Stewards/confirm/2011/M7

M7 edit

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, xWikiness, recent logs, all logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
Personal info: Some days ago, I've prepared a brief "history" (in italian language) of my involvement into WMF project for Wikimedia Italia. Being a Steward since 2006 has meant to me a whole world of contacts, and I hope to continue this service. While I am usually not on IRC, I monitor meta.wiki activities and RfP page. I also can be reached on meta user talk page, that is set to E-mail me when changed.

español:

Idiomas: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
Información personal: su discurso aquí

русский:

Языки: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
Личная информация: здесь должно быть заявление

italiano:

Lingue: en-3, it, de-1, es-1, fr-1
Informazioni personali: Qualche giorno fa ho preparato per Wikimedia Italia un breve riassunto della mia partecipazione ai progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Essere Steward dal 2006 mi ha dato l'opportunità di avere un mondo intero di contatti, desidero per questo motivo continuare in questo compito. Sebbene non sia rintracciabile abitualmente su IRC, tengo sotto controllo l'attività della meta.wiki e la pagina delle RfP. È inoltre possibile contattarmi sulla mia pagina di discussione utente qui su meta, pagina che è impostata per avvisarmi con una mail quando viene modificata.

Comments about M7 edit

—DerHexer (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Should be confirmed! :-)[reply]
Keep - @lestaty ^discuţie 00:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course! Active and helpful. Really fast dealing with vandals too. No objections, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I always how you beat us without using IRC Mardetanha ^talk 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk _es 01:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Keep doing a great job![reply]
behold Thank you for doing this job. Finn Rindahl 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) why is there a noinclude string here and not at the other similar pages??[reply]
Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no objections --Jan eissfeldt 08:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seen them around doing a good job. No reason not to say keep going. -Djsasso 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does a good job, especially in handling vandals. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mrreow ? DarkoNeko 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maximillion Pegasus 16:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos 17:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
confirm, reliable and trustworthy –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras 20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He helped me once when it was important to me.Metodicar 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trijnstel 20:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Tanvir • 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu 18:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --valepert 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ask21 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Piero Montesacro 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Guidomac 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 09:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, higher activity would be better, though --Mercy 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per your support of Ottava's block. There is no reason anyone should be blocked like that and you should know better than that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Canvassing (to try) to have a block lifted? --M/ 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ktr101 is a long time and respected user. Do you have evidence to support this accusation? Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am in no way canvassing an unblock request because this is the last place to do it. In reality, the way that you are handling this is another reason to oppose you. The block was wrong and I saw his talk page when someone else showed me it just so you know. Tiptoety's difference below is also in bad taste. You do not modify a block after the fact just to suit a point because then it not only puts you more in the wrong, but also weakens your argument that you were first making. It is because of this that I am not changing my vote because your actions are further strengthing my views. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ktr101 intervened where Ottava was concerned, on Wikiversity, as an SPA. Ottava has acknowledged canvassing on IRC, and it's been possible, on Wikiversity, to identify floods of !votes that appeared immediately after Ottava filed otherwise obscure processes. From the timing, the Ktri101 !vote is explicitly related to the M7 interaction on Talk:Ottava Rima, a few minutes before, and it is practically certain this was because of IRC with Ottava. Respected users are not immune to being canvassed. After edit conflict with above, I see "someone else showed it to me." In other words, he was canvassed, but by a presumed friend of Ottava, not by Ottava himself. --Abd 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? I'm not a single purpose account and please don't ever accuse me falsely of something like that again. It is not like I just did nothing and suddenly popped up to give an opinion on him. I have done edits there as I have seen fit, with really no rhyme or reason behind them. Additionally, no one has ever said that we cannot vote soon after any sort of interaction anywhere. I also have his talk page watchlisted, so it would've eventually occured that I would have seen this in a day or so. I just happened to get a suggestion in a chat with another friend that basically said, "Look what happened to Ottava. That is funny..." I'm not going to contest this further as this will just end up with more useless bashing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the argument is that you're a SPA in general, Kevin, but that your attention has been drawn to such things via IRC (and that you'd made the choice which I refused when approached with regard to the wikiversity issue, which was to comment on a project which you are not familiar with.) sonia 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove In view of their comment right above, in fact. Guido den Broeder 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBlocks (or unblocks) here are a matter of meta admin, I think. Should not confused with steward policies, there was not an emergency, nor any need to apply pressure. --M/ 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, no, thanks for pointing out exactly what is wrong in your thinking. Blocks and unblocks are a matter of the community. Users are not cattle, for administrators to do with as they please. Guido den Broeder 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial suggestion to Ottava Rima was to be read as an attempt to have him reflect upon some harsh positions towards other users. The block is indeed exaggerate, but from his part the single "remove" statement is too little: in a collaborative environment the conflict level should remain as low as possible. I'd rather appreciate a somewhat remissive request, instead I think that is quite unpolite to use actions in the intervening time of the reconfirmation page for trying to set a point. --M/ 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In elections, it is important that existing harsh positions get known, so that OTHERS may reflect on them. This growing habit of attacking any opposing voice needs to stop, I've seen it lead to the downfall of several projects already. Guido den Broeder 01:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh opinions are fine in elections, as long as the people back up their statements so others can make their own mind up. Otherwise it just becomes a he said she said. Like everything in the wiki world, if you can't source what you are saying, you shouldn't be saying it. -Djsasso 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's test that. Give me a link to the rule that says so. And next explain why you made all kinds of ugly comments here and then refused to provide diffs. Guido den Broeder 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually on the wall here. M7, altering the block as a way to support it is in bad taste to me and an inappropriate use of the block function. Instead of escalating the situation (which an additional block did), you should have been finding other ways to deal with the matter. Indef blocking an already indef blocked user changes nothing in their supposed "poor behavior." Tiptoety ^talk 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tiptoety, M7 reduced the block from "infinite" to "indefinite." There is a difference, see [1]. He was clearly attempting to negotiate an early end. However, I don't see that he -- or you -- have been aware of Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. When the community allows such massive disruption to continue without addressing it, eventually someone will address it, and it may easily seem excessive. --Abd 02:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you raise an interesting point. I didn't notice the change from "infinite" to "indefinite." Though, I'm interested if that was the primary intent of the block alteration. Tiptoety ^talk 02:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tiptoety. M7 was attempting to negotiate unblock conditions, which was quite proper. My guess is that M7 began to smell a serious rat, and, in giving up on negotiation, wanted to be consulted before an unblock. WizardOfOz was in over his head, and had just caved on Guido den Broeder. Ottava is not some newbie, and his behavior is not ordinary "poor behavior." See the RfC. --Abd 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interactions at simple.wiki have always been very pleasant, and he seems to do good work here.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multi-lingual, very active on Meta, recent logs show principled actions. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fetchcomms☛ 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Courageous and sensible. --Abd 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ktr101. sonia 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Ancient Apparition 06:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brownout^(msg) 11:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rubin16 16:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ticketautomat 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fr33kman 06:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Resolute 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Romaine 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bojan Talk 09:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep micki t 10:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Erwin 12:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mjbmr ^Talk 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian Giersing 06:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jon Harald Søby 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unchanged and deep trust in him. - εΔ ω 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Active steward. --Millosh 17:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shizhao 13:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no ability to trust this user when it comes to appropriate use of any tool function or respecting community norms and standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Archenzo 08:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Béria Lima ^msg 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zyephyrus 06:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]