Open main menu
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.
Stewards (2013 Confirmations)

La votazione di riconferma 2013–14 avrà inizio il 8 febbraio e terminerà il 27 febbraio.

Le elezioni 2013–14 per i nuovi steward rappresentano una buona opportunità per verificare il livello di soddisfazione esistente nei confronti degli attuali steward. Al fine di rendere agevole la procedura, sono riportate qui le modalità di svolgimento.

Per comentare, effettua l'accesso con un account che abbia effettuato modifiche (su qualsiasi wiki) precedentemente al 1º febbraio 2013. Durante le elezioni del 2013, indica gli eventuali motivi di soddisfazione o scontento rispetto l'uso delle funzioni di steward da parte dell'utente indicato. Per esempio, potresti riferirti all'inattività. Gli steward inattivi, come stabilito nelle policy di riferimento, perderanno il proprio status.

Al termine delle elezioni, gli steward attuali e i nuovi eletti esamineranno le segnalazioni contenute su questa pagina e sceglieranno se rimuovere i diritti di steward, sia tenendo conto dei commenti lasciati dalla comunità, sia delle prospettive e dell'interpretazione del proprio compito da parte di ciascuno. Tutti gli steward eletti prima del febbraio 2012 ripeteranno questo iter di riconferma al termine di ciascuna elezione. La conferma per gli steward eletti nel'ottobre 2012 è opzionale in questo caso poiché non hanno ancora ricoperto tale ruolo per un intero anno. Saranno soggetti a una regola econferma obbligatoria durante l'elezione del 2014.

Vedi anche:

Clear the cache of this page?


Andre EngelsEdit

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about Andre EngelsEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about AvrahamEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about AxpdeEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: de, en-4
  • Informazioni personali: Questa è la mia seconda riconferma, poichè sono stato eletto solamente nel 2011. Sono stato abbastanza attivo in quest'anno di servizio. Ho usato gli strumenti da steward per vari scopi, facendo cancellazioni e blocchi a livello cross-wiki per esempio (vedi le statistiche). Mi sono occupato anche di vandalismi e spam, bloccando molti utenti e IP. Ho fatto anche molte modifiche ai diritti, principalmente al mio account per prevenire abusi e rimuovere cose offensive, ma ho cambiato molto anche i privilegi di altri utenti. Di solito aiuto un pò ovunque, dove l'aiuto è necessario, su IRC e anche qui su Wiki. Se hai domande, chiedi pure.

Comments about BarrasEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: zh, en-3
  • Informazioni personali: Ciao, sono diventato uno steward durante la seconda fase di elezione nel 2011 e questa è la mia prima riconferma. La mia attività come steward non è tra le più alte, ma, per quanto mi riguarda, sono contento comunque del mio livello di attività. Le mie aree di attenzioni erano principalmente rispondere alle richieste in IRC e occuparmi del cross-wiki vandalismo, seguito da i lavori in SRP e in SRCU. Mi piacerebbe avere il tuo supporto per servire come steward per un altro anno. Fammi sapere i tuoi commenti e opinion in modo tale da migliorare il mio lavoro per il futuro. Grazie per le tue considerazioni. --Bencmq (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about BencmqEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about BennylinEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about BillinghurstEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: en
  • Informazioni personali: Questa è la mia seconda riconferma come steward. Fui eletto in febbraio 2011, e, da allora, sono stato attivo. Sono stato attivo come steward cancellando lo spam a livello crosswiki e facendo attenzione agli spambot. Sono ansioso per un altro (nuovo) anno di steward. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Bsadowski1Edit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

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

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

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

Comments about DerHexerEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

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

Comments about ElfixEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about Fr33kmanEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about J.delanoyEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about JusjihEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: en, ml, hi
  • Informazioni personali: Sono stato alquanto attivo nel 2012 e mi piacerebbe continuare a servire per un altro mandato. Ero presente a Wikimania quest'anno e ho potuto incontrare molti Wikimediani in persona. Generalmente sono disponibile in IRC per le emergenze. La maggior parte del mio lavoro l'anno scorso si è basata sullo spam crosswiki e nel vandalismo.

Comments about JyothisEdit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about LaaknorEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

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

Comments about LeinadEdit

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

Luckas BladeEdit

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: pt, en-4, es-3, fr-1
  • Informazioni personali: Non sono stato lo steward più attivo, ma ho aiutato con le richieste di emergenza in IRC, le questioni cross-wiki e principalmente nelle richieste per Bot. Dopo un anno, mi è piaciuto il lavoro, e se la comunità mi supporta, sarebbe bello poter servire come steward per un altro anno. --Luckas msg 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Luckas BladeEdit

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


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
  • Informazioni personali: Sono stato eletto steward nel 2006 e desidererei continuare a svolgere questo servizio per l'anno a venire. La mia attività è aumentata rispetto allo scorso anno, in particolare per le azioni a contrasto dello spam e dei vandalismi che riguardano più progetti. Seguo la mailing list, controllo i log della e la pagina delle RfP ed è possibile contattarmi anche sulla mia pagina di discussione su meta, che è impostata per inviarmi una mail quando viene modificata.

Comments about M7Edit


logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, & activity, steward actions counter | translate: translation help, statement

  • Lingue: es, en-2, fr-2 (comprendo abbastanza bene anche alcune lingue romanze)
  • Informazioni personali: Ciao. Questa è la mia terza riconferma come steward da quando fui eletto nel 2010. Durante tutto questo tempo ho continuato a compiere le attività che già facevo gli anni scorsi, dedicandomi alla gestione e allo svolgimento delle richieste qui su Meta-Wiki, alla manutenzione generale, alla sorveglienza delle wiki minori e anche alle attività di antispam. Quest'anno sono stato meno attivo rispetto alla sessione precedente, principalmente per motivi di salute e problemi personali, e non mi sono ancora del tutto ripreso. Ciò nonostante, ho fatto 954 operazioni da steward su Meta-Wiki, con un totale di 6337 azioni compiute dalla mia elezione. La distribuzione per settori della mia attività può essere vista in questo grafico. Per di più, in questo anno abbiamo potuto vedere come è aumentata la famiglia dei progetti Wikimedia, con l'apertura di due nuovi progetti, Wikidata —dove ho aiutato nella prima fase assegnando i permessi— e Wikivoyage. Se la comunità è soddisfatta e felice di ciò che ho fatto l'anno passato, sarei lieto di servire per un altro anno come steward. Commenti sul mio lavoro come steward sono ben graditi. Grazie per il tuo tempo. Cordiali saluti.
    -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments about MarcoAurelioEdit

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