Stewards/Confirm/2024/Sakretsu: Difference between revisions

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]

• 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]

• 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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]
• 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]