Template:Se2013 statements page

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
<<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:

The 2013–14 Confirmation will begin on February 8, and will finish on February 27th.

The 2013–14 Steward Confirmations are a good opportunity to check if we are still happy with our current stewards. To make the process as smooth as possible, here is how things are organized.

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2013. During the 2013 Elections, please mention if you are comfortable or unhappy with the use of steward tools of any of the people listed below and why. For example, you may mention inactivity. Inactive stewards, as stated in the steward policies, will lose their steward access.

At the end of the elections, the current and newly elected stewards will consider complaints left on this page, and choose to remove stewardship as necessary taking into account both the comments left by community and their own perspective and understanding of the job. All stewards elected before February 2012 will undergo this process.

See also:


Purge the cache of this page?


Andre Engels[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: My apologies for not making a statement earlier. I have indeed been mostly inactive as a Steward, except for doing some deletion that I came across in small wikis. I'd prefer to keep the status in case I find some time & job to do as a Steward in a few months time, but as there are no specific plans at this time I have full understanding if I get removed for inactivity now.

Comments about Andre Engels[edit]

  • Remove Remove --Vogone (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Andre has been inactive as a steward pretty much since last reconfirmation ( 13 edits on meta, 3 steward actions). Snowolf How can I help? 00:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I see Andre has now made a statement. I suggest that perhaps, if he's still interested in doing deletion on small wikis, he should consider, in the event that he doesn't get reconfirmed, applying for a global sysop flag. Snowolf How can I help? 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove solely due to inactivity. --Rschen7754 00:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Thanks for your work. Érico Wouters msg 01:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove due to inactivity. --Makecat 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove White Master (es) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive steward--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You were desysopped on Commons in March 2008. After this you have on several occasions used your steward rights to delete pages on Commons outside of your remit as a steward. Please understand that having global rights is not a license for acting as a local admin in a wiki where you no longer hold the tools. As a separate note and per above, I would suggest removal due to inactivity. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • He also never had local sysop rights on de.WP, but locally blocked a user last year who was only active on de.WP and who was just two minutes ago being "announced" because of vandalism on the local VM twice, there wasn't any need for a steward to act. There are hundreds of local sysops who can do blocks there, especially at that time, a sysop would have done the same one or two minutes later, so I don't understand that at all. I would appreciate an explanation for that also. --– Geitost diskusjon 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Thanks for the work you've done as a steward ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - in the light of low activity and reluctance to make a statement, I'd rather remove the rights. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - too inactive for my taste. -Barras talk 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive, sorry--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Travelour Talk E - Mail 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove: Personally I think any steward who fails to create a statement should be disqualified at this point, but there we go. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A very sad Remove Remove as I really appreciate you and your help, but you were too inactive last year & didn't even create this 'statement'. Trijnsteltalk 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Waka Waka (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Although it's not nice not to see the statement, Andre is formally active enough; thus inactivity is not a valid reason for stewardship removal. And I hope that he'll become more active. --Millosh (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No statement doesn't look very convincing even if he has the required log actions. Do you want to continue helping here? It would be appreciated. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep now that there's a statement & per Nemo and Ruslik0. I've thought about this and while you've been inactive compared to other users I'd not like to loose the good work you usually do and the background and good advice you provide. I think however we all would be happy if you could increase your activity. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Sorry but your too inactive to keep steward tools. Techman224Talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per inactivity.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Millosh and the fact that he now have the statement written. ✒ Bennylin 15:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Barely active, but Active enough per policy. --Jyothis (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it's up to you to state if you can be helpful as a stewie. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. Qaydaları kifayət qədər normal səviyyədə bilir. Zərərsiz olduğu üçün ona etimad göstərirəm. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep has been around, more activity more useful — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive stewards don't need to keep their flags. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak keep One of the original stewards (only other current steward who was in the first "group" is Mav), therefore one of the most experienced. Besides, he'll be useful. πr2 (t • c) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Inactive, but other than that, I don't see any reason to remove. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral I'd tend to keep given the experience and track of activity as steward and that I'd miss him: decrease of recent activity would not be a good reason alone IMHO, and even just his recent activity is comparable to the activity of other stewards who are passing. However, small activity is an issue if we can't assess his job, and while I trust him I'd like to see a response to Jafeluv above. --Nemo 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Herby talk thyme 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive stewards don't need the tools. Russavia (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Inactive but I still do not want to lose the longest serving steward. Ruslik (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive -FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep trusted. MoiraMoira (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Avraham[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, he-2
  • Personal info: I remain very happy to see that requests in general, and checkuser issues on which I tend to focus in particular, have been answered in a reasonable amount of time by stewards. I would like to continue to support the family of Wikimedia projects as a steward in the coming year. Thank you very much for both your past trust and present consideration. -- Avi (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Avraham[edit]


Axpde[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: de, en
  • Personal info: For health reasons I wasn't able to hold my office. I stayed at hospital for more than half a year and therefore wasn't online most of the time. Last week I started my occupational rehabilitation - and beyond that to care more about wikipedia/wikimedia again. Alone, I'll need my time, to rediscover my old constitution. I understand the displeasure about my absence, but I ask for mercy and some more time to give proof of my usefulness. Greetings

Comments about Axpde[edit]

  • Remove Remove --Vogone (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove He became inactive as soon as he got the steward status (see his logged actions on meta). I haven't see him for months, shame that he didn't even said goodbye... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. While I am aware that Axpde has had a difficult year, and I don't envy him one bit, he is for all intents are purposes inactive, and the whole idea behind reconfirmation is to evaluate year by year whether continued access to the steward toolset makes sense, and I do not believe it does at this time. Snowolf How can I help? 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove solely due to inactivity. --Rschen7754 00:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Thanks for your work. Érico Wouters msg 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Keep Keep Looks you are back now and so changing my comment to "keep". Érico Wouters msg 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove only because of inactivity. --Makecat 03:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove White Master (es) 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This was unimpressive coming from a steward, and would have been an abuse of tools had you acted on it. However, it's been quite a while since that comment and by itself it's nothing to oppose over. In any case I'm going to support removal due to inactivity. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, due to inactivity and lack of statement (=lost touch with the community?) I am aware, though, that willingness to come back would be most welcome. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - sorry, but no longer really active. -Barras talk 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, too inactive. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, never active. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    To expand on my reasoning a bit, Axpde has never been active as a steward, and not really as a global sysop either[1]. Axpde's few actions in the last couple of days are more than (s)he has ever done before. In my mind, applying for stewardship and then only using the rights around the time of a confirmation is an abuse of the trust placed in him by the community. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, per Jafeluv and Ajraddatz. I am surprised that, even though active on his home-wiki, he is unable (or unwilling) to perform a single log action or give a reason for his absence here on meta. Savhñ 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Wow, I had no idea he was active on dewiki. I thought he had been inactive because of health reasons as stated on his meta page. Snowolf How can I help? 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Re-enforcing my comment, in full agreeance with Ajraddatz. Axpde performed, in the 1 year and 4 months he has been steward, no global locks & blocks up to today and a very limited amount of rights changes, a majority of which on test-wikis. There are also quite a few actions/opinions taken by Axpde with which I disagree, adittionally to the diff provided by Jafeluv, such as redirecting your talkpage to your main userpage cross-wiki, thus making communicating with you more complicated for non-English speakers, test-wiki hat-collecting, inmature reactions, abuse of rollback, considering stewards the only trusted users, uncivil reactions and inconsistent actions regarding his own global rights. (These are just a few examples I found looking through his talkpage) The user has also not either yet explained why the inactivity did not affect his homewikis. Savhñ 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove: Personally I think any steward who fails to create a confirmation statement should be disqualified by this point. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Didn't do much since being elected in the end of 2011. Per Jafeluv, Ajraddatz and Savh. Trijnsteltalk 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral As with André. No statement does not look very convincing. However the user says he's away for health reasons and I know how that can be utterly annoying. Would you like to continue helping here? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    Remove per recent events such as this wrong removal of rights IMHO. Not suggesting that the requesting user was lying but removal requests without community discussion should be placed by the requesting user. The links given in the request does not mention explicitly a request for rights removal (just a retirement). I'd not have performed that without user confirmation (even the link provided in this diff is private but even if it were public, valid requests should go to SRP). I mean, there's no way to confirm the truly validity of the request. Also there's a record of you performing actions without consensus such as (this recent one) that concerns me. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Sorry but your too inactive. Techman224Talk 21:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 06:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Keep Keep. Looks like you are back now and as that issue with protecting your own user talk page is past, I can see no reasons to remove.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 02:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Neutral Neutral. Not sure.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 05:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Inactivity due to force majeur. Activity on home-wiki is different matter, as some people prefer the comfort of their mother tongue. Plus, now he has written his statement and still have the willingness. Like a wise Wikimedian once told me, an inactive admin/steward is still better than an active admin/steward who abuse the tool. ✒ Bennylin 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep with the request to resign if you'll have no time to go on being a steward. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Qalsın. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 04:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Was inactive due to health reasons. --Millosh (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above --Iste (D) 10:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above. -Zyephyrus (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep more activity, would be good; that said personal health comes first, and way above being a steward (per Vituzzu) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above. --Wnme (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep there is a thing known as real life, which can hinder a lot of stuff :| Hurricanefan24 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Snowolf and Jafeluv: quite a tendency to the "I have the powers and I'll use them just for the sake of it", IMHO. --Nemo 05:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I am afraid but the recent spurt of activity is likely to die out after the election. I think you should take time out of the stewards duties and return when you are really ready. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Very active. --N KOziTalk 19:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Pro, agreeing with Bennylin. Ich stimme mit Bennylin überein. However, I hope you're able to do a few more actions this year. πr2 (t • c) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Barras[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: de, en-4
  • Personal info: This is my second steward confirmation, as I've only been elected in 2011. I've been quite active during this year of services. I've used the steward tools for various purposes, such as helping with crosswiki deletions and blocks (see my global sysop stats). I also dealt with vandalism and spam and locked and blocked many users and IPs. I also did many right changes, mainly to my own account to prevent more abuse and to remove abusive things, but also changed many other people's rights. I usually help everywhere, where help is needed, on IRC and also on-wiki. If you've any question, just ask me.

Comments about Barras[edit]


Bencmq[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: zh, en-3
  • Personal info: Hi, I became a steward during the second round of election in 2011 and this is my first confirmation. My activity as a steward is not among the highest, but for myself I'm happy with my own activity level. My focus areas were primarily answering IRC queries and dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, followed by SRP and SRCU. I would like your support for me to serve as a steward for another year. Do let me know your opinion and comments so I can improve my work in the future. Thank you for your consideration. --Bencmq (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Bencmq[edit]


Bennylin[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: id, en, jv, zh
  • Personal info: I'm happy to be able to help as steward, and hope that I could be given another year to serve as steward. While a change in job schedule has left me unable to patrol in the timezone where most of the stewards asleep, like I promised in my election page, I still able to help mitigating crosswiki abuse and stand-by on IRC channel several hours every weekday. Lastly, I would like to thank the community that have been very helpful to the stewards via IRC. Salam.

Comments about Bennylin[edit]


Billinghurst[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: I plan to continue in the role of steward, if the community is willing to confirm me. I have pretty much undertaken the tasks I said that I would when I was elected last year. My mop has been active and consistent in areas of strength, and I have undertaken some activities in other areas as required. Stewards have worked cooperatively and respectfully; as a team sharing the work, sharing advice and requesting assistance as necessary, it has been a harmonious and pleasant group with whom to work, and I commend them for their passion, diligence and efforts. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Billinghurst[edit]

  • Keep Keep Thehelpfulone 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ignacio (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vogone (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep your dedication to the job and activity on this year are incredible. Snowolf How can I help? 00:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Same words as DerHexer just above : I love you and I love what you do ! :-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Érico Wouters msg 01:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Makecat 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I agree with the other stewards above me. I really like your dedication to the fight against the spambots. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm - What would we do without you? You really do a lot here! Thanks for your work. -Barras talk 13:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. One of the easiest votes I've made in a long time. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Certainly. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong keep. Thanks for your great work. Savhñ 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep g'day. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Barras ... in the past year you've become almost irreplaceable. Trijnsteltalk 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Osiris (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, impressively active. -- Mentifisto 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep kudos Pundit (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Techman224Talk 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Helpful steward, very active on the CU arena. Jafeluv (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. His numbers are ridiculously higher in comparison with others. His knowledge is impressive too.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 06:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Impressive contribution. What about some more prowess in languages? :D εΔω 09:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    hmm, I think that response is somewhere between ... I speak spambot and IP ... ^&^&#$#%#%!!! ... :-p — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The place would fall apart without you QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Lots of work in an area of steward work where we need the most volunteers. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - sats (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The level of work has been appreciated --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Peterdownunder (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -FASTILY (TALK) 21:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Most active steward (actions per day), especially focusing on anti-spam matters. Good on ya, mate. πr2 (t • c) 18:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Bsadowski1[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: This is my second confirmation as a steward. I was elected in February 2011 and have been active since then. I have been active as a steward by cleaning up spam crosswiki and taking care of spambots. I look forward to another (new) year of being a steward. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Bsadowski1[edit]


DerHexer[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1
  • Personal info: Unfortunately, I could not have been as active as in the last years. That's mostly due to my work at university and academy and my changed focus in the Wikiversum: I always want to learn about new parts of the Wikiversum and try to improve their structure and effectivity. Hence, I'm currently working as a member of the board of Wikimedia Deutschland.

    Regarding steward work, we currently have more active users than in the last years so that my main focus changed to teaching and helping them if necessary. Thank you all for your tremendous work! Since some trolls could be prevented from disturbing our projects, the focus of most stewards switched from fighting vandals to locking spambots and blocking open proxies. Although that's useful for our projects, it doesn't give great pleasure to me. Instead, besides assisting my fellows, I helped a bit on SWMT, SRGP, and on IRC and our mailing list.

    Furthermore, I co-organized the annual steward meetup at Wikimania where we planned some improvements for our work. My part was to write a script for a planned global rename policy. Due to some fixes by Hoo man, the script could have been used on secure server when this policy had been accepted (and I still hope that this will happen soon). With deactivating the secure server, the time-consuming programming was all for nothing because the script cannot be used elsewhere. But luckily, the WMF developers are currently working on a global rename tool (or hopefully at least on a rename API).

    I recently became a member of the steward election committee (a job I did in the last couple of years too) and thus hope to approve some new fellows elected by the global community. I'd be happy to serve the community and my beloved fellows with my experience for the next term. Thank you!

Comments about DerHexer[edit]

  • Keep Keep because I love you :-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Thehelpfulone 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep hurra! per Quentinv57 ;-) Vogone (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ignacio (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep absolutely :) His insights into steward and policy history are invaluable. Snowolf How can I help? 00:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep White Master (es) 06:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm slightly concerned about your acting as a steward in your home wiki, including changing userrights with no indication on Meta except for the log entry [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], and to the point that people from dewiki are asking other stewards not to intervene if the request was made to you personally [10]. Stewards are not intended to be local superusers and IMO home wiki actions should be left to uninvolved stewards to ensure impartiality. All that said, current steward policy seems to allow this and since you do a lot of good work I support your confirmation again this year. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    The first ones have been done according to our policy that says that non-controversial returns of sysop rights can be done on homewikis. The other ones have been done to serve the community as much as possible (so no super rights for myself), mostly including import rights that have been given out by me since years (and thus is more or less a rule which could be changed of course), and confirmed status which should be non-controversial (and in these cases urgently needed) too but should be handled by local bureaucrats instead, imo. Regarding the Hozro case, other people were wondering why Müdigkeit rushed to meta (I don't know whether he supported Hozro's return of his sysop rights, I regret it) because I usually handle these self-removal requests within the next 48 hours respecting the cool-down period of 24 hours that stewards agreed on a couple of years ago. As you might remember, that reduced some dramaz in the past and did so last year too. If it's controversial or I'm too much involved, I always point users to meta. I also do that (or point them to my user talk page) with requests on IRC or per mail to maximize transparency. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. Wrt the confirmed flag, it might be worth considering making it an admin-assignable group like on enwiki. After all, dewiki admins can already assign much more restricted rights like editor and autochecked user. Certainly a better solution than finding a friendly steward every time someone needs the confirmed flag, although that's of course ultimately for the local community to decide. Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Sure. I'll bring that into discussion of the community asap. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    + 1, every sysop should be able to do that, not only bureaucrats. Is there a discussion about that yet (didn't find one)? Do we need an MB for that or just a PD with link from there, this should be uncontroversial. --– Geitost diskusjon 22:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I partly disagree: Every sysop (who wants to) needs to learn how to use importupload first. This is a powerful, and very dangerous tool (in fact, much more dangerous than all other sysop tools). More helping hands are always useful but currently the importers on dewiki are working very well (without my assistance). But there's no need that I have to teach them myself nor that I assign the rights. But the ones who do should know what this userright affects, shouldn't they? ;-) Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand. What has the importupload right to do with the confirmed right? Autoconfirmed gets every user automatically after 4 days, so where's the problem with confirmed? Why should a sysop first learn the importupload thing for being able to assign confirmed rights? Are we talking about the same? If someone may assign passive editor, editor and IP block exception rights, then confirmed rights are more uncontroversial than these three. Perhaps we should continue to discuss that on de.WP? --– Geitost diskusjon 00:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    We obviously don't. :-D I was talking about the importer user right I assigned. The confirmed status should be assigned by bureaucrats, or sysop, right. :-) —DerHexer (Talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep What Quentinv57 said. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep because I share his feelings towards me ;) Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm - You already belong to the steward inventory, just like some stewardtools. ;-) -Barras talk 13:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wnme (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sure. odder (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Love you too! --Jyothis (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong keep. Obviously. Savhñ 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep naturlich, ich liebe dich auch (or something). PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep for his loviness Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per PeterSymonds. Verdammt, ich lieb' dich. ;) Trijnsteltalk 22:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep up the good work. --Meno25 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep love-machine! Theo10011 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I love you. MBisanz talk 02:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sure, great user --Poco a poco (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep whole lotta of love ;) Pundit (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep-- Mar del Sur (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Heubergen (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep + Botulph (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Techman224Talk 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Holder (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. The steward. --Deskana (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Redlinux (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC) keep - no doubt)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep We're overwhelmed with love! - εΔω 13:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep gold — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Good work. I don't mind the instances of using rights on homewiki much - he hasn't done anything super-controversial. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC) goes without saying
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep John F. Lewis (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Christianrueger (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Quentin57 :-) Lukas²³ (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep A very good veteran steward. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course. --Niklas 555 (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep es:Magister Mathematicae 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Emergency doc (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Alan ffm (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roy 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Schwäbin (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Enst38 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Yarl (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Always good to read your advice, old man.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Angrense (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Tomás66 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • KEEP MoiraMoira (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep unbedingt behalten, denn was würden wir sonst ohne ihn machen?What would we do without him? (can't imagine that). .oO See also Snowolf, didn't read all of the rest here. Das mit dem Inventar stimmt auch, der wird die Knöppe erst los, wenn er sie selbst irgendwann mal wegwirft (und das hoffentlich noch nicht so bald). ;-) --– Geitost diskusjon 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, natürlich. πr2 (t • c) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Elfix[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: fr, en-3
  • Personal info: My motivation hasn't changed since my election as a steward a year ago: I would still like to help out with cross-wiki issues. I rarely take care of on-wiki requests; most of the steward operations I have undertaken this year have been done upon my own initiative or upon requests on IRC.


    As to the alleged issues about my use of the CU tools sur frwiki that were raised during my election, the Ombudsman commission has told me not having seen any evidence of breach in the privacy policy, and has given to frwiki checkusers some advice to make sure they are always in compliance with the CheckUser policy.

Comments about Elfix[edit]


Fr33kman[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: Whilst I know I have been absent for months I would like to remain a steward for another term. Part of my absense was army related, however the main reason was a series of heart attacks and then bypass surgery. I have been resting since then and now feel well enough to get back to normal activites.

Comments about Fr33kman[edit]

  • Remove Remove --Vogone (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Thanks for your work. Érico Wouters msg 01:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove solely due to inactivity. --Rschen7754 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Unfortunately inactive. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - lack of staement, low activity. Thanks for the good work you've done. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - Sadly not really active anymore, I see no need for him having those tools. -Barras talk 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove sorry--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A very sad Remove remove; just too inactive. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Barely active, but meets the policy requirements. Last action was August 15th, which is within the minimum time frame. --Jyothis (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well the policy, as it's currently worded, is going to be pretty much always met, see discussion on the policy talk page. Also, if he had been inactive per policy, we wouldn't be even holding this confirmation as we'd have removed the rights already. Snowolf How can I help? 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    We have ruled over that Policy for years now and we havent made any change to that to say otherwise. I thought everybody loved policies around here? :) --Jyothis (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, but all stewards up for reconfirmation are not inactive per policy, else there wouldn't be a reconfirmation... Snowolf How can I help? 17:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    That is not correct. reconfirmation is a stage for community to raise concerns as well. inactivity is an issue, but that is not the whole point of this exercise. --Jyothis (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove: Personally I think any steward who fails to create a confirmation statement should be disqualified by this point. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - but if this inactivity is work-related, then I sympathize and will support should he run for election again. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Peter above -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Due to inactivity and per PeterSymonds. Trijnsteltalk 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I trust the explanation, and honestly both an army draft and a bypass surgery are not trifle. If he insists he can make it, I'd give the benefit of the doubt. Pundit (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Just a minor correction: it is not an army draft as far as I know. Snowolf How can I help? 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove While it is understandable that this steward had other commitments, this is the second year in a row that he has failed to create his own confirmation statement in time, and hasn't been active in several months. I'm afraid I see a whole lot of userrights and not enough activity to justify their holding, as there's plenty of stewards around and this is a repeat of last year's situation, I am not in favour of retaining the steward tools. I mainly concur with Peter. Snowolf How can I help? 17:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, agreeing with Pundit. πr2 (t • c) 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep For the record. He's formally active enough; thus inactivity is invalid reason. --Millosh (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    That is not correct, the policy is one thing (and if one would satisfy its terms, immediate termination of the steward status would take effect, hence pre-empting the reconfirmation process) but the community is allowed to decide on its own what activity standards it feels are appropriate for stewards thru the reconfirmation process. Snowolf How can I help? 14:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. I suggest you be active for a year without the tools, and propose your candidacy in the next elections. One edit in four months is just too much inactivity, in my opinion, and this is not the first time it happens. For a user with many important rights, I frankly don't have the impression you have time to use them all. Savhñ 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - if ever there was a valid reason... no sense losing someone who's a good steward, and had a rough year. --Philippe (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep (moral support), per Pundit and Philippe. ✒ Bennylin 16:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep İndiyə kimi göstərmiş olduğu fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. Baxmayaraq ki, son zamanlar passivdir. Amma etibarlı bir istifadəçidir. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral I'm not voting but want to note that your contribution has been valuable and your efforts appreciated. Sorry to hear of your personal challenges QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep more activity is obviously better; stewardry isn't more important than RL, look after yourself and have tools that are required for where you expect to be active — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I have a certain level of respect by now after many issues in past dealings, mostly self-inflicted by myself. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Snowolf: we just don't have a track of activity, whether recent or rather old, to base this confirmation on (as Jyothis reminds us to do). --Nemo 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I think it would be better for you to take a break from the steward activities and stop worrying about losing your steward access. When you are ready you can return. Ruslik (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Billinghurst says it for me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Sorry. --N KOziTalk 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


J.delanoy[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, es-2
  • Personal info: At risk of essentially repeating what I've said before, real life is still somewhat hectic and unpredictable. Currently, my job and other real-life responsibilities do not take up too much of my time, but I don't know if, when, or by how much things will become more busy, so I am not absolutely sure how active I will be in the coming year. If I still have the confidence of the community, I would like to serve the project as a steward once again in 2013. J.delanoygabsadds 02:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about J.delanoy[edit]


Jusjih[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: zh-hant, zh-hans-3, en-3, fr-1
  • Personal info: I became a steward since 2007. I consider myself fairly active. I mostly monitor Steward requests/Permissions and Steward requests/Bot status to comment, to change users' rights, and to remind local bureaucrats to look at requests posted here on Meta. As I would like your support for me to serve another year, your comments and opinions to help improvement are welcome to my talk page by email. Thank you very much for your continued consideration.--Jusjih (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Jusjih[edit]


Jyothis[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, ml, hi
  • Personal info: I have been fairly active in 2012 and would like to continue serving for another term. Attended Wikimania this year and was able to meet a lot of Wikimedians in person. I am usually available on IRCs for emergencies. Most of my work last year was on crosswiki spam and vandalism issues.

Comments about Jyothis[edit]


Laaknor[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: nb, en-3, nn-2, da-1, sv-1
  • Personal info: I've been a steward since 2009. I haven't been very active in the last year because of long-term sickness, but I'm still online on IRC several hours every day, and will hopefully be able to contribute with more in the future.

Comments about Laaknor[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I do not believe that 7-8 actions since the last reconfirmation are enough to keep the steward bit. Snowolf How can I help? 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Snowolf about the general idea that we should avoid keeping inactive stewards, but I'm not asking for the removal of his steward status yet. If Laaknor asks for reconfirmation, he certainly knows that he'll be more active on next year, and I trust him. I sincerely hope that he will be able to return soon ! ;-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Even though his activity has been low, Laaknor seeks confirmation and is aware of his low activity. I am inclined to Keep Keep him as a steward, because of his expressed willingness to help. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although Laaknor has low activity, he has stated that he'll be more active in the future, so I'm willing to Keep Keep him this time too. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I hope Laaknor feels better and will be able to be more active this year. I trust him as steward and doesn´t think the lower activity is a problem, when there was a reason.
  • Not the most easiest decision here, however I'm inclined to say that we should keep you. I hope for some more activity within the next term. -Barras talk 13:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove 7-8 actions since the last reconfirmation--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - have minimum to meet the policy. --Jyothis (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Höstblomma. I know and trust Laaknor to do a good job when he has the energy for it, and have no problems with keeping him as a steward. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Barras and Jon Harald Søby. Trijnsteltalk 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral, per Snowolf but I agree with Barras. Érico Wouters msg 16:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Wojciech Pundit (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Has met policy minimum and has a history of good, solid steward work. -- Avi (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. Sorry. ✒ Bennylin 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Please provide a reason for oppose as well. --Jyothis (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ja, sikkert det er en måte. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep more activity is better; useful knowledge-base and skills; otherwise per Barras — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Real life takes precedence over time on WM wikis; however, I'd like to see a bit more activity Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Snowolf. --N KOziTalk 19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • KEEP MoiraMoira (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Wojciech, I trust him. LeinaD (t) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. He hasn't been the most active steward, but he has a good explanation (being sick). Certainly this is enough to remain a steward. If he wants to continue to be a steward, then I can only support. πr2 (t • c) 23:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Leinad[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: pl, en-2
  • Personal info: Hello! This my fourth confirmation as a steward. Since my election in 2009 my activity unfortunately has dropped - from regular rights changes and monitoring irc cvn channels to react on users requests (checkusers, locks and global blocks, cleanup deletions on small wikis etc.) and spontaneous fighting cross-wiki vandalism. But I'm still up-to-date with Wikimedia world (mailing lists, bugzilla, blogs etc.), still love to help users and I'm motivated to undertake steward tasks. I hope you still trust me and I will be able to act as a steward another term. Thank you!

Comments about Leinad[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep; same here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Leinad's activity has been confined for the past year or so almost exclusively to plwikimedia, where he has granted himself twice the CU bit for spambot checks and once the OS bit. Virtually all of his global block and global locks stem from those actions. I do not think it is appropriate for a steward to grant themselves checkuser or oversight rights on one's homewiki, even if this is not a normal content wiki. The appearance of a possible conflict of interest is almost as important as an actual conflict of interest, and with almost 40 stewards around, it's not like one cannot poke another steward (we even have another steward who speaks polish and doesn't have any rights on that wiki, Pundit). Discussion with the user has been unproductive so far, with assertions that WMPL can overrule the steward policy and whatnot, but I'll let him speak for himself here if he wishes to do so, so as not to misrepresent his positions. Snowolf How can I help? 12:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I am surprised this comment, since 2009 as I'm a steward I never heard about so wide definition of the home wiki. My home wiki has always been Polish Wikipedia (*only*). I've had more contribution on Wikimedia Polska wiki beacuse chapter members elected me as a board member, but I never decided to change (or start new) home wiki. Always the rules were important for me and I always thought the spirit of the rules is also important, not just to be a bureaucratic guy. I want to help Wikimedia Community and I've wanted to help on the website of chapter where spambots creates many fake accounts - for me it's natural that I take care on the website of organisation which I'm a member. Always my point of view is to distinct 1. non-content wikis like outreach, chapters and wikimania wikis, which can be accidentally treated as a home wikis because higher activity, 2. and content wikis like Wikipedias, Wikitionaries etc. where is easier to determine connexions. I wonder if General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation should comment here - it's obvious that community of chapter wiki is unusual, so who should elect or act there as a CheckUser? Members of chapter? Board members? Or wiki should disconnect from Wikimedia family wikis? In my humble opinion Wikimedia Foundation was open to host wikis for chapters and give them some wider ability to decide about the website and I believe it's still possible. PS. Make a note that all Polish stewards are members of Wikimedia Polska, so Snowolf's interpretation of conflict of interest is not clear. LeinaD (t) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I am not sure what Geoff has to do with this or how the whole discourse on Chapter is relevant. You acted using your stewards tools, not a local checkuser or oversight, and stewards are supposed to be independent outsiders, looking at a wiki from the outside. As a board member and local bureaucrat, I fail to see how you can possibly do that. I also think that there's a whole lot of difference between being a member of Wikimedia Polska and being a board member of Wikimedia Polska and a local bureaucrat. Snowolf How can I help? 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Chapter wiki do not have any strict rules regarding rights - anyone can be an admin or bureaucrat if want help, so "local bureaucrat" is not something special. I didn't request CU rights on SRP beacuse I used my steward bits - for me it's natural - otherwise I would make a request to grant rights (for example basing on board decision). Geoff's comment could clarify whether chapters wikis should be treat a bit more autonomous. LeinaD (t) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I have no real concerns on this matter, though I have the understanding that chapter wikis cannot have CU rights assigned, and they do get hit by spambots, and do need some attention. I would be concerned if real users were being CU'd, and the assignation of rights is overt, not discreet. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, I see no real problem here. -Barras talk 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I don't really agree with the conflict of interest argument brought up by Snowolf above, because the WMPL wiki is, as he rightly pointed out, not a normal content wiki, and the usual rules—in my opinion—do not apply there (though it'd be nice to discuss this in detail at some point). I am also not involved enough to comment on Leinad's activity in the past year; what I am worried about, though, is that Leinad was using his steward privileges on Wikimedia Commons without permission from the local community (something that's been pointed out to Andre Engels as well) for a few years before I found about it by sheer luck in October last year. The attitude shown by Leinad in that discussion looks similar to Snowolf's impression, so I am assuming that it is not a one-time incident. odder (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Important thing, details are here commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 31#Non-admin stewards performing admin tasks - I explained my intentions to help users on simple tasks. The discussion had been closed as resolved and with some suggestions to ask local community for admin rights. Make a note that similar simple actions are OK on Wikidata and in my opinion it's healthier approach to rules. LeinaD (t) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Similar actions are NOT Ok on Wikidata, and this is the reason, for instance, why Vituzzu applied for admin flag and was later reconfirmed. If you are using a steward flag there for deletions pls stop do it; it you are interested in having admin privileges on Wikidata pls apply for adminship there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hmmm, what's about d:Wikidata:Administrators#Other accounts with administrative access: "stewards [...] are allowed to use that access in non-controversial ways"? Would be greate to clarify this sentence. :-) LeinaD (t) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) + Wikidata:Blocked user LeinaD (t) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Just a note: It is currently OK for global sysops and stewards to do non-controversial actions on Wikidata, per local policy. That will likely change soon, but was true as of when Leinad did that stuff. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The point that was brought up by snowolf, is Understandable for me, but Homewiki has it is own clear cut definition, clearly plwikimedia is not his homewiki, he is simply active there as remember, though to be honest if i were him, I would not have done even this minor actions, though we may discuss the issue to expand the rule of homewiki to cover more wikis Mardetanha talk 14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I trust Leinad 100%; maybe he did some minor actions against the strick rules for stewards on Commons, but it was already explained that it was done in goodwill, nothing really harmfull to anyone and similar actions were performed by other stewards on Commons as weel. Moreover Leinad appologised for this and started to be careful with using his stewards actions even more. For WMPL wiki - it is very specific, as it is maintained direcly by WMPL. There is no any election on this wiki by anyone. The simple rule is that any member of the board can grant any technical possition on this wiki, just informing me (as president of WMPL) about it. The action Leinad performed was in hurry just after spambot attacks, so there was no time to look for any other steward. Polimerek (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that is not correct. There were several stewards on IRC available (which is where my objection was initially made), and what you call "in a hurry just after spambot attacks" is actually 17 days after the last edit by a spambot. Snowolf How can I help? 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Awersowy (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. I don't believe the concerns are sufficient for me to vote another way. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I don't see any highly concerning issue that would cause me to support removal. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral the Commons issue gives me pause. I'm not concerned about plwikimedia as that's not a normal content wiki. --Rschen7754 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Now Remove Remove because of further comments re the Commons stuff. --Rschen7754 10:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I don't think the issues raised are a big enough deal to lose his stewardship. Everyone makes mistakes, and this isn't a very big one in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. The concerns raised about you and your general attitude in front of complainants prevent me to support your confirmation. Maybe you're right, but from what I've seen you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong... Some people have other point of view than yours, and this has to be respected too (as I personally respect the fact that you consider that chapters are not like other wikis, even if not specified in the policy). However, I see that many other stewards supported, so I'm not going to stand in his way if they see no harm... But if you are reelected I would really like to see you more opened to discussion, and also more respectful of the policies. Thank you, Leinad. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Quentinv57, you said "you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong" - regarding to this sentence I would like to highlight two various cases from this confirmation page. First, I thought Commons case is clear - I love to help Wikimedia Community, but I know what I had done wrong and I didn't continue to help community on some chances. Second, plwikimedia case is not simple - I'm not only steward, but also a wmpl board member and I feel my responsibility with respect to Polish Law. Pl.wikimedia.org is not just a another WMF wiki, but for us also an official website of Wikimedia Polska which represents us - an organisation having some impact and dependence to Polish society. Make a note we are an organization of public benefit of 1% income tax deduction and we are on the special verification mode by Polish government. So it's natural that Wikimedia Polska wants to have influence on their own website. And regarding to my steward bits, as I'm responsible for many WMPL websites (polish domains like wikipedia.pl, blogs etc.), I also act on wmpl wiki, and in my opinion this not not a conflict of interest - this is just my duties. If you have an idea how to bring together the two issues, I will be glad to hear you. Regards, LeinaD (t) 12:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Dear Leinad, I never doubted that while you granted yourself the checkuser bit on WMpl or used your steward package on Commons you were doing good things, and that a non-involved steward would have done something better. But if policy forbids something, we should not ignore it because of common sense or anything else, especially when there is no emmergency. There would be plenty of ways to check these spambots while respecting the policy, as for instance asking an other steward, or asking the local community for the checkuser flag, or... changing the policy. Don't worry, I don't oppose this, but as I said I just can't support either... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per all supports above. Trijnsteltalk 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I understand Snowolf's concerns. Definitely, even though we have just one home wiki, clearly the same language projects are somewhat closer to each other (also because of the personal overlap) than others. I also agree that whenever needed LeinaD can ask for help from other Polish speaking stewards, me including, and perhaps he should have in a case or two, even if not to avoid COI (which I don't see, although I haven't delved into the issue thoroughly), then just to avoid such concerns. All in all I don't believe though that the magnitude of the issue is such that it would justify worrying about a possible misuse of tools. I believe LeinaD uses his toolbox with integrity and I have no doubts that he will be even more observing the possible concern areas (even if not related to any actual problems) in the future. Pundit (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - I can understand Snowolf's argument about the appearance of a conflict of interest (and it would always be best to avoid such an appearance), but as long as it only involved the checking of a spambot (and the local community hasn't complained) I don't think anything egregious has been committed. -- Mentifisto 23:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, per Odder specifically. Local admin actions in a home wiki are outside of stewards' boundaries and, although the policy is somewhat lenient when it comes to homewiki stuff, your actions do not reflect the best practices followed by other stewards. (The incident was also discussed briefly on the steward noticeboard, but codifying the de facto practice into policy didn't get any support for some reason.) That you would use your love for WMF projects as a justification for overriding the local community just makes it worse, no matter how good your intentions may have been. I don't doubt that you worked in the best of faith and AFAIK there are no complaints of any specific actions you've taken on Commons, but as a long-time steward you really should know the limits by now. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    To clarify - Wikimedia Commons is not my home wiki. LeinaD (t) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    Right. Actually what I meant by home wiki above was any wiki where you're an active community member. But that's sort of a red herring anyway, since the deletions in question would have been inappropriate even if you had never edited Commons. Stewards are simply not expected to carry out day-to-day admin actions with their steward access in wikis where local users are available to perform them. While not written in policy (I remember proposing it at some point but only a couple of people ever commented), the principle is described in the third paragraph of the Stewards page and to my knowledge it's pretty universally accepted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    As I said in discussion, I'm deeply sorry and I no longer continue such actions - the discussion has been closed. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Also you performed action where were active admins, but for me it's not a real drama. I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". LeinaD (t) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I admit I once thought that it was okay to delete anything if you had the tools to do it as long as the deletion itself was uncontroversial. However, I was pretty quickly set straight by local users and told that actions that fall outside the remit of GS/steward should be left to local admins. Wrt the other stewards you mention: The same issue was mentioned at Andre Engels's confirmation page (which seems headed for removal, although not because of this issue). Mav is not seeking reconfirmation, and Jyothis's two 2010 deletions seem like clear steward (crosswiki) actions. Pathoschild and M7 have both stated in the discussion linked above that they intend to respect the local community's wishes. From your initial response on Commons I had the impression that you didn't see anything wrong with the actions in question – it's good to see that you've now clarified that don't intend to continue local actions on Commons, and indeed you haven't made any deletions since the issue was first brought up. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ✒ Bennylin 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep since I'm quite sure he'll take the remarks above in deep consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Trzymać. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove As per concerns by Odder and others, there was no need for Leinad to utilise his tools on Commons. Recent events on Commons and plwp give me serious pause for thought on Leinad's suitability to be a WMF steward. After this discussion Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith, and is also advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing (see further discussion here). Additionally, yesterday I was in #wikipedia-pl in which I was discussing civilly with a couple of editors the issues which have arisen on Commons, and after an editor started attacking myself (saying I was bonkers, etc), I was banned from the channel by Saper. After the ban, Leinad launched into attacks on myself (said nothing whilst I was there), accusing myself of abusing in private chat, when all that was done was I asked him to discuss issues civilly and to encourage others to engage in civilised discourse. It is plainly obvious that Leinad is not able to act in a detached way, and has now decided to allow interpersonal disputes with another editor, to escalate into attacking myself, others and an entire project, when all that is done is files which go against Commons policies have been deleted, and requests for civil discussion have escalated into further personal attacks on editors. It is not the type of behaviour that we expect from a steward. Russavia (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, while definitely noone should assume bad faith, I think the idea to host pictures which have licenses acceptable for pl-wiki, but not commons, locally, makes sense and is the easiest solution all in all, I think. Pundit (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, there should be no assumptions of bad faith by anyone, and my remove opinion is only in relation to his behaviour. As a person in a respected position in the community, he should be even more mindful not to engage in such behaviour, but furthermore, he has only enabled, encouraged and participated in the furthering of personal attacks against numerous editors, after being respectfully and politely asked to encourage others to calm down. This is behaviour absolutely unbecoming of a steward. Russavia (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, there are many misunderstandings, but in my humble opinion this is mostly caused Russavia do not understand Polish language. Step-by-step I will try clarify:
    1. "Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith" - it's not truth. I used words "w sobie" -- that means particular person. For Polish Wikimedia community it's clear this is about Odder (Commons admin) who is skeptical to ("boycotts" would be too strong word) Polish wiki-community, especially wikipedians from Poznań (for long time we were a good friends in real live, but no one knows why he has changed his mind). In my opinion I can assume bad faith by Odder in relation to Commons del request where well known Polish open-acccess activists (saper and Polimerek) added many valuable arguments to keep the files. My post just expressed disappointment and further conclusions are ineligible.
    2. "advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing" - there is NO such statement, I wrote there about free photos and compatible with Polish law. Moreover the citizen-friendly law is very important for me. A few months ago I wrote an apeal to Sejm about problem with non-free photos. For long time I didn't know that Sejm has changed rules of its website, but when I was pointed out, I described it on Wikimedia Polska blog as an example good practise (Wikimedia Polska participates in creating open access law and such example was helpful). Yesterday I was in Warsaw on conference organised by Polish Government about Internet freedom and I had the opportunity to talk with Prime Minister of Poland about free licenses - after this I have gained personal contacts to convince to change licensing of content published by Office of Prime Minister to allow publish on Wikimedia projects. Accusing me of advocating to break the law is unfair.
    3. "Leinad launched into attacks on myself" - there was no personal attacks, I discussed the ban of Russavia with Herr_Kriss (details are below the comment to his vote) and my arguments were not intended to escalate anything. As Russavia knows I ignore him on IRC, but this is not related to the Commons issue, just from safety reasons. I was warned that he may be a troll (basing on informations like 1 year block on enwiki by ArbCom decision; topic ban from all articles, discussions, user's talk page and other content related to the Eastern Europe; and engagement to articles about nationalist meme Polandball). I am a steward of Wikimedia Community (not WMF), but also a citizen of Poland, so please understand my simple decison to I avoid any contact with him. Of course I do not exclude that he is a useful user on Wikimedia Commons, but I cannot determine. LeinaD (t) 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Leinad, I really feel that there is a large degree of immaturity on your part here. Look, a fellow steward/fellow pl.wp bureaucrat has said that the personal attacks were unwarranted. Instead of apologising to those concerned, you have only further cemented your personal attacks. It is obvious that you have interpersonal disputes with User:Odder, and you should be putting such things aside in the interests of achieving the goals of our projects, but you needlessly attacked Odder in a public forum, and by way of the message you were putting out there, you have attacked all editors on Commons, who have the best interests of this project at heart. Not only that, but you continue to discuss issues by attacking others. I am disgusted by you calling me a troll; I am an admin and bureaucrat on Commons, so I am well versed in our policies and requirements -- I mentioned these images on #wp-pl back in October and informed editors there of the problems with them; I nominated them in November, I encouraged time and time again for editors to make contact with Sejm to get a release; I left messages for editors on plwp encouraging to get permission [16]; I suggested we leave discussion open well past the normal 7 days for people to make contact with the Sejm and to get permission; I enquired on the DR if there was any progress (and got a muted response); I explained civilly on #wp-pl why these images were against Commons policy; I asked you civilly to encourage editors to civilly bring opinions to the discussion on Commons; I created Commons:Template:PSL the other day after finding a free resource; I have now contacted Platforma asking for them to release things under a free licence; I am going to be uploading hundreds of Polish politician photos from Flickr; I will continue to encourage editors to get in contact with Sejm and get an irrevocable, free licence from them. And all of this has been done with civility, and with the best interests of our projects in mind. On the other hand, I see with you outright personal attacks, bad faith, refusal to recognise the problems inherited with those attacks and bad faith, etc. And yet, I am the troll? Your behaviour around this episode is quite disgraceful, and shows you have nothing but contempt for the Commons project, and its people, and I can not in good faith support your reconfirmation under these circumstances. Russavia (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Rschen7754--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Bacus15 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Easy decision. Elfhelm (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep We may differ on Leinad's actions but we must surely agree on his motives - everything he did as a steward he did with great respect and love for the Wikimedia Community and he always used his steward tools to serve this community. He might have done some minor mistakes but he always acted in good faith. I trust him completly and hope that he will be able to continue his work as a steward. Magalia (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I could provide logs from IRC showing that there's chaotic hatred aka hurr durr you are dumb and I'll ban you - not love. I always thought that stewards could be good mediators between projects, but he's rebeling pl.wiki again Commons and it was me who wanted to mediate, but there was only hate claptrap from him. It's not a good faith (even not a good fight, because it was mean flamewar, Leinad kept flaming and next he blamed opponent for his own actions, i.e. flaming). Commons problems are another thing, worth noticing, but here my main reason is how he acts. I just can't allow to reelect person who's acting in such mean way and when somebody disagrees with him he's just turning into kid full of hate. He may be nice to you and some users, Magalia, but I have different impression. Trying to solve conflict on priv by user, Leinad named "molesting him", while his oppontent was very direct and the only thing I've seen wasn't molesting, but user trying to live in peace by substantive discussion, without calling Leinad names. Leinad AFAIS uses epithets as arguments and that's wrong. No, no way. As friend he might be good, but he's just too proud to say he's wrong or to just talk about it. Krzysiu (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    This is a strange situation which in my humble opinion is not relevant to my steward bits. On Thursday February 12 during my presence on the IRC channel #wikipedia-pl I *didn't say one word* about Commons (nor any other words before ban). Meanwhile many users had been tired by activity of russavia and saper banned him. Then User:Krzysiu (on IRC he uses alternative nickname) unbanned this users - after that I suggested him that first he should consult unban with other channel operators (and yes, there was longer discussion like I like him, so I unbanned him and I wrote I disagree and I can ban you), but in my opinion this is problem between channel operators, not issue of Commons). And about: he's rebeling pl.wiki again Commons - this is a serious accusation towards my careful and neutral comment in the pl.wiki village pump (contrary to comments of many other community members). Moreover Polish Wikipedia is my home wiki where I do not act as a steward and I hope I still have there the right to have my own opinion. LeinaD (t) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry Leinad, but that is pure BS, and you know it. Would you agree to post the logs, and others can see for themselves? Myself, Powerek38, MatmaRex, and to a lesser extent, Teukros, were having a civilised discussion about the deletion of Sejm images, and I was explaining from a Commons standpoint (where I am a bureaucrat, not some "bonkers" bad faith editor) why the images were not suitable for Commons under our policies, and I also stated that the images might be suitable for pl.wp and that it was up to pl.wp to discuss and decide on. I understand that pl.wp is upset about the images being deleted from Commons, and I understand that you are too, but this is no excuse for you to attack Odder, myself and Jim as having acted in bad faith -- as a pl.wp sysop, bureaucrat and CU, and a global steward, you should know that this is not on, and moreso your very position means that you should be calming editors down and encouraging civilised discussion, not inciting them as you have done. Remember, you are not the only one with a love for the Wikimedia projects; we are all here for the same reason. The discussions on the mailing list and pl.wp are a bloody disgrace in that they have denegenerated into a free-for-all against Commons admins (and Commons in general), and your part in it demonstrates to me at least, that whilst they are not connected directly with your steward role, it calls into question your ability to act with respect towards others where things don't go your way, and I'd rather not have someone like that in such a position. Russavia (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment Comment, even though my vote is already clearly stated as the second in row, just after DerHexer's declaration of love; treat it as the justification of my "keep" vote, which I am going to post here instead of under my original entry. I cannot help not noticing the extension of certain conflicts (bordering on the personal) in some votes... Leinad's actions on Commons were indeed against the letter of the rules, but they were performed in good faith and I thought, oh, naive me, that it has all been clarified out there, feet were shuffled in unease and we can live on. How mistaken I was! Now instead of feet - mud is shuffled. I am trying to interpret some entries as something other than turning the technical solution of the Polish Sejm pictue problem into a vision of pl.wiki rebelling against Commons (huh?) all fueled by ever-fire-spitting, horrible Leinad the Avenger and I simply cannot see the clear picture through this crusade. It is not the first time that a minority of not-so-proper behaviour takes over the massive amount of good deeds done (keeping the non-content wikis safe from spambots should acccount for something - last time I saw a non-Wikimedia wiki not protected from anything malicious I practically cried "A kingdom for an admin!") and the every-day activities of a steward should account for much more). OK, sorry for the tirade, but I had to get it out of my system, because I hate to see an overall good steward's head being chopped off just because he took certain steps out of line with the letter of the law, but keeping to the general spirit of the rules just the same. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 08:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep adds value on the steward side internally; had a harsh reminder about boundaries, though in good faith action; more activity would be better — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep some comments above makes me feel a little bit troubled, but everyone may make a mistake occasionally, and learn from them. Leinad also have done a lot of good work, and I see no reason to doubt his actions was done with good intentions. Höstblomma (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I, personally, don't see any use for Leinad for the tools other than spambot checks (which of are little use); the sudden rush of steward spambot checks concerns me as well, especially that the fact that this page was created the same day of all these checks, which have been /only/ on pl.wm; few steward actions in general since 2012. I don't have any particular opinion on Leinad's actions on Commons, though my personal view is that steward rights shouldn't be used in cases where there are active wikis with active competent admins to deal with issues there. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    Make a note that stewards actions are not only in global and public logs. And I don't know how "competent admins" can better deal with spambots - using CU I can globally block IPs which creates many accounts in many projects, so this is much more efficient. LeinaD (t) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Jafeluv. On the contrary, I completely disagree with Snowolf and Quentin: their interpretation of "home wiki" has no basis in policy, praxis or common sense; for instance, I interpret the homewiki rules rather broadly compared to the policy (I'd consider homewiki for me it.quote, it.wiki and Meta), but with such a reasoning I should e.g. consider homewiki it.wikt where I've not been sysop for 5 years and even outreachwiki where I have few dozens edits, or (IMHO) any content project in my language (for which I have more potential COI/POV than many of the wikis where I'm sysop). Additionally, Snowolf mentioned Pundit but he's the least active steward we have and he probably would not have been able to help (he mentions himself the "learning curve" too steep for him). That said, of course one can have concerns with the fact that he didn't even ask other Polish stewards (AFAIK), or that maybe he's quite inactive outside that wiki, or if his checks were considered excessive: all things that together with the Commons case would also get a different light. I think he'll be able to get checkuser status locally if needed after removal of steward flag. --Nemo 06:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Nemo, thank you for your input. I think that referring to your own comment as a source for anyone's activity is somewhat going the round way, it is much easier to use e.g. this tool (although according to it there were 9 stewards less active than me, and Pathoschild and Millosh had almost exact same activity count in 2012; accidentally there are also 9 stewards less active than me in 2013 - this is all not to say that my activity was amazingly high or satisfying to me, but I think that you're just basing your reasoning on a mistaken premise). Pundit (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hello Pundit, as I said the reason for my oppose is in Jafeluv's reason, so your reply doesn't affect my !vote. Mine is just an hypothesis ("probably"): I've now explained better why I think that my premise is not mistaken at all and I note that you didn't comment further about the "learning curve" (a very concise point of your statement that I may surely have misunderstood and therefore mentioned in a misleading way here; I hope not). --Nemo 12:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Siigh, I have not commented on your "learning curve" point exactly because of the obvious misunderstanding, quite clear to any bystander. I wrote that "there is a learning curve in being a steward", which means that you learn your toolbox gradually. This is a statement of an indisputable fact, and I have been grateful for fellow stewards for their support in my taking the role on, extended to me as to any other new steward. In no place did I write of the learning curve being "too steep" and I have no idea what gave you that impression. Moreover, while I understand that you operate on a hypothesis mode, I still am quite convinced that comparing a total of 5 years of actions with a total for 1 year may not be a "mistaken premise", but just does not make much sense (in other words, using the very same reasoning, you could demote ALL new stewards one day after they're elected, because their action count is likely to be ZERO, which compared to the total count for 5 years for any of the veterans is indeed a huge gap). If you want to compare activity of anybody, a sensible assumption is comparing same periods of time. 20 of all current stewards had the number of actions lower than I had in 2012 in some year in the past. Pundit (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    As usual, your reply on the point doesn't address the point (i.e. whether you would have been able to help on that Polish wiki).
    As for your laughable reductio ad absurdum, you're missing an important premise, that confirmation is not a day after election but a year later. You're free to have your opinions but such attempts at undermining the others' are just ridiculous. --Nemo 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    Please, don't call other people's arguments "laughable". Reductio ad absurdum shows flaws in argumentation more clearly. In any case, it is quite obvious that comparing 5 years of total edits with one year does not make any sense (otherwise you'd expect all new stewards to do 5 times more work to meet your standards). Pundit (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    What can I say more? This topic again and again comes back, though I'm deeply sorry, discussion has been closed and I no longer continue such actions. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons, for example: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Also Jafeluv, of whose comment you base, performed action where were active admins. And I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". I'm sorry you can't look at this situation in wider aspect. LeinaD (t) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I've opened your links and they don't prove your point, there's nothing (obviously) unfair here. Sorry if I don't comment each case, it would get too long. --Nemo 20:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Just the opposite Nemo - they do prove the point. Which is that other stewards also performed admin-specific actions, occasionally as it was, without having explicit admin status on a given wiki. I do not know what there is to comment here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Wpedzich, you're obviously not very calm about this discussion... The actions linked above are either not comparable to Leinad's or it's not true that they're not being discussed, as per stewards policy and Stewards, which someone could start thinking you didn't read very carefully either. --Nemo 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The arguments about plwikimedia look rather specious for me. Ruslik (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per odder/Nemo and others --Herby talk thyme 18:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep No doubt --Alan ffm (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ankry (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Teukros (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Yarl (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep in my opinion LeinaD is a person who has always acted in good faith and is a reliable member of the Wikimedia community. Minor sidesteps don't overshadow his generally good standing. He clearly learns from his mistakes and surely can be trusted. Lately he's been helping out with the new Wikivoyage PL wiki. Some negative voices here seem to be obviously unfair to him and probably have been drawing in somewhat personal grudges. Kpjas (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Rzuwig► 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep πr2 (t • c) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Luckas Blade[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: pt, en-4, es-3, fr-1
  • Personal info: I was not one of the most active stewards but helped with emergency tasks on IRC, cross-wiki issues and bot requests mainly. After one year, I enjoyed the work and if the community support me it would be nice to serve another year as a steward. --Luckas msg 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Luckas Blade[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral. I remain unconvinced by the refusal to answer questions regarding his granting of checkuser to himself on his homewiki, even when the user finally apologized after several days, he has not yet provided an explanation of my question of why he thought proper for him to do so. Since then, he has however done only good work and I've had no issues with any of his actions, so I don't think I should vote for a removal, yet I don't feel comfortable enough to fully support. Snowolf How can I help? 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove homewiki CU issue and failure to communicate effectively afterwards was a bit concerning. --Rschen7754 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Who never made a mistake? I consider Luckas quite apt for the function. Moreover, after the error, Luckas was elected checkuser in Portuguese Wikipedia (I believe that is relevant mention this). Also do I consider the responses were appropriate to the incident, but still believe him. Érico Wouters msg 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral, User talk:Luckas Blade#Using steward tools in your homewiki. --Makecat 03:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove As said above, everybody can make a mistake. But refusing to communicate and explain your actions in this situation is a clear lack of transparency. Sorry, but I can't renew the support I gave you last year, even if you've done some good work on the SRB page. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral for the concerns voiced above. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral with a tendency to remove. I have no problems when someone makes an error. We all are humans and by far not perfect. However, I wish the communication afterwards would've been better. -Barras talk 13:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Anyone can make a mistake, and Luckas, in my opinion, has improved since his beginning. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove based on failure to respond to concerns raised over the use of his tools. Stewards should be able to recognize their mistakes, and communicate well with people who complain about their actions. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral: Like others, I was surprised by your use of checkuser on ptwiki. It is one of the core principles of steward activities not to do such things on home wikis. Your failure to answer for it was equally concerning, but your actions since have been good enough for me not to vote for removal. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Not sure what to vote ... I was surprised as well about the use of CU on ptwiki, but since you improved since then I can't vote for removal. Trijnsteltalk 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral A great user and a great steward. Yet, privacy policy and general stewardship policies cannot be treated lightly and without proper explanation as soon as concerns arise. Pundit (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The situation on pt.wp is complex, which means that regular reasoning can't be applied strictly. At the other side, I would like to hear the explanation for the actions on stewards list, at least. --Millosh (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I have to agree with Quentinv57 and Ajraddatz. Anyone can make a mistake, especially when you're just starting out in a new role, but I would certainly expect a steward to respond to concerns about their tool use. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. Sorry. ✒ Bennylin 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep well, time for a second chance. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep próxima chance. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Jafeluv. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment [22]'. Has already removed local steward rights and several others. πr2 (t • c) 02:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Now he has removed his global steward group membership; this can be considered a withdrawal. πr2 (t • c) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    That settles it, then. I see no reason why he had to remove his local rights, but I suppose it is his decision. :( --Rschen7754 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, enjoy parole — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep You shouldn't abstract from remarks/reproaches on your talk page. Please do communicate with your colleagues. Since ptwiki is a special case (elected CU on ptwiki shortly after this issue), I won't blame you for that. However I don't understand your resignations, a few "remove" comments on your confirmation page doesn't imply you are persona non grata on Wikimedia projects. Elfix 09:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I'm sure Luckas has learned a lot from the CU issue and still deserves our trust. --ThiagoRuiz talk 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


M7[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
  • Personal info: I am a Steward since 2006 and I'm willing to continue this service for another year. I've slightly increased my activity comparing with 2011, especially in fighting cross wiki issues. I follow the mailing list and monitor meta.wiki logs and RfP page. I also can be reached on meta user talk page, that is set to E-mail me when changed.

Comments about M7[edit]


MarcoAurelio[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: es, en-2, fr-2 (and passive understanding of other romanic languages)
  • Personal info: Hello. This is my third steward confirmation since my appointment in 2010. During this term I have continued to perform the tasks I used to do in the previous terms, being management and execution of steward requests here at Meta-Wiki, general cross-wiki maintenance, SWMT surveillance and intervention activities and antispam activities too. This year I have been less active than in the previous term, mainly due to health and personal issues I am not yet fully recovered. Notwithstanding I have performed 954 logged steward actions at Meta-Wiki, with a total of 6337 actions performed since my appointment. My activity by sectors can be seen in this graph. Additionaly, during this year we have seen how the Wikimedia family increased with the creation of two new projects, Wikidata —which I helped in their first stages with permissions granting— and Wikivoyage. If the community pleases and is happy with the management I did during the past year I would be delighted to serve for another term as steward. Comments on my work as steward are welcome. Thank you for your time. Best regards.
    -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about MarcoAurelio[edit]

  • Keep Keep Thehelpfulone 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, claro :) --Ignacio (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I love you so much! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - MarcoAurelio does a wonderful job and I look forward to working with him in the future. Snowolf How can I help? 00:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vogone (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Makecat 03:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep White Master (es) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sure ! :-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong keep. Sin duda alguna. Always nice to have him around. Savhñ 06:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per last year. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, of course. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, of course! -Barras talk 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep hola. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Trijnsteltalk 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Absolutely Theo10011 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Érico Wouters msg 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course --Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep who else? Pundit (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Mar del Sur (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Obviously --Vito Genovese 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep One of the best stewards. Thanks for your work at SRP. This, that and the other (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Wikisilki (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Sure --Ecemaml (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep usuario de confianza --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active, responsive, helpful QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technically an oppose See below. MarcoAurelio is certainly qualified to retain the role, however when I look at the list of users that are, at the current time, being unanimously reconfirmed, I don't really think that he's at that level. Good? Yes. Unanimous? No. Congrats on the reconfirmation though! I don't fully expect everyone to understand (or respect) my decision here, but since this isn't going to have any meaningful impact on the results, and because I try and stay the hell away from Meta and it's penchant for explosive dysfunction as much as possible, I won't be answering any inquiries about this. Sven Manguard (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I don't usually go questioning comments however since I don't fully understand the meaning of yours and in regards to better serve the communities I'd be interested to know in which areas do you think I might improve in case I am confirmed for the next year. If I understand your comments correctly, you're opposing me because nobody has done so yet, right? In that case I must point out that you've just supported some fellow stewards that are being also "unanimously reconfirmed" hence my confusion (again, sorry if I misunderstood the meaning of your comment, but that's what my poor en-2 level says me...). If not, another possibility is that you might be concerned of something I did? Of course that you're free to comment in the way you prefer and I respect that (how could be otherwise?), but if you have concerns about some of my actions, I'd be interested to know so I can improve because blanket opposing does not really help as this is not a vote. I'm not perfect. The question is not if your comment will or will not have any meaningful impact on the confirmations which I don't know (that's an ElectCom task). If, in spite of your explicit refusal, you want to answer me; you may do so here, at my talk or via email as you wish. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • A couple of times I've seen you speak in a way that feels... how do I explain it... a tad too 'high and mighty' for my taste. Take your reconfirmation statement for example, where you say "Comments on my work as steward are welcome" (your italics). That seems... well I don't like the way it reads. Now I'm most certainly not one to talk about the virtues of not being unnecessarily abrasive, as I can be unnecessarily abrasive from time to time, but you're a Steward and I'm not. So I guess what I'm saying is that I want you to be reconfirmed, but I don't want you to be able to say that you were unanimously confirmed. Does that make a bit more sense? Sven Manguard (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
        • He will be able to say that he was unanimously reconfirmed tho, as you have stated that you want him reconfirmed and hence your comment here is a support. Note that the reconfirmation process is not some sort of RfA, but a chance for the community to comment on a steward's work for the past year and said comments are then taken into consideration by the stewards and the Election Committee. Snowolf How can I help? 05:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, the last part of my statement is just a short version of the rules the governs the confirmation process «please mention if you are comfortable or unhappy with the use of steward tools of any of the people listed below and why». I really don't have any kind of interest in saying that I was or I was not unanimously reconfirmed —this is not a hall of fame— but I do have interest in knowing in which ways I can better serve the communities with the tools they granted to me. Thanks for clarifying that there was not any issues on that side. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wnme (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep good communicator to fellow stewards, good environmental scanner — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC) goes without saying
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — ΛΧΣ21 17:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep es:Magister Mathematicae 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roy 06:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. As Manguard says, certainly qualified for the job. Solid participation and care for our rules and procedures.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jaontiveros (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Mardetanha[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: fa, az, en
  • Personal info: Now I have been a steward for several, I still think that I can do the job, I would have much more time to be more active, I have been almost always available on IRC to handle emergency request where my main activities lie, I hope community trust me with another 1 year term. Mardetanha talk 14:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Mardetanha[edit]


Matanya[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: he,en
  • Personal info: Hello, I have been less active than I'd like this year, but still active : (links: steward activity, Meta logs), mainly anti-vandalism and SRP requests. A nice graph is available here. I'm on IRC regularly and one of the CVN staff. I'm planning to remain active this year, (if you still want me around). questions and comments are welcome. best Matanya (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Matanya[edit]

  • Keep Keep, sure --Ignacio (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Snowolf How can I help? 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Always present on IRC to answer requests and always faster than me too. Many thanks, Matanya :D -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a little note, please don't be too fast either [23] ;-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Makecat 03:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My impression is that you're quick to react to new requests, which of course is a good thing, but it can sometimes make you jump the gun a little too quickly in cases like this where more consideration before acting would have been preferable. That minor issue aside, you're certainly a net positive and I do support your confirmation. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, just bear in mind what Jafeluv said, but you are absolutely OK. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, sure! --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, I see no issues here, a really good steward fellow! -Barras talk 14:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Trijnsteltalk 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep don't know how I missed you! Theo10011 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pundit (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Itzuvit (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep OK. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep fastest fingers in the west — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) always helpful
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Bsadowski1 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Russavia (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Quite active. -- Mentifisto 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 07:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Slav4 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, certainly active enough. Great work! πr2 (t • c) 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Mav[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: I've been a Steward since the very beginning and even came up with the name. But I have a full time job and starting last year I went back to school half time and joined my state's military reserve. That unfortunately has left little time or energy for me to perform Steward duties, or edit Wikipedia. It was a good run and I had a lot of fun along the way but it is time for me to step aside and let a younger, more energetic generation of Wikimaniacs run the asylum. Thanks for all the fish. Fin.
    • Please remove my Steward flag at the conclusion of the confirmation process. --Daniel Mayer (mav) (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Mav[edit]

  • Thanks for your work in the past! :-) —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the work you've done ! Wishing you the best for your future, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the hard work as a steward. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You'll be missed. ✒ Bennylin 10:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work in the past! -Barras talk 14:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • /me bows. Thanks for all the help!
  • I would like to Keep Keep, but since that's not an option I'll say thanks for the good work and co-operation over the years, good luck with your future endeavours, and hope to see you around still. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help the past years. Hopefully we'll still you from time to time. Trijnsteltalk 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank you for your many years of hard work. MBisanz talk 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice to meet you, bye. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Great being on your side for a while! So long, and thanks. Pundit (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for helping with us! --cyrfaw (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for all of your work, and I, for one, will be sorry to see you go. Good Luck with school and service! -- Avi (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No chance to reconsider? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work. Jafeluv (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ty --Vituzzu (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work. I hope you see the important things in future for humanity. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • THANKS for all the years of stewardy. A leader in the role. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) thank you, Daniel, and good luck with all your newer challenges :)
  • I'll be very happy if you come back with us from time to time. Good luck in whatever you do! --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for everything you have done!—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


MBisanz[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: Hi all. I'm submitting myself for the confirmation and hope the community finds me worthy to continue as a steward because I have enjoyed the steward work I have done over the last year and hope to continue it in the future. In particular, I believe I have fulfilled my prior intentions of helping with renames and coordinating renames among multiple projects. Additionally, I think I've been fairly responsive to SWMT issues that require quick steward action on CentralAuth to lock vandal or otherwise abusive accounts. Admittedly, I've made a couple of mistakes that I've learned from and will avoid in the future, but I believe I can continue to help. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about MBisanz[edit]


Melos[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: it, en
  • Personal info: Hi, since 2010 I deal with crosswiki vandalisms and spam(bots). I'm not certainly the most active steward for number of actions but I can always guarantee my constant presence. I'm ready to serve the community as steward as usual and I hope the community will glad to confirm me for another year.
    Regards, Melos (talk)

Comments about Melos[edit]


Mentifisto[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, mt, it-2
  • Personal info: I'm usually 'passively' around (handling the more background tasks, and responding to requests particularly when no one is around). Besides watching the stream of unifications on IRC, I typically handle SRG, SRP, VR, and less often SRUC and SR/SUL. I did commit some mistakes recently due to inattentiveness, but (unless pictures of kittens happen to distract me) I'll strive to err on the side of caution in the future. -- Mentifisto 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Mentifisto[edit]


Millosh[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: sr (bs, hr, sh), en-3, ru-2, other Slavic languages at various degrees
  • Personal info: This year, I am a bit more optimistic in relation to my overall Wikimedia involvement. I think that my involvement as a steward will raise during 2013. Thus, I'd like to keep my permissions if community needs me. (The last sentence has literal meaning: if I'm not needed as a steward, I will resign.)

Comments about Millosh[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally I would be happy to work with you for another year, especially if you become more active as you said in your statement. Thanks for what you do, Millos ! :-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, every willing steward who has not gotten into some sort of disqualifying conflict ought to be kep. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm. -Barras talk 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, active behind the scenes, his good experience is helpful. Elfix 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Elfix. Trijnsteltalk 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pundit (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vito Genovese 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Etibarlı istifadəçidir. Fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.sEdivad (msg) 13:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep presents alternative perspectives — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I love Millosh's work on the backstage. LeinaD (t) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. πr2 (t • c) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Pathoschild[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:

Comments about Pathoschild[edit]


PeterSymonds[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, de-1
  • Personal info: Hello. I was elected as a steward in February 2011, and would like to be confirmed for another year. I've been fairly and consistently active this year, and I'm always happy to help in any area of steward work. I haven't broken too many things either, which must be a good sign! Thank you for your consideration.

Comments about PeterSymonds[edit]

  • Keep Keep If we must. ;-) Thehelpfulone 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, yes --Ignacio (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep of course, been around for 400+ years and still going strong. Snowolf How can I help? 00:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I can't phrase it better than Snowolf :D -- Quentinv57 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep White Master (es) 06:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove You have probably done a lot of good work, but clientelism,1 not respecting local policies2 and inability to explain your own viewpoint3[24] pushes me to call for rights removal.--Juandev (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Yes, you probable did a lot of useful work for others, however I have to agree with Juandev, that some of your edits were not really good. We already discussed this topic in several threads. However, I believe that you learned from it that it is really necessary to have informations from more sides and not only from one and "work just non-public requests". Therefore, I hope that next year of your stewards career will be more objective and for this reason I am not voting against. On the other hand, because of all these problems, I can not give you my vote "for". Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, what would I do without you? IRC and everything would only be half as funny! -Barras talk 14:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep! -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The most funny British steward I've ever met. ;) He makes my day when he's around and that's important too! Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Bsadowski1 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Osiris (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  :* Theo10011 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong keep, though I just forgot why. :P Savhñ 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course keep. Obviously, out of hundreds of actions as a steward there will be one or two problems. But overall (much overall), Peter is a wonderful steward and an asset to the team. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pundit (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I do share the aforementioned concern regarding local policies, but he's obviously well-intentioned. Not to mention that he's super helpful.--Vito Genovese 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Lovely! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Arkanosis ✉ 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — संतोष दहिवळ (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sven Manguard (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, net positive for sure. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep OK. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Torreslfchero (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep if only because you annoy the other Stewards by getting there first and taking all the best work from them! QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wnme (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep valuable contributions — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC) jo
  • Keep Keep Yes. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — ΛΧΣ21 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --ThiagoRuiz talk 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Russavia (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep An absolutely bloody spiffing steward! πr2 (t • c) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This behavior is unacceptable for a steward.


Pundit[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: pl, en-4, ru-1.5, de-1
  • Personal info: Personal info: This is my first confirmation, as I was elected last year. I definitely am not the most active steward among the Team. Besides the normal steward tasks, I participated in the en-wiki ArbCom elections. I believe there is a learning curve in handling steward duties and I am grateful for my more experienced colleagues who take their time in helping me learn them. If the community is willing, I would like to serve yet another year as a Wikimedia Steward.

Comments about Pundit[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, and no, this is not a Polish mafia vote. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no issues here. -Barras talk 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I particularly loved what you've done recently to improve the life of stewards. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I agree with Quentinv57. Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Lonio17 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep trzymać --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep pushing good initiatives — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) handles his double-burden with the FDC very well
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I didn't mean to but I've voted against in other cases and I must do the same here for consistency because I now see he's the least active current steward and he basically did nothing but some checkusering. We therefore don't have any way to confirm our trust in his job as a steward. From the responses below we have a clear indication that he has some TRUTH problems: he can't stand criticism and opinions different from his and masks his opinions and arguments as facts; extremely worrying for a steward. And no, other tasks do not change this fact; moreover I've always considered each responsibility (like flags) as an additional "debt of trusts" (to the community and the movement). --Nemo 06:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC) – addition/correction 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    For clarity: the following comment was a reply to the original vote, without comments about "truth problems" (which, frankly, sound a bit like a personal attack to me, so I'm going to do this, rather than reply :):Sounds fair (although I am surprised that you've discovered me as the least active, at least according to this tool it would not appear so, as both in 2012 and in 2013 there were 9 stewards less active than me, also in 2012 two were ahead of me just by one action - although my activity is definitely far from desired). Pundit (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm talking of this, which counts 88 actions (second least active axpde with 124; I've opposed his confirmation before opening this page or placing the comment above): is the count wrong? As I said in the case of Andre Engels, I don't care about recent activity if previous activity in the "job" can be used to the purpose of confirming suitability to the flag, but we don't have even that here. I also looked closer and it seems that 46 actions out of 88 are checkusering; we knew that you can be trusted with the CU tool as you were an ombudsman, but 40 non-CU actions only in the first year as steward means, to me, that we surely don't have enough "material" to confirm you, even without looking into those actions (sure, nobody will have anything to complain about; chi non fa non sbaglia, an Italian proverb says). Moreover, with such a low activity in the first year (when one is usually most interested in the job one has just run for), I doubt you'll ever recover in the future, but this is a minor point compared to the previous one. Sorry for bothering you all with so many words to explain what's just my opinion, but you claimed that my comment was based on "false premises" so I felt obliged to elaborate more than I first considered needed. --Nemo 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Aside from the fact that Jyothis' tool is rather inaccurate, Pundit has been rather active behind the scenes. But regardless, I don't think that comparing absolute numbers is very helpful, at least compare actions since the last confirmations or actions per day. Snowolf How can I help? 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I've said above myself that the count shouldn't be fully relied upon, that's why I added other reasons (and it still gives a useful general picture, not falsified yet). I disagree that absolute numbers don't matter at all and I've explained why above; of course they are not useful to make a complete "ranking" of all stewards but that's not something I tried or I'm interested in. --Nemo 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    To be perfectly honest, I believe it is rather unfair to compare absolute numbers, since I've been a steward for just a year, and the majority of the pack - longer. If any sensible comparison can be made, it is for the same period, be it just the raw last year (where I'm ahead of ~ 1/4 of stewards) or some averaged calculation. So, indeed, I believe that your count is quite wrong in the sense of not having much meaning, as it does not make any sense to compare the absolute total number of actions for one year in the case of a new steward with, say, 5 years of another. Pundit (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Just one stat of relevance I've gathered from this: 20 of current stewards (the majority, that is) in some year of their tenure had an action count lower than I had in 2012 (which was my first and only year of being a steward). Pundit (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree on absolute numbers and I've no interest in judging the people's dedication: activity can be reduced by many good reasons and as I said above can't be compared just by log counts; I'm only interested in knowing whether I can actually trust this confirmation process to review and confirm your ability to do the steward's job.
    I've no idea why you, on the contrary, are being so fixated with editcountitis, which is not the only point in my argument, but if you want we can also play this game. Using the same numbers as you are, we can see that only two stewards in history had a lower activity track than yours at any given confirmation (Jusjih and Millosh, ~83; surprise surprise, I didn't vote for them either at the time); perhaps also axpde, but mismatched terms don't allow a good comparison with such low numbers (and I've opposed his confirmation too). Dorgan had 88 like you and didn't ask confirmation; Zirland had 83 and failed reconfirmation. Of course data is very lacking for the ancient stewards, but a comparison to Angela, Anthere & Co. wouldn't make sense anyway. --Nemo 09:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not a huge fan of editcountitis neither. But while all of your qualitative judgments are blackboxed and thus cannot be disputed (they are more like opinions, than facts), the argument about numbers is simply ostensibly flawed. Interestingly, I have no idea how you came up with the idea that only two stewards in history had lower activity track, which is obviously counterfactual, since, as mentioned before, even this year I was "more active" (in the empty terms of mere counts) than roughly 1/4 of all stewards on duty in 2012. Also, I'm not sure how you even came up with this number for the date of confirmation (usually not done on 31 December of any given year). Here you can count thirty seven instances of activity counts lower than 78 in a year, from the stewards currently on duty (so quite likely 7837 instances of successful reconfirmations). If you want to play with numbers, at least do it right :) You can believe that this activity count is disqualifying for whatever reason, but at least be fair and say that 1/4 of all stewards in 2012 have been too inactive to meet your standards. Pundit (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    As I said a dozen times, I'm considering total activity to have an impression of the steward's experience etc. etc. You disagree that this is a valid point, we got it; there's no need to continue repeating your opinion selling it as a fact, it's rather annoying. Perhaps as odder highlighted below you have some problem accepting that opinions different from yours can be valid? At least we managed to have some open peer review of your endeavours on this confirmation, previously impossible due to lack of material: thank you for this possibility you gave us, I've changed my comment accordingly.
    As I also said above, terms are not all matching, however counting is generally very easy because most stewards in history passed your activity in their first year and there's no need to check the following ones; the only dubious cases have been listed above with names, some of which obviously appeared below to oppose my vote, of course; but I wanted to make my count easily verifiable, unlike yours... --Nemo 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that I annoyed you. I read your comments about me being inactive as being phrased as something close to statements of "facts", rather than obvious opinions based on the total activity count (which you have not emphasized strongly each time you made the observation about alleged inactivity). I don't believe I have problems with different opinions, I do, however, find statements illogical in my own eyes as problematic, and if they are coming from people I consider logical and sensible (like you) I try to understand their point of view and perception. Such revealing of assumptions and reasons for one's stance usually help present the argument better, so I did not consider this as a potential annoyance to you personally. I have not intended at any point to be a cause of any emotional reaction from you, and again - I apologize, I have not been aware it may be read this way. Let's end this particular part of the thread here and agree, that whoever shares your argument that stewards (including new ones) should be evaluated by the total count of all actions (in the case of other stewards, covering many years), rather than the count in any given year, they should definitely vote for removal. Pundit (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Nemo --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Question: Hi Pundit, you mention above that your activity is far from that which is desired. Could you give a brief rundown of why you think your activity isn't as much as desired; i.e. is there something keeping you from activity as a steward? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Over the last year I've been writing a book for my full professorship review. I've been working under a lot of pressure, this definitely influenced my activity (not relevant, but I finished and submitted, yay! :). Also, I would LIKE to be more active, and intend to be around IRC more often. Yet, quite a number of times, as fellow stewards can confirm, I've been grumbling on IRC that some other steward performed a request quicker - so, yeah, I would DESIRE also a faster net connection for example :) All in all, as I've just written to Nemo above, I disagree with labeling my activity as low. I was active in organizing steward work and lobbying for tools, which is not reflected in the action counter, but took time, too. Also, even by the action counter, in 2012 I was more active than 1/4 of stewards, and more than half of all current stewards at least once in their tenure had a year, when their action count was lower than mine in the freshman year. Pundit (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not fixated on editcounteritis, as edits don't always indicate activity. But just so that I have it straight in my mind, activity to obtain full professorship (good luck with that) is essentially the reason for low activity, and you will becoming more active as a steward in the future? Also, I know that you have several flags on Polish Wikipedia; do you foresee activities for those flags being an impediment to more steward activity? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you! My activity as steward has not been low (and as mentioned, even by the crude activity counter it was higher than for the majority of the current stewards in at least one year of their tenure). But I believe it will be higher. On pl-wiki I am an admin and a bureaucrat, I don't expect these roles will be distracting. Also, when unified rename hits the gates, bureaucrats will have less work, while stewards - significantly more. Pundit (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support In light of answers above, support. Russavia (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Per Nemo, and also seeing that I voted against Pundit's appointment as a steward in the first place. Also, being stalked for about a week on IRC to change my vote was not an enjoyable experience. odder (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Some activity is not visible from outside. Ruslik (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Alan ffm (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Yarl (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Rzuwig► 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. As long as not really inactive, he can help Wikimedia projects with the ammount of activity he wants to provide. Stewards are also volunteers. I mean, if stewards are paid, somebody is taking what is mine. Also per Quentin.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Ruslik0. LeinaD (t) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep πr2 (t • c) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Quentinv57[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: fr-N, en-3, de-1
  • Personal info: Hi. I'm a steward for now 1.5 years and would like to run for another year. I've been active this year except a few months. I've mainly dealt with the big amount of spambots that came cross-wiki this year, as well as other x-wiki issues and steward work. If you have any comment or suggestion that could make my work better, feel free to do it. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Quentinv57[edit]


Ruslik0[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: This is my second confirmation. During the second year as a steward I was somewhat less active that in the first year, although I believe that I still remain useful to the the Wikimedia Community. I have been mainly making userrights changes, processing CU requests, helping users to rename their accounts while occasionally engaging in antivandalism/antispam activity. I still have not lost enthusiasm for this role and wish to continue to serve as a steward. I hope that the community will support me. Thank you.

Comments about Ruslik0[edit]


Shizhao[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: zh, en-1, ru-1
  • Personal info: Hi! I have been a steward since late 2005. I have been active in the past year, processing requests in SRG, SRB, and SRCU etc. I would like to continue to serve the wikimedia project community as a steward for 2013. Thank you for your past support. --Shizhao (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Shizhao[edit]

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Makecat 03:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, no problems here. -Barras talk 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Trijnsteltalk 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Érico Wouters msg 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pundit (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep 保持. 可靠的用戶。 --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep 謝謝你！ Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Please tell why, when Chinese Wikipedia vote main page design, that you vote total 15 times, and you vote 13 oppose, only 2 support include one your own design. You don't think avoid doing anything that may arouse suspicion? Your behavior may not offend any law or stipulate at Wiki, but I do think this kind behavior may not so moral. What you can explain? 请告诉我为什么你在维基中文首页设计的投票中，投了13张反对票，仅2张支持票其中一张还包含你自己的作品。你不认为你应该避险么？你的行为虽可能没有触犯任何维基的关于投票的规定，但在你的行为却并不那么道德？你怎么说？--Peter2006son (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Good Job.--Yhz1221 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, also thank you for your work on TOTW, πr2 (t • c) 21:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Snowolf[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en, it
  • Personal info: After what I think has been a productive and fun first year on the job, I very much welcome some comments on how I've done and what I can improve upon, should the community choose to retain me in this role. I will never break any activity records but I feel I have been active enough year-round to justify staying on for another year if the community can agree. My main focuses of activity have been responding to requests in the IRC channel outside of the hours of main steward coverage, providing what little technical expertise I have and working behind the scenes (monitoring the bugzilla, stewardbots-related stuff, filing bugs, the review of the past suppressions in March, etc). Unlike Peter above, I can't claim not to have broken too many things, but that is at times a useful thing to do, as it allows the devs to fix them (tho frwiki folks might disagree :D). I look forward to your feedback and hope that the community wishes to retain me in this role.

Comments about Snowolf[edit]

  • Keep Keep Spam, spam, lovely spam! Thehelpfulone 00:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ignacio (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Iste (D) 00:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course ! I'm really happy to have Snowolf in our team. People who always frankly tell what they think are rare and appreciated. He's always having some great idea in mind and is a hard-working steward. Thanks for your work ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Makecat 03:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad user and bad queen of France :-P White Master (es) 06:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep micki 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. ✒ Bennylin 10:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Keep. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Superjuju10 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep A very friendly co-stew. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Quentinv57. Sometimes he is too straightforward, yet he is very dedicated, patient and friendly! --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep A very friendly and dedicated user, always willing to share his experience and help out with various matters. (Personally, I especially appreciate all the help you've given me over IRC with the various privacy policy questions I've been asking you for the past 8 months or so; thank you!) odder (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirm, a good fellow! -Barras talk 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :-)--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, excellent steward. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep every steward I've collaborated with this year. Elfix 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep the only Italian Queen of France I am aware of. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    What about Catherine de' Medici? :P Snowolf How can I help? 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep obviously Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep (I know I opposed your steward candidate last year, but you really proved your usefulness in 2012.) Trijnsteltalk 22:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Osiris (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep more spam. Theo10011 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :D Sotiale (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Tegel (Talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pundit (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Höstblomma (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vale93b (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep But please do no break everything on frwiki this time :D Disclaimer: this is only a private joke, Snowolf is nowhere responsible of what happened and acted responsibly. — Arkanosis ✉ 17:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Active and helpful gentleperson. Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Aplasia (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - I wanted a Snowdog back again, then a Snowolf stepped in... they both boast strong deadly jaws. I like it :-). εΔω 10:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b / t 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Torreslfchero (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.sEdivad (msg) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--MehdiTalk 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wnme (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • keep -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep busy feet, our instigator — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC) sure
  • Keep Keep HOWWWL. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — ΛΧΣ21 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Great Steward, Active, Friendly, Faces all issues in a satisfactory way. No genuine way to call for a removal even if I wanted to. Straight forward keep. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Russavia (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I was wrong in opposing Snowolf's request to be a steward last year. The work done and the way it was done has been appreciated --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Etrusko25 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roy 06:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ankry (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Enst38 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Delfort (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Rzuwig► 22:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • KEEP MoiraMoira (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep He's almost always around for requests, and is very helpful. πr2 (t • c) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Good participation on steward-related discussions.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Tegel[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: sv, en-3
  • Personal info: I have been a Steward for one year now so this is my first confirmation. I have mainly been focusing on cross-wiki issues and vandalism, and I can often be found on IRC for dealing with emergencies. With your support I would like to continue for another year. -- Tegel (Talk) 18:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Tegel[edit]


Teles[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: pt-N, en-3, es-2
  • Personal info: I wish I can keep as steward as I believe I can still provide a little help for community. That will be the first time I will experience the confirm process. I will love to read what everybody have to say about what I did and perhaps improve with that. I have been active since the first day I received the flag and I plan to maintain the same level of activity for some more time. We have a great group of stewards that is doing a great work. Together with a few local checkusers, they are being really nice on teaching me how to become a better user each day. I am glad I make part of this "team" and, if community agrees, I wish I can keep helping. Thanks to all the stewards and thank you for reading and commenting.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Teles[edit]


Thogo[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: First of all, an explanation as to why I'm listed here: due to a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Foundation mailinglist) that members of the Ombudsmen commission not longer have to return their CU/OS/stewards rights as the commission has now enough (7) members which could take over cases with potentially COIs. I'm now officially a steward again, which is what I've been from late-2007 to early-2011 although I am still serving another term in the Ombudsmen Commission. The last evaluation of my steward activity took place in early-2011 (when I first became an OC member) and since then I haven't been allowed to use my steward rights. Since some stewards expressed a wish that I should let my unused steward rights be evaluated, I hereby do that … Back on topic: I would be happy to work again as a steward. Of course, I will not take over OC cases that deal with steward activities — just give advice. With some certainty I can say that I haven't made any mistakes with my steward rights since my last evaluation. ;) I will of course try to make sure that this won't change. --თოგო (D) 00:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Thogo[edit]

  • I love you so much! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Iste (D) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support This is good news! Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I see no issues here, and I very much like Thogo's statement. Snowolf How can I help? 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome back! -Barras talk 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jyothis (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Seems a bit unfair considering you've only been a steward four days, but welcome back! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Rschen7754 21:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep because Thogo is awesome and the most polyglottous person I know (well, maybe except Evertype and Rolf Theil, but still). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Snowolf. Welcome back. :) Trijnsteltalk 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep A reliable and trusted user, whom I had a chance to observe at work at ombudsmen commission, doing great work. Pundit (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - In my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral I've been waiting for eight months a resolution from the Ombudsman Commission about an alleged abuse in the handling of checkuser information. No news yet. It definitely means that the members of the commission are overloaded and not able to cope with their duties as members of said commission. I wonder how the overloaded members of the commission will be also able to cope with their duties as stewards. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Redlinux (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I think it's a good idea. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wnme (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep welcome back — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - Since the user hasn't been a steward in a year (and IMO should have gone through election rather than confirmation, but I know why it went this way), I can really only judge by his actions on the OC. When discussion around mishandling of cases and people by the OC was happening earlier this year, Thogo's responses seemed more based along sweeping it under the rug rather than providing any useful information or ways forward. This isn't an oppose, but I do hope that Thogo tries to keep a more open mind to critisicm this year in his role as a steward. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Some of your questions may be answered on this archived discussion and User talk:Thogo#Steward. πr2 (t • c) 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC) sure
  • Keep Keep Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --ThiagoRuiz talk 18:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Bsadowski1 (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep es:Magister Mathematicae 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, although this procedure looks strange for a person who has not been a steward for two years. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Zyephyrus (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice to see you :) LeinaD (t) 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Sure, but I'm not sure why you need to be confirmed (see User_talk:MarcoAurelio/Archives/2013#Theoretical_confirmation_for_Thogo). πr2 (t • c) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral (Neuwahl) I don't like the Foundation's decision very much that OK members can also be active stewards (that could lead to less OK members that can work at specific cases). On the other side, I'm sure Thogo won't get into any conflicts between the OK and the steward role, and I'm sure he will work at OK cases first, cause that's more important. And also stewards with less time are needed. But I don't share his main opinions about the requirements for user blocks or unblocks on de: at all, which say that the whole community should nearly never have an opportunity to overrule a block decision of just one sysop (which means, that the decision of just one sysop shall be of more weight than the opinion of 74 %(!!) of the community) and that a sysop can block a user for a much longer time just because the user himself wants to get a block checked, and that this longer block can not be checked again. So, in the end, i'm voting neutral, because this is all against what I think a sysop should do or be, and so, I'm not convinced. Perhaps he's better as just a OK member. --– Geitost diskusjon 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. OMG Thogo is back!—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 23:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Trijnstel[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  • Personal info: While I'm a steward for nearly 1,5 years, this will be my first confirmation round. I think I was fairly active since the beginning in October 2011. (Actually, judged by the steward actions I was the fourth most active steward in 2012 to be precise). Most of my edits and actions involve dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, sockpuppetry and spambots (lots of them!). I am reachable via all projects, email and IRC and am always willing to re-check the stuff I did. Hopefully you give me another year to help the community. Trijnsteltalk 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Trijnstel[edit]


Vituzzu[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: it, en-2, fr-1, es-1
  • Personal info: In short: being a steward contains a number of duties and responsibilities. Anyway, during these 16 months of stewardship I have enjoyed the fantastic teamwork with other stewards and patrollers. Furthermore I'm really proud of all the sensitive cases that several communities committed to me (hoping I did a good job). I must apologise for any mistakes I made. Lack of time (currently I'm one of the most active stewies) was responsible for many of them, and as a result, my explanations were sometimes too concise (for example in catching some crosswiki vandals) or not punctual. So, I cannot assure you anything than my endeavour to go on helping the project, which I hope is enough.

Comments about Vituzzu[edit]

Or, he has inflicted an indefinite block to this user because, according to this steward, the user had threatened him on IRC. I’d like to remind to the reader that blocks are preventive, not punitive. So blocking someone on WP seems a bit pointless if you want to… prevent him from threatening you on IRC. After being asked to give proof of these “threats”, the IRC log was posted, which contained no threats at all, just some angry rant. The indefinite block is still there, though.
Of course stewards and admin actions (especially blocks) are not always preventive. Yes, it prevent greater damage, but most of the case, it always "punitive" (or curative) because of some action that already been made. ✒ Bennylin 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you are simply wrong--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
User who has abused his sysop powers to push his POV even when the consensus was different, by, for instance, altering a page and then protecting that page, even if the discussion page clearly went in the opposite direction of what the user did. I honestly cannot feel that such abuses are appropriate for someone in a steward position.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Mh I was told the "conspirationist trolls" were doing a canvass about my confirm on their blog (heavily spammed by BDA) I bet there will be some more trouble in the next days. removed poorly worded stuff
Though none of your remarks is by far related with my steward tools but I'd debunk them the same.
As stated by the sysop who did block mine weren't personal attacks but he tried to cool down a certain situation. Then I flipped out and I went through a vote of confidence I succeeded in passing with more than 80% of keeps. Vigevanese is widely recognized as a troll and yes, threats are never allowed, even if the target is as evil as I am. Since I was involved I opened (by myself) an RfC and my block has been judged as perfectly right.
Dealing with your last remark: the article has been widely judged (even by users against who did argue so much with me) as being heavily non neutral because of such a fascist-friendly flavour, the edits I was reverting had been made by a blocked user and the final protection (please note that it was a semi-protection while I was arguing, setting apart the banned user, with autoconfirmed users) has been done in accomplishing w:it:WP:PP and w:it:WP:BLOCCO. Furthermore the current revision does include all my remarks about contents at time (this could suggest I succeeded in getting consensus about my edits). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The policy is here, and I don't see anything there that says concerns about abuse of local tools "must be ignored". Is there maybe another policy you refer to? Jafeluv (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
SP and previous confirms do state both precedents and matter we should deal with, anyway I've removed the aside you did find wrong (or at least poor worded). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
And here's an example. Starts off by personally attacking me ("you are a part of the conspirationist trolls"), and then tries to evade the facts. I don't care what the sysop who blocked you said, you evaded a block by abusing your admin tools. It is simply not true that Vigevanese's block was considered "perfectly right", and i strongly suggest to whoever is reading this to try and find someone who can read Italian to have that discussion page explained, i am very aware that Italian language is not well known outside of Italy/Switzerland but even google translate can shed light on the contents of that page. Lastly, you are still trying to avoid the facts. I am not arguing about the fascist POV of that page, i am arguing that you listed a fighting party in a way that the consensus in the discussion page established should NOT be listed in that way, and again whoever can read Italian can see that. After going against the consensus, you abused your admin tools to protect that page that went AGAINST the consensus to keep it the way you liked it. Unless we are discussing facts, i don't really see a point about arguing here. Again, i know that Italian is difficult to read for English mother-tongue people but what i linked can be openly read by anyone capable of doing so. As i said, i don't "feel" (as in, i find morally wrong) that someone who abused his admin tools is a WP steward.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Please cool down, I did say *exactly the same*: I said I'm quite sure you're "naturally" opposed to the conspirationist trolls since even your current edits on it.wiki share a "debunking" point of view. With this I removed the part which seems to be badly worded. Feel free to ask any translation, but the questions are, now, quite simple: why had I more than 80% of supports (while I needed to reach only 66%) and my block hasn't been removed? Please don't ascribe your view about my actions to the whole it.wiki's community, even if your positions seems to be not widely shared at all.--Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I already explained my ideas, and i don't need to "cool down" since i'm simply, placidly stating facts. Facts are there and can be seen by anyone, in this case, repeated abuse of admin powers to evade blocks and to push POV. Which is why i don't feel that this user should be a steward. On the re-election, it can be understood by checking the list of favorable users and confront it with the list of users who participate in admin elections and discussions on voices with a specific POV. It's always the same users. Whether it is about indefinitely block an inconvenient user because "his edits appear to be aesthetic and apt only to reach the minimum number to be able to vote" or to avoid the confirmation of an admin who doesn't share the views of the usual group of admins/user, those voting are always the same. I could link any number of pages that show this, and that show that the votes are always like-minded, and I'll do so if asked to, in a more suitable page. Right now, I am merely explaining why this sysop keeps being a sysop, even after repeated (and demonstrable, those on this page are just a couple examples) abuses of his functions.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove RemoveSeveral time abused his powers Lillolollo (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
One of these days, we'll be forced to write a Wikipedia article about those weird theories about WP sysops... :D OH WAIT. Btw, I like the fact that people blocked indefinitely since years just show up out of the blue, in order to vote against someone who's respected in the Wiki* community. It's definitely a fascinating phenomenon... --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Aplasia (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Amongst the best admins on the Italian chapter of Wikipedia. He's only guilty of not closing even an eye, let apart both, on anyone's disruptive behaviour (disruptive for the encyclopædia, of course). His acts always met the approval of a very large part of the active Italian-speaking community. I might understand that an admin who enforces the rules is not well seen by those who usually waste our time challenging them (let apart openly breaking them), nonetheless is worth reminding that nothing of the rules can be meant differently than the sense of protecting the project: Wikipedia's rules are not for correcting an injustice towards any user. A last note for the abovementioned cases: as for the first one (an user that gained in questionable way the right of voting), the user who opened the incident was not Vituzzu, nor Vituzzu was the administrator who blocked the user; he simply expressed his opinion like many of us did (I still have to read the rule that having certain opinions is not compatible either with stewardship or adminship, maybe I missed it); as for the latter, the admin was not confirmed because he wasn't trusted by a large part of the community, not because of some kind of plot. Anyone can read the election page... -- Blackcat (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - in my capacity as a volunteer. --Philippe (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep Keep. He often throws his hands into the manure — alone — taking decisions which many other would refuse to take, and most of the times I understand his foresight only days or even months afterwards. I've learned to trust him even while thinking he's acting wrong. Please don't feed the trolls. εΔω 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Vituzzu has been helpful and reasonable in the cases I've seen, and after consideration I don't find the counter-evidence all that convincing. Jafeluv (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • no ifs, ands, or buts: Keep Keep --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't want to use the {{remove}} template, but I had the impression of bad communication manners towards local communities. → «« Man77 »» [de] 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Mh can you point me out some example? If possible I'd use it to improve my behaviour ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • You installed an abuse filter on barWP without any kind of announcement. When the local community started discussing the topic [28] (what this filter is actually doing and if we want filters) "in public" there was no helpful statement from your side but what I perceived as selfpity because of our public debate. You didn't do that on purpose, but I expect stewards to stimulate local authorities - here, however, it was an ivory tower approach → «« Man77 »» [de] 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your explanation. Well, the filter was a log-only filter made up in order to help stewards to "catch" the famous vandal called "edgar" who did chose bar.wiki as a battleground (I estimate the incredible amount of ~0.05% of suppressed revs on bar.wiki!). Honestly I hadn't realised there was no local experience with AF: I left a note on filter comment and when you copypasted filter code on a public page I was scared by the idea of the vandal reading it, thus my rush for secrecy. It was my very beginning as steward and my communication lacked, then I apologised and I still consider it as a lesson to improve my attitude towards small wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Also thanks to you for your comments. Just one thing: It wasn't me who c&p-ed the code :) → «« Man77 »» [de] 17:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh nvm, since evw SEEMS to be almost gone :D --Vituzzu (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Wim b / t 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.sEdivad (msg) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Eumolpa (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep absolutely — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Dome A disposizione! 00:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • {{remove}}, you must be a sock master! Keep Keep Amazing work. --Bencmq (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Great. I would like to have your PC, Vito.--Seics (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Unconcerned about allegations of "sysop abuse," (above). Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep His good work on Wikidata was really appreciated in the project's infancy. He is one of the stewards we love!! This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — ΛΧΣ21 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --PandeF (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Etrusko25 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep es:Magister Mathematicae 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Melos (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Stryn (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roy 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Xinstalker (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Although he is clearly going to be confirmed, I would like to register my displeasure with his actions about this time last year on Mete, where jhe defended a meta admins "right" to troll my talk page in response to neutrally worded question about a technical matter. He didn't even ask them to leave me alone, just let me know I was an unwanted interloper who should not ask such question in the first place. See [29] I expect impartiality from stewards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I have faith in him and in his abilities. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - The protection of the Foundation wiki feedback page for a whole year in September 2012 was not so well–thought–out. --Pxos (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    (Actually it doesn't involve my steward's duties) Frankly I cannot remember if it was a misclicking or if I did it intentionally, though the page was heavily spammed I can agree with unprotection. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Delfort (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep My messages are different in the following languages:
    (en) He's good steward, and is often around.
    (it-1) È un buon utente e continuerà a esserlo.
    (scn-0) Vituzzu avi fattu na bedda fiùra... finu a ora ;)
  • πr2 (t • c) 23:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. LeinaD (t) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Wikitanvir[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: I am one of stewards elected in the second election of 2011 and have been fairly active in my steward job since then. This is my first steward confirmation and if the community thinks I did my job right and can continue to do my job well in future, I would like to carry on with your support.

Comments about Wikitanvir[edit]


Wpedzich[edit]

[se links: unrecognized page title.]

<se2013 statements page not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>
English:
  • Languages: pl, en-4, de-2
  • Personal info: As usual, I am certainly not the most active steward among the Team. I know I am sounding like an old record that I am, but if the community is willing, I would like to serve yet another year in my limited capacity as a Wikimedia Steward, trying to react to emergency situations when poked in the rib on the IRC channel. If the Community decides that they want to have me yet for another year, I will be glad to remain a Steward.

Comments about Wpedzich[edit]

Usage[edit]

{{se2013 statements page}}

Used on 2013 Steward Confirmation language sub-pages, such as Stewards/Confirm/2013/de.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Se2013_statements_page&oldid=24934471"