), rollback and autoreviewer in pt.wiki and I am user since 2006 and have 40,000 edits. In the link, Teles threatened me because I sent a message of Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for him. I had personal conflicts with the sysop Ruy Pugliesi throughout 2010 and 2011. It is public that Ruy and Teles are personal friends. During the conflict, I suffered a checkuser done by Ruy with the support of Teles. Obviously, nothing illegal found. Other suspects checkusers were discovered, made against other users. Our ArbCom and the Ombudsman Commission investigated the case (link). However, excessive delays have benefited the accused and the victims were harmed (I and other users). In addition, members of our ArbCom and the OC supported Ruy and Teles in the last election (link). If Teles is not guilty, he can not be considered innocent. In the search for justice, parallel, I had destroyed my public image with blocks and attacks (including offwiki attacks). Ruy and/or Teles participated in all the blocks, running and/or supporting. Every year I send messages of merry christmas and new year for many users, including possible "enemies", hoping to have a better year. I sent the message to Teles because I hoped that 2012 would be better for me, with more peaceful. Reason: I edit afraid and fear retaliation of Teles and Ruy, including because I speak here... Please, sorry for my poor English. JSSX 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This explanation is simply not true. The Ombudsman commission did investigate the incident, and found that there was no error on the part of Ruy Pugliesi. Beyond that, Teles is not Ruy Pugliesi and was not the one who did the CheckUsers anyways, so this really shouldn't be counted against him. I really wish that internal ptwiki drama wouldn't expand to meta every year at the steward elections. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(...) and (...) JSSX 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have and will continue to support Teles until I see some legitimate proof of his wrongdoing. I don't know Teles personally - I've never talked with him in real life, I don't know his name or where he lives. However, I have volunteered with him as a global sysop for the last half year and I know that he does a great job at that, and would do a great job as a steward. You are the one with the conflict of interest here, not me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(...) JSSX 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I vote no because of non-disclosure[edit]

I do not know what is going on. I am on en.wikipedia and know nothing about the Portuguese one. I tried to figure out what was happening last year when this user ran for election and could not understand the issue. I still voted "support" last year because I did not find the arguments raised by opposition to have much weight, and because I liked this user's responses to questions.

This year I am voting no because of non-disclosure. I am sure that Teles does not want to re-hash everything from last year, but it is not appropriate that he frame this as entirely an arbcom issue and more critically not give links for users to quickly find more information for themselves. Here are the "no" votes from last year. JSSX is giving more information on a story which should have been told by Teles. I appreciate that Teles offered to answer any questions about the disagreement, and Teles did the same last year, but rather than me taking the time to ask questions I would want to elect the sort of steward which would be forward with giving his point of view without being asked.

I wonder if all the people who voted support really understand that there was a controversy? I like controversies in the open; I can decide for myself what they mean. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not controversy, this is ridiculous. Teles was not involved in the CheckUser case. Even if he was, the Ombudsman commission found that the CheckUser was appropriate. This is internal ptwiki drama interfering with a global process, nothing more. Teles didn't disclose anything, because that would involve explaining the entire issue at ptwiki and would have very little to do with him other than the fact that he found himself on one of the two "sides" that emerged. It is really sad that these arguments which hold very little actual value are being regarded at all by people outside of ptwiki. Take a look at some of the diffs they provided - are any of them so severe as to say that Teles won't be a good steward? Even if some of the old ones are, he has taken hundreds of actions as a global sysop and has steered clear of controversy during that time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Blue Rasberry. You can see from the 2nd paragraph of my statement that I talked about the main issue raised on my last candidacy. I tried to be short as it would still be translated by volunteers. I brought the main reason (which is maybe 90% of the reasons given from opposers) as I thought I couldn't talk about each problem raised on that space. A link to vote page sounds a good idea; I will do it. I didn't bring the reasons of those who voted "yes"; I didn't bring the reasons for "no". I just tried to be short, but I can talk about everything you want here.
1. You asked for a translation of that message. I saw that, but I was thinking if that translation could be done by me as I am involved. If you accept my translation, I can do it. That message has a context and the mail he sent me is not only a Christmas and Happy New year message. On wiki, this user already called me a criminal ([1], [2]) and since about 2010 keeps offending me and others. So, I left a message to him on wiki, where everybody could see that. There, I said that I didn't want to receive his e-mails and if he has anything to say he can do that on wiki. For me, it is weird when somebody calls me a criminal on wiki and at the same time sends me a Christmas message and something else he didn't comment. I think I have the right of not receiving a mail from him after a long-term stalking.
2. He will probably say that I am lying and he never offended anyone, but you can check for yourself from his block log and abuse filter log. You can check also that none of these blocks were done by me, but were done by ten other sysops and it is very unlikely that all of them are wrong.
3. As you can see above, JSSX is trying to disqualify ombudsman commission by saying that it is in conflict of interest as one of its members voted on me, he did the same with our Arbcom, he did the same with Ajraddatz. That is what he does and what he is doing with me; he is trying to disqualify me, using arguments that are difficult to be checked by non-pt.wiki users. On pt.wiki (where everybody is aware of what is going on), it has zero effect already. I don't want this kind of conversation and I prefer to avoid it.
4. He talked about attacks and "off-wiki attacks". I can assure you that he won't give you any link of an attack I have made as it is not true.
5. There was a huge discussion about those checkuser he mentioned. I really can't imagine how could I explain that in a few lines. He didn't say above, but Ombudsman Commission couldn't see any abuse on that. Arbcom was inconclusive as it was inactive. Second paragraph of my statement tells a bit more. It would be impossible to tell everything without disclosing sensitive info and some other issues were discussed on pt.wiki, where the context is known.
6. He really doesn't like Ruy Pugliesi (a name he repeat very oftenly) and I'm having some kind of "punishment" for being close to Ruy when we were both checkusers.
I'm following this discussion in case you want more explanation and/or that translation.” Teles (T @ L C S) 06:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Notes:
1 - Teles is really lying. I never said that he is a criminal. The link doesn't show this. However, my account had two checkuser based on personal differences. My confidentiality was breached. Until today, I (and the pt.wiki community) do not know the reason for the checkuser in my account. I never had sock puppets.
2 - Personal attack. I said yesterday: "I had destroyed my public image with blocks and attacks (including offwiki attacks). Until 2010, the few blocks I had were isolated cases. Later, three of these sysops had the removal of adminship. The first block was illegal, for example. In 2010, I suspected that my account was illegally checkuser. This is the reason I suffered retaliation later. All the blocks were based on a single block that the community did not support. In pt.wiki, until 2011, to support a block, you only needed the approval of three sysops. This is changed today.
3 - Personal attack. The critique against partiality and slow of OC and ArbCom was made by various users in 2011.
4 - The attacks were made ​​on three websites: "Nefasqueira", "Wikinet" and "Wiki Gírias". All attacks were removed after being discovered. I have backup all. Several editors were assaulted at these sites.
5 - If Teles is not guilty, he can not be considered innocent... but I had destroyed my public image with blocks and attacks.
6 - I have nothing personal against Ruy Pugliesi. However, I want the abuses of Ruy and Teles are punished. The destruction in my public image can not be repaired. Please, sorry for my poor English. JSSX 10:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "w:Wikipedia:Don't take the bait" explains exactly what is going on here. I won't participate of disrespectful discussions. I won't take the bait.
    Blue Rasberry, I will listen to your comments and I will answer to you (or another new participant of this discussion) whenever you want.” Teles (T @ L C S) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Teles. I have no idea what I would do if I were in your situation. If you get elected then I will support you and if you do not get elected this year and then run next year then I will support you next year. But for now I am leaving my vote as oppose. This is not because of the above controversy, but because I would have been more comfortable with more information in the beginning. If your position is denial, then I would have been happy to see a statement of that along with links to what has already been said. I do not want you to "take bait" and do extra work, and you wrote a lot in response to my asking and I appreciate that. But from my point of view as a voter, whenever there is any trouble with a candidate I am compelled to try to do my own research to see what the issue is before voting. It would be better for you to arrange for everything to be in the open rather than suppose that every voter will do this for themselves individually. In any case, thank you so much for all your contributions to Wikipedia. If you attend Wikimania in DC this year I would love to meet you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry, when I talk about not "taking the bait" I'm not referring to you of course. I see that you are just trying to understand the situation and you have the right to know, so you can take the better decision. In fact, you are helping me on dealing with these kind of situation. I've read what you said and I will try to use it next time. I tried to be transparent enough on my statement; if I couldn't, it is my fault.
Sadly, I won't attend Wikimania this year. It is not that easy to get permission to travel to US here on Brazil and I'm afraid I won't have time to try that. I will be here on March with some pt.wiki users and staff members. That is probably the only wiki meetup I will be. We can try next Wikimania perhaps. Thank you for carefully explain your vote. It is not required, but helps a lot, honestly.” Teles (T @ L C S) 02:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack. I will don't answer the future steward. JSSX 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Excuse me, but I don't see any personal attack from Teles on this page. I just see that you are trying to make him pull off because you simply don't like him and that it's the only reason you have to oppose. If you want to see some personal attacks, you will find some here. You are wasting your time trying to convince people to oppose Teles, whereas he is doing really helpful work. Do you see what he did as a global sysop ? Are you on IRC to see the work he does ? You should try. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(...) Interesting is the intention to discredit my words, and not investigate what is really being said. Interesting quote my phrases out of context, said when the community pt.wiki (and I) expect an explanation of the checkuser... And we still hope a explanation. IRC? Well, my account was checked twice based on personal differences, with the support of Teles. After the case was discovered, I suffered harassment, destroying my image. And Teles will be a steward... I have nothing to see, therefore, on IRC. I've seen everything. JSSX 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Teles will be elected. I would not continue this discussion. I'm feel coerced, with fear of suffering a block, anytime. I have nothing else to say. JSSX 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)