Stewards/Confirm/2024/Sakretsu

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

• Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep EPIC (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you. --Titore (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Superspritz^{tell me} 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Torsolo (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just wait til you're looking back at your original election page and see it was ten years ago... :S – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Atlante (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Sakretsu, your actions and communications around the Gitz6666 case (where, following a dispute on your home wiki, you globally locked an editor including on other projects where they had been very active, with a rationale that many have questioned) were highly problematic. Back then I explained in detail why I considered your answer to a question about the lock's rationale to be very weird coming from a steward in your situation, and how your action raised some serious questions with regard to Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest, Stewards policy#Check local policies and en:Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards. I never got a response from you, nor am I aware of other subsequent statements by you addressing these points (feel free to let me know in case I overlooked them). - I do want to acknowledge that your highly problematic action was reverted on appeal (after it drew the attention of other stewards), and that you announced this reversal yourself. However, I didn't see any apology or other statements by you suitable for assuring the English Wikipedia community and other non-itwiki projects that similar transgressions on your part won't happen again in the future. It also feels quite disingenuous that you leave out this high-profile incident (which received media attention and lots of community discussion) from your wordy reflections about the past year etc. in your confirmation statement above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never hesitated to further explain my rationale to fellow stewards and other functionaries that had signed the confidentiality agreement - to the best of my knowledge, my actions around this case were not deemed abusive. An appeal was accepted a month later, and that was the end of it. It's true that itwiki is my homewiki, but that doesn't necessarily mean I had a conflict of interest in this particular situation. I wasn't involved in any editorial dispute on itwiki. I didn't override any local consensus. In fact, the itwiki community can revert/contest any actions I do whenever they want. Just like the global community, global functionaries in particular, can do the same with the actions I do as a steward. I'm well aware that I'm not a superuser. But of course, no problem for me if anyone decides to oppose my confirmation for any reason. Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never hesitated to further explain my rationale to fellow stewards and other functionaries - that seems to be another way of saying that you did not see it necessary to do so to non-functionaries, i.e. the Wikimedia community as a whole. Which is quite consistent with the impression left by this comment (your single contribution to that mid-2023 Signpost discussion), where you dismissed such questions with a curt My lock is not based on a convenient TL;DR while stressing that I'm pretty busy these days [...] (although in the same post you did find the time to speculate about other aspects of the issue that you were - by your own admission - not familiar with, and to defend past actions of other itwiki admins).

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

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

  Since you still have not addressed several points raised in my above linked comment from June 20, 2023, I'll reiterate one question here. The page Global locks says the following:

  Reasons to request a global lock
  The below reasons are not community-approved policy. Usually, global locks happen in clear-cut situations; in more complex cases, stewards may decide whether to impose or lift global locks in a case-by-case basis.
  [...]

  • Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them.
    [...]

  (my bolding)

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

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I don't feel accountable to the community for my actions. Everything was still unfolding at the time, and I couldn't keep up with that discussion as well. One of the main differences now is that I can focus on publicly addressing concerns alone, which is still not exactly easy for me since I'm trying not to cause misunderstandings in English. To answer your question, in my view that was the relevant bullet point in that list. Sakretsu (炸裂) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sakretsu was right about Gitz. As we say in Italy, time is a gentleman. --Pequod76^(talk) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Friniate (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Stewards can do great work, but they need to be able to know when to step back on activities that involve their home wikis in their capacities as Steward. To this day, I have not seen a satisfactory explanation of the way the Gitz case was handled, nor have I seen satisfactory apologies made about it. It was a bad global lock that was overturned, and it essentially kept one of the communities on which Gitz was quite active (the English Wikipedia) completely blindsided. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grazie. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, without any comments on whether the reason to lock was valid or not, I agree with Red-tailed hawk that they shouldn't have acted in the first place because of home-wiki rule, but not a significant reason to not keep (atleast for me), they have done good work otherwise. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)and[reply]
• Remove Loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz6666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN466 22:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great steward. I agree with CptViraj's comment. --valcio ••• 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Spinoziano (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep JavaHurricane 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --.avgas 11:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove — per User:HaeB ——SerialNumber54129 18:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Lollo98 Text me 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Haeb and Hawk. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to know how Sakretsu interprets "home wiki" in the Stewards policy. Is itwiki one of them? Above I read "It's true that itwiki is my homewiki", but the stated reason for using steward buttons to intervene on an itwiki matter does not seem to be one of those allowed by the policy ("clear-cut cases (such as self-requested removal) or emergencies"). Nemo 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Andreas JN466 07:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy speaks about "actions taken on the home-wiki". But no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu, Gitz was blocked before and has remained blocked after. You could talk about the oppotunity of having a steward from a specific home-wiki blocking another user from that home-wiki in other wikis, but not of an infringement of the policy.--Friniate (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sakretsu actually took an action on it.wiki in their capacity as it.wiki admin: they blocked me indefinitely [1]. So I don't understand your comment, @Friniate, no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu. If I'm not mistaken, however, the point is different. By globally locking me, Sakretsu changed my rights (e.g., I couldn't be unblocked by another it.wiki admin, I couldn't log in and receive notifications, etc.) and they did so in their home wiki and in a case that was not "clear-cut" or "emergency". If that is so, then they had a conflict of interest as defined by steward policy [2]. But let's hear from Sakretsu on this. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not completely true, you should provide the complete blocklog, Sakretsu did not block you indef, you were already blocked indef from the 23rd of May. --Civvì (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As you perfectly know, Sakretsu simply changed the rationale, he did not "block you indefenitely". And he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity, accountable to the it.wiki community. He did not use his role as a steward to influence the internal dynamics of his home-wiki, that's what it matters to the policy. Then of course, everyone can have different opinions if something, although allowed by the policy, is also appropriate.--Friniate (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu" seems to contradict "he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity" Levivich (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I had forgotten the change of rationale otherwise, I would have specified "no action was taken by Sakretsu on it.wiki as a steward". It doesn't change the core of what I was saying anyway, Sakretsu did not alter Gitz rights on it.wiki, he was blocked before the glock and has remained blocked thereafter (and by the way, it seems rather obvious that the policy doesn't forbid Sakretsu to take actions as an admin on it.wiki, otherwise we would require every steward to step down as a local admin...).--Friniate (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct me if I have misunderstood but as I understand it the sequence of events is this:

  1. As at itwiki admin, Sakretsu blocked Gitz
  2. Later, as a steward, Sakretsu globally blocked Gitz

  BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  The lock reason still concerned a local, it.wiki dispute though. Only Italian users were involved. Andreas JN466 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  I don't see how the glock complied with Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest or Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock. What turned this from a local dispute on one wiki, into a cross-wiki dispute, was the glock. That sort of escalation is the exact opposite of what I'd expect from a steward: stewards should be putting fires out, not spreading them from their homewiki to other wikis. Levivich (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the answer, Sakretsu. If a lock is subject to lower standards than a change of local user rights, I consider that a puzzling outcome. Most changes to local user rights can be reversed locally, while a lock is pretty much final. Had it not been for press interest, we would probably never have learned that the English Wikipedia community didn't quite agree with the lock. Further, the lock made it effectively impossible to reverse the local block: with knowledge of the local community, you may have correctly assessed that the block was unlikely to be reversed anyway, but I wonder if a steward's job really includes predicting outcomes of local block appeals on their homewiki.

  My personal opinion is that the lock was definitely and obviously a case of conflict of interest, but the policy provides an exception under which such an action would be permissible: an emergency. I was convinced at the time that you had determined there was an emergency. However you're not claiming it was, so I'm really confused. If it had been an emergency decision, there would have been ways to remedy it (for example, asking an uninvolved steward to look at the evidence and "take over" the lock). Do you intend to continue locking users in such circumstances even without an emergency rationale? Nemo 07:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nemo what I meant to say with my previous reply is that because a lock is a different kind of action it can have different implicatures. I didn't mean to say that a lock is subject to lower standards than a change of local user rights. On the contrary, from the perspective of local standards I believe that when I made that lock I was completely uninvolved with the itwiki dispute according to enwiki policies too, but I still agree with BilledMammal that it would have been better if I had left the Gitz6666 case to fellow stewards. That would have avoided confusion and doubt over my role in the case. Given that we're talking about a steward action that most other itwiki admins could not revert, I can see where you're coming from with your arguments and I understand your concerns. The fact is, I don't think a steward's lock is pretty much final at all (stewards don't have such power) nor is a steward's job to predict the outcomes of local appeals on not only their homewikis but also any other wiki. It's always been possible for stewards to receive unlock requests. Just like fellow stewards did review my actions in this case without any interference from me, they could have handled an unlock request following a positive outcome of a local appeal on itwiki. This is just to further explain why I don't feel like I had a COI when I made that lock (sorry for being lengthy), but my answer to your question is still no, I don't want my actions to be controversial, I don't mean to dismiss concerns from other users, and as such I do not intend to do that again. Hopefully I'll not see another case like this on any wiki. Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Ilario (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am confused about why home wiki rules didn't stop Sakretsu from being the one to do the ban. However, even if he was wrong that is a single event that does not suggest he cannot continue good work as a steward. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I have some questions for Sakretsu. My apologies if some of these have been asked and answered elsewhere, but I think it would be helpful to have a brief summary here for the assistance of voters.
  • Like HaeB, I find it puzzling that you didn't mention the Gitz6666 case in your request for confirmation as it seems like something that ought to be considered by any voter. Could you please explain this omission?
  • Gitz6666's block log is certainly complex, and there have been many hands in it. Could you please explain your action of 2023-06-09T17:07:55?
  • Regarding the same block log, I note that three of the actions have had the username removed. This seems like an extraordinary action, as admins are usually expected to stand behind their actions, so I'm not sure what would justify this. Not only is it concealed who performed these administrative actions, but it is also unclear who made the concealments. Can you tell us who made these concealments and why? What is the relevant policy that governs such actions?
  • On 2023-06-09T16:11:56 you globally locked Gitz6666's account for "violation of the UCoC, threatening and intimidating behaviour". Obviously you cannot reveal private information, but can you please briefly explain what the basis was for this action?
  • On 2023-06-09T16:11:56 you unlocked the account ("appeal accepted"). Do you still believe that the original locking was a correct steward action based on the information available at the time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chiedo scusa ma scrivo nella mia lingua...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seawolf35 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great steward, thank you for your work. --Er Cicero (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - εΔω 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - I think that this user's actions and comments related to the global lock of the user discussed above by multiple voters fell short of the standard we should expect from someone who holds advanced permissions. Hatman31 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based on fact-checking Gitz on other topics Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove —per User:HaeB and Red-tailed hawk. Loss of trust... --Silverije 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Borgil (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep precious user, he knows how to handle technical issues --Mastrocom </> void ClickToInbox(); 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, per Red-tailed Hawk, et al. LindsayH (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, pending reply to above questions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having read the replies to the above questions, I'm still neutral on this confirmation; they addressed some of my concerns to the extent that I don't actively oppose this confirmation, but not strongly enough to convince me to support it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though hesitant --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Redtail hawk. Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per HaeB and failure to respect the principles of avoiding conflicts of interest. Daniel (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. I've lost confidence in this steward per the concerns expressed above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Zangala (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. --Wolverène (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Per others. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I still have great respect for Sakretsu for their handlings of matters related to Croatian Wikipedia 3 years ago. I don't think one mistake should (or even can) define Sakretsu's tenure as a steward; it's not a pattern. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The lesson was learned. No doubt from me on the future activity of Sakretsu as steward. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taivo (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on promise that the same mistake is not going to happen again. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Titore --Fresh Blood (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this seems straightforward compared to Vituzzu's case. All I'm seeing is a mistake... and that's it? Leaderboard (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and Question: (apologies for the long comment: it's my first and possibly last opportunity to address the glocking steward) Sakretsu, I didn't vote for your removal because I don't doubt your good faith and competence. Mistakes happen, your workload is heavy, we should be wary of removing you for a single mistake. Besides, if stewards are always removed when appeals against their actions are accepted, it will become increasingly difficult for the steward team to accept appeals. I also appreciated your answers here. Acknowledging one's mistakes is often sufficient for the purposes of accountability: mistakes will not be repeated by you or others with a sense of impunity or entitlement. I have a few questions, though, which might turn my non-vote into a convinced "keep".

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

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

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

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

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

I think you have demonstrated that you are incompatible with any wikimedia project: What utter nonsense. Gitz has over 8,000 edits on the English Wikipedia and a clean block log. On the other hand, what I have read from Italian admins in these discussions makes me think that the Italian Wikipedia's admin corps is at least as problematic as the Croatian one was until the WMF stepped in and cleaned house. Andreas JN466 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Remove due to using steward powers in response to an issue on their home wiki --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per above, concerns with judgement -Fastily 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove due to the inappropriate and out-of-process global lock of Gitz666. I'm not convinced that the lock was at all necessary given that it involved an (alleged) incident that occurred in relation to only one wiki. If a lock was indeed necessary, it should have been performed by a steward whose home wiki was not itwiki after discussion on the stewards' mailing list. That, combined with the lack of accountability or explanation from Sakretsu, convinces me that this editor can no longer be trusted to hold steward permissions. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 19:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Sadly, I must fall here. I respect the opinions of the editors in the Support section, but I cannot trust this user as a steward after the Gitz6666 incident. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak keep After thinking it over a bit more and reading the supports, I am not sure that this one incident is enough to remove this user as a steward, especially since the victim supports their continued stewardship. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Preemptively addressing the controversy in the candidate statement would probably have been a good idea, but I'm willing to let this one slide, mostly per Barkeep. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you Sakretsu for your answers to my questions. A brief reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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