< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2013
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

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

  • Languages: pl, en-2
  • Personal info: Hello! This my fourth confirmation as a steward. Since my election in 2009 my activity unfortunately has dropped - from regular rights changes and monitoring irc cvn channels to react on users requests (checkusers, locks and global blocks, cleanup deletions on small wikis etc.) and spontaneous fighting cross-wiki vandalism. But I'm still up-to-date with Wikimedia world (mailing lists, bugzilla, blogs etc.), still love to help users and I'm motivated to undertake steward tasks. I hope you still trust me and I will be able to act as a steward another term. Thank you!
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: translation needed
  • Языки: en
  • Личная информация: translation needed
  • Sprachen: en
  • Informationen zur Person: Hallo! Dies ist meine vierte Bestätigung als Steward. Seit meiner Wahl 2009 ist meine Aktivität leider gesunken — von gewöhnlichen Rechteänderungen und dem Beobachten von ICR-CVN-Kanälen bis zur Reaktion auf Benutzeranfragen (Checkuser, Sperren und globale Sperrungen, Aufräumlöschungen auf kleineren Wikis etc.) und spontaner Bekämpfung von wikiübergreifendem Vandalismus. Aber ich bin immer noch auf dem neuesten Stand in der Wikimedia-Welt (Mailinglisten, Bugzilla, Blogs etc.), liebe es nach wie vor, Benutzern zu helfen, und ich bin motiviert Stewardaufgaben wahrzunehmen. Ich hoffe, dass ihr mir immer noch vertraut und dass ich eine weitere Amtszeit lang Steward sein kann. Vielen Dank!

Comments about Leinad edit

  • I love you! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep; same here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove Leinad's activity has been confined for the past year or so almost exclusively to plwikimedia, where he has granted himself twice the CU bit for spambot checks and once the OS bit. Virtually all of his global block and global locks stem from those actions. I do not think it is appropriate for a steward to grant themselves checkuser or oversight rights on one's homewiki, even if this is not a normal content wiki. The appearance of a possible conflict of interest is almost as important as an actual conflict of interest, and with almost 40 stewards around, it's not like one cannot poke another steward (we even have another steward who speaks polish and doesn't have any rights on that wiki, Pundit). Discussion with the user has been unproductive so far, with assertions that WMPL can overrule the steward policy and whatnot, but I'll let him speak for himself here if he wishes to do so, so as not to misrepresent his positions. Snowolf How can I help? 12:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised this comment, since 2009 as I'm a steward I never heard about so wide definition of the home wiki. My home wiki has always been Polish Wikipedia (*only*). I've had more contribution on Wikimedia Polska wiki beacuse chapter members elected me as a board member, but I never decided to change (or start new) home wiki. Always the rules were important for me and I always thought the spirit of the rules is also important, not just to be a bureaucratic guy. I want to help Wikimedia Community and I've wanted to help on the website of chapter where spambots creates many fake accounts - for me it's natural that I take care on the website of organisation which I'm a member. Always my point of view is to distinct 1. non-content wikis like outreach, chapters and wikimania wikis, which can be accidentally treated as a home wikis because higher activity, 2. and content wikis like Wikipedias, Wikitionaries etc. where is easier to determine connexions. I wonder if General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation should comment here - it's obvious that community of chapter wiki is unusual, so who should elect or act there as a CheckUser? Members of chapter? Board members? Or wiki should disconnect from Wikimedia family wikis? In my humble opinion Wikimedia Foundation was open to host wikis for chapters and give them some wider ability to decide about the website and I believe it's still possible. PS. Make a note that all Polish stewards are members of Wikimedia Polska, so Snowolf's interpretation of conflict of interest is not clear. LeinaD (t) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what Geoff has to do with this or how the whole discourse on Chapter is relevant. You acted using your stewards tools, not a local checkuser or oversight, and stewards are supposed to be independent outsiders, looking at a wiki from the outside. As a board member and local bureaucrat, I fail to see how you can possibly do that. I also think that there's a whole lot of difference between being a member of Wikimedia Polska and being a board member of Wikimedia Polska and a local bureaucrat. Snowolf How can I help? 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Chapter wiki do not have any strict rules regarding rights - anyone can be an admin or bureaucrat if want help, so "local bureaucrat" is not something special. I didn't request CU rights on SRP beacuse I used my steward bits - for me it's natural - otherwise I would make a request to grant rights (for example basing on board decision). Geoff's comment could clarify whether chapters wikis should be treat a bit more autonomous. LeinaD (t) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real concerns on this matter, though I have the understanding that chapter wikis cannot have CU rights assigned, and they do get hit by spambots, and do need some attention. I would be concerned if real users were being CU'd, and the assignation of rights is overt, not discreet. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm, I see no real problem here. -Barras talk 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I don't really agree with the conflict of interest argument brought up by Snowolf above, because the WMPL wiki is, as he rightly pointed out, not a normal content wiki, and the usual rules—in my opinion—do not apply there (though it'd be nice to discuss this in detail at some point). I am also not involved enough to comment on Leinad's activity in the past year; what I am worried about, though, is that Leinad was using his steward privileges on Wikimedia Commons without permission from the local community (something that's been pointed out to Andre Engels as well) for a few years before I found about it by sheer luck in October last year. The attitude shown by Leinad in that discussion looks similar to Snowolf's impression, so I am assuming that it is not a one-time incident. odder (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Important thing, details are here commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 31#Non-admin stewards performing admin tasks - I explained my intentions to help users on simple tasks. The discussion had been closed as resolved and with some suggestions to ask local community for admin rights. Make a note that similar simple actions are OK on Wikidata and in my opinion it's healthier approach to rules. LeinaD (t) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar actions are NOT Ok on Wikidata, and this is the reason, for instance, why Vituzzu applied for admin flag and was later reconfirmed. If you are using a steward flag there for deletions pls stop do it; it you are interested in having admin privileges on Wikidata pls apply for adminship there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, what's about d:Wikidata:Administrators#Other accounts with administrative access: "stewards [...] are allowed to use that access in non-controversial ways"? Would be greate to clarify this sentence. :-) LeinaD (t) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) + Wikidata:Blocked user LeinaD (t) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: It is currently OK for global sysops and stewards to do non-controversial actions on Wikidata, per local policy. That will likely change soon, but was true as of when Leinad did that stuff. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep The point that was brought up by snowolf, is Understandable for me, but Homewiki has it is own clear cut definition, clearly plwikimedia is not his homewiki, he is simply active there as remember, though to be honest if i were him, I would not have done even this minor actions, though we may discuss the issue to expand the rule of homewiki to cover more wikis Mardetanha talk 14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I trust Leinad 100%; maybe he did some minor actions against the strick rules for stewards on Commons, but it was already explained that it was done in goodwill, nothing really harmfull to anyone and similar actions were performed by other stewards on Commons as weel. Moreover Leinad appologised for this and started to be careful with using his stewards actions even more. For WMPL wiki - it is very specific, as it is maintained direcly by WMPL. There is no any election on this wiki by anyone. The simple rule is that any member of the board can grant any technical possition on this wiki, just informing me (as president of WMPL) about it. The action Leinad performed was in hurry just after spambot attacks, so there was no time to look for any other steward. Polimerek (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that is not correct. There were several stewards on IRC available (which is where my objection was initially made), and what you call "in a hurry just after spambot attacks" is actually 17 days after the last edit by a spambot. Snowolf How can I help? 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Awersowy (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep. I don't believe the concerns are sufficient for me to vote another way. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I don't see any highly concerning issue that would cause me to support removal. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --Jyothis (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral the Commons issue gives me pause. I'm not concerned about plwikimedia as that's not a normal content wiki. --Rschen7754 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I don't think the issues raised are a big enough deal to lose his stewardship. Everyone makes mistakes, and this isn't a very big one in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The concerns raised about you and your general attitude in front of complainants prevent me to support your confirmation. Maybe you're right, but from what I've seen you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong... Some people have other point of view than yours, and this has to be respected too (as I personally respect the fact that you consider that chapters are not like other wikis, even if not specified in the policy). However, I see that many other stewards supported, so I'm not going to stand in his way if they see no harm... But if you are reelected I would really like to see you more opened to discussion, and also more respectful of the policies. Thank you, Leinad. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quentinv57, you said "you won't question yourself and change your habits, even if you're wrong" - regarding to this sentence I would like to highlight two various cases from this confirmation page. First, I thought Commons case is clear - I love to help Wikimedia Community, but I know what I had done wrong and I didn't continue to help community on some chances. Second, plwikimedia case is not simple - I'm not only steward, but also a wmpl board member and I feel my responsibility with respect to Polish Law. is not just a another WMF wiki, but for us also an official website of Wikimedia Polska which represents us - an organisation having some impact and dependence to Polish society. Make a note we are an organization of public benefit of 1% income tax deduction and we are on the special verification mode by Polish government. So it's natural that Wikimedia Polska wants to have influence on their own website. And regarding to my steward bits, as I'm responsible for many WMPL websites (polish domains like, blogs etc.), I also act on wmpl wiki, and in my opinion this not not a conflict of interest - this is just my duties. If you have an idea how to bring together the two issues, I will be glad to hear you. Regards, LeinaD (t) 12:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Leinad, I never doubted that while you granted yourself the checkuser bit on WMpl or used your steward package on Commons you were doing good things, and that a non-involved steward would have done something better. But if policy forbids something, we should not ignore it because of common sense or anything else, especially when there is no emmergency. There would be plenty of ways to check these spambots while respecting the policy, as for instance asking an other steward, or asking the local community for the checkuser flag, or... changing the policy. Don't worry, I don't oppose this, but as I said I just can't support either... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Per all supports above. Trijnsteltalk 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I understand Snowolf's concerns. Definitely, even though we have just one home wiki, clearly the same language projects are somewhat closer to each other (also because of the personal overlap) than others. I also agree that whenever needed LeinaD can ask for help from other Polish speaking stewards, me including, and perhaps he should have in a case or two, even if not to avoid COI (which I don't see, although I haven't delved into the issue thoroughly), then just to avoid such concerns. All in all I don't believe though that the magnitude of the issue is such that it would justify worrying about a possible misuse of tools. I believe LeinaD uses his toolbox with integrity and I have no doubts that he will be even more observing the possible concern areas (even if not related to any actual problems) in the future. Pundit (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral - I can understand Snowolf's argument about the appearance of a conflict of interest (and it would always be best to avoid such an appearance), but as long as it only involved the checking of a spambot (and the local community hasn't complained) I don't think anything egregious has been committed. -- Mentifisto 23:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --Millosh (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   KeepArkanosis 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove, per Odder specifically. Local admin actions in a home wiki are outside of stewards' boundaries and, although the policy is somewhat lenient when it comes to homewiki stuff, your actions do not reflect the best practices followed by other stewards. (The incident was also discussed briefly on the steward noticeboard, but codifying the de facto practice into policy didn't get any support for some reason.) That you would use your love for WMF projects as a justification for overriding the local community just makes it worse, no matter how good your intentions may have been. I don't doubt that you worked in the best of faith and AFAIK there are no complaints of any specific actions you've taken on Commons, but as a long-time steward you really should know the limits by now. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify - Wikimedia Commons is not my home wiki. LeinaD (t) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Actually what I meant by home wiki above was any wiki where you're an active community member. But that's sort of a red herring anyway, since the deletions in question would have been inappropriate even if you had never edited Commons. Stewards are simply not expected to carry out day-to-day admin actions with their steward access in wikis where local users are available to perform them. While not written in policy (I remember proposing it at some point but only a couple of people ever commented), the principle is described in the third paragraph of the Stewards page and to my knowledge it's pretty universally accepted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in discussion, I'm deeply sorry and I no longer continue such actions - the discussion has been closed. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Also you performed action where were active admins, but for me it's not a real drama. I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". LeinaD (t) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I once thought that it was okay to delete anything if you had the tools to do it as long as the deletion itself was uncontroversial. However, I was pretty quickly set straight by local users and told that actions that fall outside the remit of GS/steward should be left to local admins. Wrt the other stewards you mention: The same issue was mentioned at Andre Engels's confirmation page (which seems headed for removal, although not because of this issue). Mav is not seeking reconfirmation, and Jyothis's two 2010 deletions seem like clear steward (crosswiki) actions. Pathoschild and M7 have both stated in the discussion linked above that they intend to respect the local community's wishes. From your initial response on Commons I had the impression that you didn't see anything wrong with the actions in question – it's good to see that you've now clarified that don't intend to continue local actions on Commons, and indeed you haven't made any deletions since the issue was first brought up. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Bennylin 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep since I'm quite sure he'll take the remarks above in deep consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Trzymać. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove As per concerns by Odder and others, there was no need for Leinad to utilise his tools on Commons. Recent events on Commons and plwp give me serious pause for thought on Leinad's suitability to be a WMF steward. After this discussion Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith, and is also advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing (see further discussion here). Additionally, yesterday I was in #wikipedia-pl in which I was discussing civilly with a couple of editors the issues which have arisen on Commons, and after an editor started attacking myself (saying I was bonkers, etc), I was banned from the channel by Saper. After the ban, Leinad launched into attacks on myself (said nothing whilst I was there), accusing myself of abusing in private chat, when all that was done was I asked him to discuss issues civilly and to encourage others to engage in civilised discourse. It is plainly obvious that Leinad is not able to act in a detached way, and has now decided to allow interpersonal disputes with another editor, to escalate into attacking myself, others and an entire project, when all that is done is files which go against Commons policies have been deleted, and requests for civil discussion have escalated into further personal attacks on editors. It is not the type of behaviour that we expect from a steward. Russavia (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, while definitely noone should assume bad faith, I think the idea to host pictures which have licenses acceptable for pl-wiki, but not commons, locally, makes sense and is the easiest solution all in all, I think. Pundit (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there should be no assumptions of bad faith by anyone, and my remove opinion is only in relation to his behaviour. As a person in a respected position in the community, he should be even more mindful not to engage in such behaviour, but furthermore, he has only enabled, encouraged and participated in the furthering of personal attacks against numerous editors, after being respectfully and politely asked to encourage others to calm down. This is behaviour absolutely unbecoming of a steward. Russavia (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are many misunderstandings, but in my humble opinion this is mostly caused Russavia do not understand Polish language. Step-by-step I will try clarify:
    1. "Leinad posted this to a public list, accusing numerous Commons admins of bad faith" - it's not truth. I used words "w sobie" -- that means particular person. For Polish Wikimedia community it's clear this is about Odder (Commons admin) who is skeptical to ("boycotts" would be too strong word) Polish wiki-community, especially wikipedians from Poznań (for long time we were a good friends in real live, but no one knows why he has changed his mind). In my opinion I can assume bad faith by Odder in relation to Commons del request where well known Polish open-acccess activists (saper and Polimerek) added many valuable arguments to keep the files. My post just expressed disappointment and further conclusions are ineligible.
    2. "advocating the hosting of files on pl.wp in violation of the core principles of licencing" - there is NO such statement, I wrote there about free photos and compatible with Polish law. Moreover the citizen-friendly law is very important for me. A few months ago I wrote an apeal to Sejm about problem with non-free photos. For long time I didn't know that Sejm has changed rules of its website, but when I was pointed out, I described it on Wikimedia Polska blog as an example good practise (Wikimedia Polska participates in creating open access law and such example was helpful). Yesterday I was in Warsaw on conference organised by Polish Government about Internet freedom and I had the opportunity to talk with Prime Minister of Poland about free licenses - after this I have gained personal contacts to convince to change licensing of content published by Office of Prime Minister to allow publish on Wikimedia projects. Accusing me of advocating to break the law is unfair.
    3. "Leinad launched into attacks on myself" - there was no personal attacks, I discussed the ban of Russavia with Herr_Kriss (details are below the comment to his vote) and my arguments were not intended to escalate anything. As Russavia knows I ignore him on IRC, but this is not related to the Commons issue, just from safety reasons. I was warned that he may be a troll (basing on informations like 1 year block on enwiki by ArbCom decision; topic ban from all articles, discussions, user's talk page and other content related to the Eastern Europe; and engagement to articles about nationalist meme Polandball). I am a steward of Wikimedia Community (not WMF), but also a citizen of Poland, so please understand my simple decison to I avoid any contact with him. Of course I do not exclude that he is a useful user on Wikimedia Commons, but I cannot determine. LeinaD (t) 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leinad, I really feel that there is a large degree of immaturity on your part here. Look, a fellow steward/fellow pl.wp bureaucrat has said that the personal attacks were unwarranted. Instead of apologising to those concerned, you have only further cemented your personal attacks. It is obvious that you have interpersonal disputes with User:Odder, and you should be putting such things aside in the interests of achieving the goals of our projects, but you needlessly attacked Odder in a public forum, and by way of the message you were putting out there, you have attacked all editors on Commons, who have the best interests of this project at heart. Not only that, but you continue to discuss issues by attacking others. I am disgusted by you calling me a troll; I am an admin and bureaucrat on Commons, so I am well versed in our policies and requirements -- I mentioned these images on #wp-pl back in October and informed editors there of the problems with them; I nominated them in November, I encouraged time and time again for editors to make contact with Sejm to get a release; I left messages for editors on plwp encouraging to get permission [6]; I suggested we leave discussion open well past the normal 7 days for people to make contact with the Sejm and to get permission; I enquired on the DR if there was any progress (and got a muted response); I explained civilly on #wp-pl why these images were against Commons policy; I asked you civilly to encourage editors to civilly bring opinions to the discussion on Commons; I created Commons:Template:PSL the other day after finding a free resource; I have now contacted Platforma asking for them to release things under a free licence; I am going to be uploading hundreds of Polish politician photos from Flickr; I will continue to encourage editors to get in contact with Sejm and get an irrevocable, free licence from them. And all of this has been done with civility, and with the best interests of our projects in mind. On the other hand, I see with you outright personal attacks, bad faith, refusal to recognise the problems inherited with those attacks and bad faith, etc. And yet, I am the troll? Your behaviour around this episode is quite disgraceful, and shows you have nothing but contempt for the Commons project, and its people, and I can not in good faith support your reconfirmation under these circumstances. Russavia (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove per Rschen7754--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Bacus15 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Easy decision. Elfhelm (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep We may differ on Leinad's actions but we must surely agree on his motives - everything he did as a steward he did with great respect and love for the Wikimedia Community and he always used his steward tools to serve this community. He might have done some minor mistakes but he always acted in good faith. I trust him completly and hope that he will be able to continue his work as a steward. Magalia (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I could provide logs from IRC showing that there's chaotic hatred aka hurr durr you are dumb and I'll ban you - not love. I always thought that stewards could be good mediators between projects, but he's rebeling again Commons and it was me who wanted to mediate, but there was only hate claptrap from him. It's not a good faith (even not a good fight, because it was mean flamewar, Leinad kept flaming and next he blamed opponent for his own actions, i.e. flaming). Commons problems are another thing, worth noticing, but here my main reason is how he acts. I just can't allow to reelect person who's acting in such mean way and when somebody disagrees with him he's just turning into kid full of hate. He may be nice to you and some users, Magalia, but I have different impression. Trying to solve conflict on priv by user, Leinad named "molesting him", while his oppontent was very direct and the only thing I've seen wasn't molesting, but user trying to live in peace by substantive discussion, without calling Leinad names. Leinad AFAIS uses epithets as arguments and that's wrong. No, no way. As friend he might be good, but he's just too proud to say he's wrong or to just talk about it. Krzysiu (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strange situation which in my humble opinion is not relevant to my steward bits. On Thursday February 12 during my presence on the IRC channel #wikipedia-pl I *didn't say one word* about Commons (nor any other words before ban). Meanwhile many users had been tired by activity of russavia and saper banned him. Then User:Krzysiu (on IRC he uses alternative nickname) unbanned this users - after that I suggested him that first he should consult unban with other channel operators (and yes, there was longer discussion like I like him, so I unbanned him and I wrote I disagree and I can ban you), but in my opinion this is problem between channel operators, not issue of Commons). And about: he's rebeling again Commons - this is a serious accusation towards my careful and neutral comment in the village pump (contrary to comments of many other community members). Moreover Polish Wikipedia is my home wiki where I do not act as a steward and I hope I still have there the right to have my own opinion. LeinaD (t) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Leinad, but that is pure BS, and you know it. Would you agree to post the logs, and others can see for themselves? Myself, Powerek38, MatmaRex, and to a lesser extent, Teukros, were having a civilised discussion about the deletion of Sejm images, and I was explaining from a Commons standpoint (where I am a bureaucrat, not some "bonkers" bad faith editor) why the images were not suitable for Commons under our policies, and I also stated that the images might be suitable for pl.wp and that it was up to pl.wp to discuss and decide on. I understand that pl.wp is upset about the images being deleted from Commons, and I understand that you are too, but this is no excuse for you to attack Odder, myself and Jim as having acted in bad faith -- as a pl.wp sysop, bureaucrat and CU, and a global steward, you should know that this is not on, and moreso your very position means that you should be calming editors down and encouraging civilised discussion, not inciting them as you have done. Remember, you are not the only one with a love for the Wikimedia projects; we are all here for the same reason. The discussions on the mailing list and pl.wp are a bloody disgrace in that they have denegenerated into a free-for-all against Commons admins (and Commons in general), and your part in it demonstrates to me at least, that whilst they are not connected directly with your steward role, it calls into question your ability to act with respect towards others where things don't go your way, and I'd rather not have someone like that in such a position. Russavia (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional   Comment, even though my vote is already clearly stated as the second in row, just after DerHexer's declaration of love; treat it as the justification of my "keep" vote, which I am going to post here instead of under my original entry. I cannot help not noticing the extension of certain conflicts (bordering on the personal) in some votes... Leinad's actions on Commons were indeed against the letter of the rules, but they were performed in good faith and I thought, oh, naive me, that it has all been clarified out there, feet were shuffled in unease and we can live on. How mistaken I was! Now instead of feet - mud is shuffled. I am trying to interpret some entries as something other than turning the technical solution of the Polish Sejm pictue problem into a vision of rebelling against Commons (huh?) all fueled by ever-fire-spitting, horrible Leinad the Avenger and I simply cannot see the clear picture through this crusade. It is not the first time that a minority of not-so-proper behaviour takes over the massive amount of good deeds done (keeping the non-content wikis safe from spambots should acccount for something - last time I saw a non-Wikimedia wiki not protected from anything malicious I practically cried "A kingdom for an admin!") and the every-day activities of a steward should account for much more). OK, sorry for the tirade, but I had to get it out of my system, because I hate to see an overall good steward's head being chopped off just because he took certain steps out of line with the letter of the law, but keeping to the general spirit of the rules just the same. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 08:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep adds value on the steward side internally; had a harsh reminder about boundaries, though in good faith action; more activity would be better — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep some comments above makes me feel a little bit troubled, but everyone may make a mistake occasionally, and learn from them. Leinad also have done a lot of good work, and I see no reason to doubt his actions was done with good intentions. Höstblomma (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I, personally, don't see any use for Leinad for the tools other than spambot checks (which of are little use); the sudden rush of steward spambot checks concerns me as well, especially that the fact that this page was created the same day of all these checks, which have been /only/ on pl.wm; few steward actions in general since 2012. I don't have any particular opinion on Leinad's actions on Commons, though my personal view is that steward rights shouldn't be used in cases where there are active wikis with active competent admins to deal with issues there. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Make a note that stewards actions are not only in global and public logs. And I don't know how "competent admins" can better deal with spambots - using CU I can globally block IPs which creates many accounts in many projects, so this is much more efficient. LeinaD (t) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove per Jafeluv. On the contrary, I completely disagree with Snowolf and Quentin: their interpretation of "home wiki" has no basis in policy, praxis or common sense; for instance, I interpret the homewiki rules rather broadly compared to the policy (I'd consider homewiki for me it.quote, and Meta), but with such a reasoning I should e.g. consider homewiki it.wikt where I've not been sysop for 5 years and even outreachwiki where I have few dozens edits, or (IMHO) any content project in my language (for which I have more potential COI/POV than many of the wikis where I'm sysop). Additionally, Snowolf mentioned Pundit but he's the least active steward we have and he probably would not have been able to help (he mentions himself the "learning curve" too steep for him). That said, of course one can have concerns with the fact that he didn't even ask other Polish stewards (AFAIK), or that maybe he's quite inactive outside that wiki, or if his checks were considered excessive: all things that together with the Commons case would also get a different light. I think he'll be able to get checkuser status locally if needed after removal of steward flag. --Nemo 06:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nemo, thank you for your input. I think that referring to your own comment as a source for anyone's activity is somewhat going the round way, it is much easier to use e.g. this tool (although according to it there were 9 stewards less active than me, and Pathoschild and Millosh had almost exact same activity count in 2012; accidentally there are also 9 stewards less active than me in 2013 - this is all not to say that my activity was amazingly high or satisfying to me, but I think that you're just basing your reasoning on a mistaken premise). Pundit (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Pundit, as I said the reason for my oppose is in Jafeluv's reason, so your reply doesn't affect my !vote. Mine is just an hypothesis ("probably"): I've now explained better why I think that my premise is not mistaken at all and I note that you didn't comment further about the "learning curve" (a very concise point of your statement that I may surely have misunderstood and therefore mentioned in a misleading way here; I hope not). --Nemo 12:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Siigh, I have not commented on your "learning curve" point exactly because of the obvious misunderstanding, quite clear to any bystander. I wrote that "there is a learning curve in being a steward", which means that you learn your toolbox gradually. This is a statement of an indisputable fact, and I have been grateful for fellow stewards for their support in my taking the role on, extended to me as to any other new steward. In no place did I write of the learning curve being "too steep" and I have no idea what gave you that impression. Moreover, while I understand that you operate on a hypothesis mode, I still am quite convinced that comparing a total of 5 years of actions with a total for 1 year may not be a "mistaken premise", but just does not make much sense (in other words, using the very same reasoning, you could demote ALL new stewards one day after they're elected, because their action count is likely to be ZERO, which compared to the total count for 5 years for any of the veterans is indeed a huge gap). If you want to compare activity of anybody, a sensible assumption is comparing same periods of time. 20 of all current stewards had the number of actions lower than I had in 2012 in some year in the past. Pundit (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, your reply on the point doesn't address the point (i.e. whether you would have been able to help on that Polish wiki).
    As for your laughable reductio ad absurdum, you're missing an important premise, that confirmation is not a day after election but a year later. You're free to have your opinions but such attempts at undermining the others' are just ridiculous. --Nemo 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, don't call other people's arguments "laughable". Reductio ad absurdum shows flaws in argumentation more clearly. In any case, it is quite obvious that comparing 5 years of total edits with one year does not make any sense (otherwise you'd expect all new stewards to do 5 times more work to meet your standards). Pundit (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What can I say more? This topic again and again comes back, though I'm deeply sorry, discussion has been closed and I no longer continue such actions. I'm not the only one steward who used the tools on Commons, but only my actions were discussed. Why? I do not know - just make a note that Commons admin who opened discussion for long time had been a part of Poznań Wikimedia Community, but he has stopped participating in our local wiki-initiatives. As we were one Poznań wiki-team, for example I deleted our personal photos from one of our barbecues. More well known and trusted stewards, who were confirmed in previous years, also used tools on Commons, for example: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also Jafeluv, of whose comment you base, performed action where were active admins. And I believe all these actions were taken in good faith and weren't controversial (also mine). And once again, I stopped to perform actions in "good faith". I'm sorry you can't look at this situation in wider aspect. LeinaD (t) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I've opened your links and they don't prove your point, there's nothing (obviously) unfair here. Sorry if I don't comment each case, it would get too long. --Nemo 20:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the opposite Nemo - they do prove the point. Which is that other stewards also performed admin-specific actions, occasionally as it was, without having explicit admin status on a given wiki. I do not know what there is to comment here. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wpedzich, you're obviously not very calm about this discussion... The actions linked above are either not comparable to Leinad's or it's not true that they're not being discussed, as per stewards policy and Stewards, which someone could start thinking you didn't read very carefully either. --Nemo 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep--Jusjih (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]