< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2016


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

  • Languages: nl, li, en-4, de-1, fr-1, la-1
  • Personal info: Dear all, this was my first year as a steward. I would like to thank all the good people I worked with and who are doing an awesome job, for their work and for their kind and helpfull advice during my first year. The year started with the SUL finalisation in which all accounts became global. Over three million accounts were renamed. Several tens of thousands of manual renames made everything run as smoothly as possible. The global renamers did an awesome job. During my first months as steward I mainly worked on requests about the assignment of global accounts and the complex task of manually merging accounts. During the year I started working on (global) permissions and helping to answer requests for intervention against long term vandals and spam-bots. In October I meet with several other stewards in San Francisco, which was a great learning experience. I did not use checkuser or oversight tools. These requests are well handled by other stewards and I am very happy limiting myself to other steward functions. If there is an emergency I will ofcourse intervene. I believe I have been decently active and have made good use of the tools. I would love to continue helping as a steward in the coming year. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Lingue:
  • Informazioni personali: translation needed
  • Idiomas:
  • Información personal: translation needed
  • Языки:
  • Личная информация: translation needed
  • Sprachen:
  • Informationen zur Person: translation needed
  • Taalvaardigheid:
  • Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed
  • ভাষা:
  • ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Comments about TaketaEdit

  •   Remove unfortunately. Overall activity is little for a "first year steward": Rather few global rename actions (6 between April and November); only started doing global blocks in December 2015 (and the vast majority was done on 1 day, 31 Jan 2016), same as for global locks where the activity is centered on a few days of mass-actions. Large gaps also in SRP activity. This combined with several mistakes / showing of little knowledge about policies etc. (here; visible in the same revision: granting of OS rights on a home wiki; [1]; execution of a non-existing request; recently here), leads me to oppose. --MF-W 14:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Dear MF-Warburg, thank you for the feedback. Rschen7754 asked for a specific response. Forgive me if this gets too long. With about 800 steward actions over the past 11 months, out of which 70 global renames, I think I have done the same as most active stewards. The 6 renames is probably not counting the 20+ local renames not logged on meta. I have listed them below. Local renames like "Kwork2" are merges of accounts, which only stewards can perform, and most do not. People experience a problem for months and we can solve this in minutes. For example here, here, here or a dozen other requests. You mention "large gaps in SRP activity". I made no permission actions in July and September. Though I renamed and gave global rights in July. In September I was less active on meta. Though I was online several times a day. At that time I was very busy on the Dutch Wikipedia, starting a local version of the writing week project. Our writing week on Denmark nearly doubled the new article production for two weeks, so you can imagine the potential and why I think this is important. Moreover local writing weeks create media attention and new editors. Writing week Amersfoort was mentioned in newspapers that were read by 100.000 people in the village of Amersfoort and lead to 4 new editors writing their first article (in 1 week!). Writing week North-Brabant was joined by the governor, who tweeted this picture of us at the wikimeet. Coming April writing week Brussels, will cooperate with 20 libraries. The Flemish minister for culture and the prime minister of Brussels capital region will both personally thank an online participant, to show appreciation of our Wikimedia volunteers. I will also invite other language versions to join us and have their volunteers meets the prime minister. Also in that period we came up with the WikiOwls to thank online volunteers, and started a cooperation with the Amsterdam Free University, and 3 other Universities in the country. So I was bit busy in September. Starting in October I had more time, and got slowly more active. As you can see I am currently active and intend to maintain this level of activity. Concerning the cases you mention: [2] The two weeks I mentioned 6 months ago in August was when I was indeed still getting to know SRP. I should not have mentioned two weeks as a period, but I have learned from this mistake and have shown this over the past 6 months. Though not a guideline I took advice from Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements, which I should not have. [3] The 5 days you mentioned as minimum period instead of the 7 days I used. I learned 7 days from the practise I observed on these requests. I like to be safe and when I see two practices I prefer to be safe and take the 7 days over 5 days. But ofcourse I learn from your example and advice and will certainly keep it in mind when making my own considerations. It is good to have feedback on these matters. [4] I believe we should help local communities. When an RFA is done and the only problem is that the local community cannot find meta, I think we can help. In this case I should have been a bit less pro-active and have adviced the community to make a request. The result we can agree was good, and I have taken your advice to heart to give better insight into my actions, like this case. [5] The recent case was an unclear reply from me to Vogone. I meant that I should have left specific rights to local admins as he pointed out. My mistake first in executing and then in writing caused unneeded confusion, which I regret. The result we can agree was good and the user was helped. Thank you. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I must admit I only got round now to fully read your lengthy reply. As Nemo bis below, I too fail to see the relevance of these actions involving Flemish and Belgian ministers for steward work. --MF-W 04:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment - I did more then 6 renames in April-October. More like 25. Merging accounts is not logged on meta. 6 meta logs, 11 commons, 2 fr.wiktionary, 4 de.wikipedia, 1 meta local (Mirwin), 1 pl.wikipedia, 1 en.wikipedia. Not mentioning the rejected renames. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove While Taketa is undoubtedly a friendly Wikimedian and acts with good intention, I feel he is quite overchallenged with the steward role. His temper does not suit and makes many actions of him look as if he didn't think about them before. Making mistakes is a normal thing, especially with new and globally inexperienced stewards, but this frequency of mistakes suggests his strenghts lie somewhere else. Furthermore, I am opposed to the steward-OC double role. Controversial actions can always happen, even unexpectedly, and making people feel uncomfortable reporting possible issues with current OC members is certainly not what we want. I wish good luck for the future and thank for the service, --Vogone (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep I enjoy working with this user. He is never to proud to admit a mistake which is an important quality for every one with advanced user rights. I am sure he learned from his mistakes and he will do better in the future for sure. Active enough imho plus he always is a great help when someone needs stewards assistance. Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep, Taketa is a good steward. --6AND5 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep! Ik waardeer zijn werk. --geo ») 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep. Taketa always seems open for feedback. He is a human being, not a overengeneered-bot exempted from making mistakes. :( RadiX 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--BRP ever 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep I like the the way Taketa solve problems here.--Liridon (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Greenday2 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per MF-W and Vogone. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak keep. Armbrust (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Undecided on this one. @Taketa:, could you respond to the specific issues above? --Rschen7754 19:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep. HakanIST (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Miniapolis 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per MF-W and Vogone...Usually stews in their first year are very active and determined, you seem bored already...and also, i won't support users keeping both rights (Stewardship and Ombudsman)..if your activity levels for being a steward is so poor, I'm not sure how you will fare as an Ombudsman..--Stemoc 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Az1568 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove On-and-off activity doesn't bother me, really. But when a first time appointed steward starts most common (and usually non controversial) steward actions after 10 months of appointment, then that's something serious. — T. 07:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I started locking vandal accounts during my first month as steward in March 2015. Not after 10 months. I am not a vandal fighter but a content editor. I focussed on renames, user merges and (global) permissions. Our vandal fighters do a great job and I can be useful elsewhere. I noticed very large requests were being made in July, where a Japanese sock master created 20 accounts a day. So I helped and locked a dozen accounts in requests over the weeks. LTAs seem to be becoming more regular. I currently help in vandal fighting and have locked about 500 vandal accounts over the months. After two bot attacks in January in which over 1000 ips were involved, I helped block several hundred of the used ips. So in general I am not a vandal fighter. But when it is needed, I am there to help. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Taketa: I meant global blocks and your first global block was on December 13, 2015. If you consider global locks then your rates are also low. Such as, 7 in March, 1 in April, 1 in May, 15 in July, 1 in November — in average approximately 2.8 locks/month in first 9 months. You started locking continuously also in December 2015. I believe that you realize that the community usually expects more measurable activity from a steward before his first confirmation. I appreciate your content edits and understand that is the ultimate goal of the movement. Your help in jawikipedia is certainly appreciated, but I would like to see more in global scale which is also measurable. I hope you understand my point. — T. 09:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have my habits and I slowly grow into a task. Usually I see requests come by as I work on content. However I was not a regular user of meta. after becoming a steward I visited meta specifically to check request pages and you can imagine this was new. Being late for almost all requests is not encouraging. I got a slow start as steward and only became more active after the steward meet at the end of October. It became more and more of a rythme and by December I was checking request pages a dozen times a day. I hope that clarifies my activity, and I can understand you read more into it, though I can state firmly that this confirmation has nothing to do with my activity. I simply had to become familiar with visiting meta more often than I was used to. The block/lock pages were not my priority. I ran into some situations where I noticed large requests could use extra help, so I helped. After I became more active, I ran into more of such requests. I understand your point in wanting to see measurable results. 800 steward actions and only 150 in the first 8 months I can imagine you consider little. However, I intend to continue on my current activity level, so if you want me to be active I can say I will be. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--Syum90 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove sadly.
    • There seems to be a disproportionate number of mistakes compared to other stewards. To be honest, I don't really care about the substance of most of the mistakes mentioned above; they are arbitrary rules that are not written down anywhere. There are some mistakes where the correct procedure is documented, but I wouldn't expect the average Wikimedian to know that global sysop does not include global rollback, or much of the other errors above.
    • But what I do see in the above incidents is a pattern: not checking with existing practice in the area where one is acting, and not reading the manual.
    • The one mistake that really bothers me, however, is the granting of privacy-related (OS) rights on one's homewiki, mentioned above. Given their answer here, they declared Wikidata as a homewiki. I asked them directly about this today, and they declared that they did not realize what wiki this was being granted on. The answer is concerning for a number of reasons: did they check to make sure there were other oversighters on that wiki? Did they make sure the user was identified? Did they look at the request to make sure it had 25 votes? (and wouldn't they have gone "oh, huh, this is Wikidata?") Considering that this is one of the big reasons why stewards don't get reconfirmed, I would have taken extra care to stay far away from actioning such a request, and I did when I was a steward. I do not understand this at all.
    • I think Stemoc and Tanvir are onto something, and I won't add much more to that. I don't expect stewards to be vandal fighters, necessarily (I'm more of a content editor myself), but there's plenty of other maintenance-type things that can be done with the steward tools such as AAR, maintaining the global bots and global sysop wikisets, etc. that are generally forgotten.
    • I see Taketa as a dedicated Wikimedian, and personally I want to keep him as a steward; however, some significant questions have been raised about his ability to perform the role without adding to controversy, which I can no longer ignore. --Rschen7754 08:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I did realise what wiki it was being granted on. I did all checks as I always do, and as I have always done during my 6 years as bureaucrat granting rights. I did not realise it was my homewiki. I had never before had to take a homewiki into consideration. This is a steward only limit, that I had never experienced before. Even though I know that I should not act on a homewiki, I am only highly active on Wikidata in content and never was active in the community disussions. If it had been a Dutch project, I would have noticed instantly. I made a mistake not noticing the homewiki guideline applied. This happened 1 time, and never after. No complaints were noted during the 6 months since. If you think that I will repeat a homewiki action, after a single incident and no repeat in 6 months, vote against me for sure. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per MF-W etc --Herby talk thyme 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove Laberinto16 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep good contributor at StewCon, done nothing wrong, prepared to give another year to develop  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per Rschen, MF-W and Vogone. jni (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep. Deserves a second chance.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--DCB (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. On one hand, I see a lot of concerns both regarding activity and somewhat disturbing actions. On the other hand, I can assume good faith and consider that Taketa is still learning and thus makes mistakes. I would probably give a second chance, but I am not 100% sure — NickK (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Widr (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Richardkiwi (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove Per above. --Uğurkenttalk 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove There are cases of serious harassments and stewards do nothing about it. In fact, they are OK with it. --Auvajs (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep INeverCry 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep OK Ankry (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep The Geo (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove has contributed to few wikis compared to other stewards.--Snaevar (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove unfortunately i have to agree with MF-W. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove As per Auvajs, Vogone and per Rschen7754. Are really all stewards OK with harassments of -jkb- and &? See also RfC. --Kusurija (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Melos (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Matanya (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--GZWDer (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per various people above --Krenair (talkcontribs) 11:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove Per Vogone. odder (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove Just because he's OC at the same time. — regards, Revi 14:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep some mistakes for a first year are not the key issue, if they are not repeated and are clearly acknowledged. Clear mistakes, clear gaps can be addressed and analyzed in the future, and they are always IMHO less critical than correct yet "border-line" behaviours. Sometimes they both show patterns, you know... In other words he still deserves a second chance, or at least an encouragement. My humble advice: whatever didn't help you (communication problem, isolated or fragmented guidelines) invest some energy to improve it. Even someone who is more skilled than you will get some advantages from this practice and that's a good legacy you can provide.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove --CaZeRillo (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Dick Bos (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Many contributions to en.wikiversity in the past year! --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove To be consistent with positions I expressed in the past about steward confirmations, I must support MF-W's points. I'm greatly confused by Taketa's answer above, which seems to be completely OT. Yes, we value Taketa's contribution to Wikimedia a lot. But here we're only talking of the steward bit. Nemo 23:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep He does his best and that's all one can do... Trijnsteltalk 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--Jusjih (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep--WeeJeeVee (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   KeepWe all make mistakes. Activity levels are not a great concern. We need more people. MORE PEOPLE!! :) --Pratyeka (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep The issues mentioned here are fairly minor.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Jmvkrecords (Intra talk) 18:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC) His answer to MF-Warburg convinced me that he can do it better.
  •   Keep - Not the most active steward, however, he does a good work. I see no issues with being steward and OC member at the same time, I just hope that he can fulfil both roles. -Barras talk 19:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep I am not concerned about the dual OC-steward role as I feel that involved stewards still provide value even if they are less active in CU/OS. Between permissions, usernames, and contributions/advice when we have issues which require second opinions, there is plenty where an Omb/steward may contribute. That being said, I am somewhat concerned about the quantity of issues brought by some of the opinions above. However, I do not see anything malicious; rather, the mistakes are careless. We do expect better from our stewards, but I am willing to allow Taketa another year to demonstrate he has learned from these constructive criticisms. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove please resign from either steward or OC role --DerekvG (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per above. --DangSunM (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep We all do mistake, important is that what we learn from it. I believe that Taketa will do better. ~ Nahid Talk 17:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • If everyone makes mistakes, why are so many only being pointed out here, and not on all confirmation pages? —MF-W 04:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep, per above. Érico (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per MF-W. --Timk70 question? 22:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep helping user --Biplab Anand (Talk) 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Agree with Billinghurst. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep Per Billinghurst --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per above. -- Freddy2001 talk 11:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep While he made some mistakes, I still think that he can continue as a steward. The removal will be a net negative, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove I do not like the activity heterogeneousness over time mentioned. It looks like the user "remembered" that he's a steward not so far before the confirmation (just my opinion). I think user should take a break and rerun when he's ready for a smother activity performing. --Base (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong keep It is not good by others to put so much pressure on volunteers forcing them to work more, more, more and to never have a break. That is a form of harassment and damages our project. --.js[democracy needed] 13:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    @.js: Excuse me? Most people here are not even referring to the amount of activity but to the huge amount of mistakes which were made by this steward compared to other stewards. --Vogone (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Remove per MF-Warburg and Vogone. Ireas (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)