Stewards/elections 2011/Questions

English: The 2011 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted. Suomi: Vuoden 2011 ylivalvojien vaalit on loppu. Uusia ääniä ei hyväksytä enää. العربية: انتخابات المضيفين لعام 2011 انتهت. لا أصوات أخرى سيتم قبولها. Deutsch: Die Stewardwahlen 2011 sind beendet. Weitere Stimmen können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Español : Las elecciones a Steward del año 2011 han concluído. No se aceptan más votos. فارسی: .رای‌گیری در مورد انتخابات ویکیبدهای جدید پایان یافته است.رای‌های جدید مورد قبول واقع نخواهد شد. [update needed: en] Français : Les élections Steward de 2011 sont terminées. Il n'est plus possible de voter. Gaeilge: Tá na toghcháin Maoir 2011 dúnta anois. Ní féidir aon vótaí eile a glacadh as an am seo amach. Galego: Xa remataron as eleccións a steward do ano 2011. Non se aceptarán máis votos. Alemannisch : D Stewardwahle 2011 sin umme. Du chasch nimmi abstimme. עברית: בחירות הדיילים לשנת 2011 הסתיימו. הצבעות נוספות לא תתקבלנה. [update needed: en] Magyar: A választás lezárult, további szavazatokat nem fogadunk el. [update needed: en] Italiano: Le elezioni del 2011 a Steward sono terminate. Nessun voto ricevuto dopo questa data sarà preso in considerazione. 日本語： 2011年のスチュワード選挙は終わりました。今後の投票は受け付けられません。 Nederlands: De stewardsverkiezingen van 2011 zijn gesloten. U kunt niet meer stemmen. Polski: Wybory stewardów w 2011 roku zakończyły się. Nowe głosy nie będą akceptowane. Português : As eleições para Steward de 2011 estão encerradas. Nenhum voto lançado a partir desta data será computado. Русский: Выборы стюардов — 2011 завершены. Дальнейшие голоса не будут приняты. Svenska: 2011 års val av stewarder är avslutat. Ingen ytterligare röstning kommer att accepteras. 中文： 2011年监管员选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废 [update needed： en] 中文（简体）： 2011年监管員选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废 [update needed： en] 中文（繁體）: 2011年監管員選舉已經結束。逾期投票將會作廢 [update needed: en] Tiếng Việt: Cuộc bầu cử tiếp viên năm 2011 đã kết thúc. Không có phiếu bầu nào tiếp tục được chấp nhận. Ελληνικά: Οι εκλογές επιτρόπων για το 2011 έχουν τελειώσει. Δεν γίνονται δεκτές άλλες ψήφοι. [update needed: en] Türkçe: 2011 kâhya seçimleri tamamlanmıştır. Daha fazla oy kabul edilmeyecektir. Azərbaycanca: 2011 stüard seçkiləri tamamlanmışdır. Daha səslər qəbul olunmur.

2011 steward elections (Questions)

العربية: المصوتون المؤهلون (انظر إرشادات التقدم) يمكنهم توجيه أسئلة لكل المرشحون على هذه الصفحة. من فضلك لا توجه أكثر من سؤالين متعلقين لكل مرشح، واجعلهما أقصر ما يمكن. المرشحون، من فضلك أجب باختصار وبساطة.

Čeština: Uživatelé s volebním právem (viz požadavky na voliče) mohou pokládat otázky všem kandidátům na této stránce. Prosím, nepokládajte více než dvě věcné otázky každému z kandidátů a snažte se o co největší stručnost. Kandidáti se prosí, aby odpověděli co nejrychleji a nejsrozumitelněji to bude možné.

Deutsch: Wahlberechtigte Benutzer (siehe Richtlinien) dürfen allen Kandidaten auf dieser Seite Fragen stellen. Bitte stell nicht mehr als zwei Fragen pro Kandidat und halte sie so kurz wie möglich. Die Kandidaten sollen so kurz und einfach wie möglich antworten.

Ελληνικά: Οι έγκυροι ψηφοφόροι (δείτε:οδηγίες) μπορούν να κάνουν ερωτήσεις σε όλους του υποψήφιους σε αυτή την σελίδα. Παρακαλώ να μην κάνετε πάνω από δύο σχετικές ερωτήσεις ανά υποψήφιο, και κάντε τες όσο σύντομες γίνεται. Οι υποψήφιοι απαντήστε όσο πιο σύντομα και απλά μπορείτε.

English: Eligible voters (see application guidelines) can ask questions to all candidates on this page. Please post no more than 2 relevant questions per candidate, and keep them as short as possible. Candidates, please answer as briefly and simply as possible.

Español : Los usuarios con derecho al voto (vea guía de solicitud) pueden hacer preguntas a los candidatos en esta página. Por favor no haga más de dos preguntas por cada candidato y manténgalas tan cortas y directas como le sea posible. Candidatos: por favor contesten tan resumida y símplemente como les sea posible.

فارسی: رأی‌دهندگان واجد شرایط (بنگرید به دستورالعمل برنامه) می‌توانند در این صفحه سؤال‌هایشان را از همهٔ نامزدها بپرسند. لطفاً برای هر نامزد بیش از ۲ سؤال نپرسید و سؤال‌هایتان کوتاه و مختصر باشند. نامزدها، لطفاً پاسخ‌هایتان را تا حد ممکن کوتاه و مختصر و ساده بیان کنید.

Suomi: Äänioikeutetut käyttäjät (katso ohjeet) voivat esittää tällä sivulla kysymyksiä kaikille ehdokkaille. Teethän korkeintaan kaksi oleellista kysymystä ehdokasta kohti ja pidäthän ne mahdollisimman lyhyinä. Ehdokkaita pyydetään vastaamaan kysymyksiin mahdollisimman lyhyesti ja yksinkertaisesti.

Français : Les personnes éligibles à voter (voir instructions) peuvent poser des questions à chacun des candidats sur cette page. Merci de ne pas poster plus de 2 questions pertinentes par candidat, et de faire en sorte qu'elles soient les plus courtes possible. Merci aux candidats de répondre le plus brièvement et simplement possible.

Alemannisch : Wahlbrächtigti Benutzer (lueg d Richtlinie) derfen allene Kandidate uf däre Syte Froge stelle. Bittschen, stell nit meh wie zwo Froge pro Kandidat un halte si eso churz wie megli. Kandidate, gän eso churz un eifach wie megli Antwort.

עברית: מצביעים העומדים בתנאים (ראו הנחיות) יכולים להציג שאלות לכל המועמדים בדף זה. בבקשה, הציגו עד שתי שאלות קצרות לכל מועמד. מועמדים, בבקשה ענו בקצרה ובפשטות.

Hrvatski: Suradnici koji imaju pravo glasovati (vidite upute za prijavu) mogu postaviti umjesno pitanje svakom kandidatu na ovoj stranici. Suradnici, molimo da ne pitate više od dva pitanja po kandidatu i neka budu što kraća. Kandidati, molimo vas da odgovorite što je kraće i jednostavnije moguće.

Italiano: Gli aventi diritto al voto (vedi le linee guida in proposito) possono porre su questa pagina delle domande ai candidati. Per cortesia non fate più di due domande per ciascun candidato, cercando per quanto possibile di mantenerle brevi. L'invito ai candidati è di rispondere altrettanto brevemente.

日本語： 投票権のある方 (参加ガイドをご覧ください) はこのページでどの候補者にも質問することができます。候補者1人につき1つ、端的に質問をするよう心がけてください。候補者のみなさんは、できるだけ簡潔に回答してください。

Македонски: Корисниците со право на глас (видете напатствија за пријава) на оваа страница можат да им поставуваат прашања на сите кандидати. Не поставувајте повеќе од 2 релевантни прашања по кандидат, и гледајте да бидете што пократки. Кандидатите се молат да одговараат на прашањата што е можно пократко и поедноставно.

Nederlands: Stemgerechtigden (zie de instructies) kunnen op deze pagina aan alle kandidaten vragen stellen. Stel alstublieft niet meer dan twee relevante vragen per kandidaat en hou de vragen zo kort als mogelijk. Kandidaten, antwoord alstublieft zo kort en duidelijk mogelijk.

Norsk bokmål: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.

Norsk: Stemmeberettigede (se retningslinjene) kan stille spørsmål til alle kandidater på denne siden. Vennligst begrens antall spørsmål per kandidat til to relevante spørsmål, og forsøk å holde spørsmålene korte. Kandidater bes besvare spørsmål så kort og enkelt som mulig.

Polski: Uprawnieni do głosowania (patrz kryteria) mogą zadawać pytania wszystkim kandydatom na tej stronie. Każdemu kandydatowi proszę zadawać nie więcej niż dwa konkretne pytania, w jak najkrótszej formie. Kandydatów uprasza się o udzielanie odpowiedzi w możliwe krótkiej i zrozumiałej formie.

Português : Os utilizadores com direito ao voto (veja o guia de candidaturas) podem fazer perguntas a todos os candidatos nesta página. Por favor, não coloque mais de 2 questões pertinentes por candidato, e mantenha-as o mais curtas possível. Candidatos, por favor respondam o mais simples e resumido quanto possível.

Русский: Имеющие право голоса (см. application guidelines/ru) могут задавать вопросы всем кандидатам на этой странице. Пожалуйста, пишите не более двух уместных вопросов каждому кандидату и формулируйте их по возможности кратко. Кандидаты, пожалуйста, отвечайте по возможности быстро и просто.

Српски / srpski: Корисници са правом гласа (видите смернице) могу да постављају питања свим кандидатима на овој страни. Молимо, немојте поставити више од 2 релевантна питања по кандидату и покушајте да их учините што краћима. Кандидати, молимо одговорите на питања што је могуће краће и простије.

Українська: Учасники з правом голосу (див. application guidelines/uk) можуть ставити питання всім кандидатам на цій сторінці. Просимо ставити не більше ніж по два конкретних питання і формулювати їх якомога коротше. Кандидатам прохання відповідати якнайшвидше і якнайчіткіше.

Tiếng Việt: Cử tri hợp lệ (xem hướng dẫn nộp đơn) có thể đặt câu hỏi cho bất kỳ ứng cử viên nào trong trang này. Xin vui lòng gửi không quá 2 câu hỏi, càng ngắn gọn càng tốt, liên quan đến các ứng cử viên. Ứng cử viên, xin bạn vui lòng trả lời đơn giản và ngắn gọn nhất có thể.

粵語: 合資格選民(見申請指引)可提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多過兩條問題，並須保持問題簡潔。參選人，則請扼要答題。

中文： 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多於兩條問題，並維持問題簡潔。候選人，則請扼要答題。

中文（简体）： 合资格投票者(见申请指引)可于此页向任何一位候选人发问问题，但请勿向任何一位候选人发问多于两条问题，亦请维持问题的简洁度。候选人，则请您简洁且扼要地回应这些问题。

中文（繁體）: 合資格投票者(見申請指引)可於此頁提問任何候選人，惟請勿提問一位候選人多於兩條問題，並維持問題簡潔。候選人，則請扼要答題。

Azərbaycanca: Səsvermə hüququna malik (bax: application guidelines/az) istənilən istifadəçi bu səhifədə bütün namizədlərə suallar ünvanlaya bilər. Zəhmət olmasa, hər bir namizədə münasib bildiyiniz iki sualdan artıq sual verməyin və bu suallarınızı mümkün qədər qısa və dürüst şəkildə ifadə edin. Namizədlər, lütfən, suallara imkan daxilində tez bir zamanda və sadə cavablar verin.

Per candidate

Barras

• Hi Barras, love your work on Meta. A small question, I see you have limited your edits on your home wiki (de, according to SUL), also were you ever interested in being an admin on your home wiki, if no then why not? Thanks and Good luck.Theo10011 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As you refer surely to dewiki: dewiki actually is only my homewiki in my sul-account. Actually I don't consider the German Wikipedia as my homwiki. The tool just says it is my homewiki because I started to edit there and also started there to unify my account. I never really found a place to start editing and being really helpful on such a big wiki. Things I'm interested in are already pretty good written there. So I quickly joined simplewiki and consider this as one of my homewikis now (besides metawiki). I also don't really feel like becoming an admin there. The German wiki has plenty of admins. I like it more to help where my hands are really needed. I hope that answers your question. -Barras 12:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It does, Thank you. Theo10011 13:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bennylin

• Hi Bennylin, Your statement is impressive. But I have a small question: Why not continue as an administrator in id.wp? --minhhuy*= 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi minh. It was because of RL work at that time. I prefered to resign than holding to something that I didn't have time to spare. But during my stint I had nominated two other admins, so at the end, id.wp gained +1 admin when I left. Thanks for the question. Bennylin 08:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree, your statement is impressive. My question is: Do you already have some experience with crosswiki vandal fighting(for example in those Asian-Pacific wikis you mentioned)? --MF-W 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I was the first one reverted Gwarp vandals in id.wp (nasty ones I should say), earlier than the stewards, I also was online when the Disney vandal mass-moved pages (several instances, using different names), and then I and several other Wikipedians moved them back. Thanks for the question. Bennylin 02:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Beria

• Hi Beria, and good luck in the election. Could you please describe what prompted your demotion as an administrator on pt.wikipedia? Thanks, Jafeluv 09:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that isn't a easy question to answer, because was not a "single" reason. So I will tell you the whole history and you take your conclusions. (My apologies right now because the "whole" history will make that answer even bigger than my statement) ;)

Back in 2009, I was a CU in pt.wiki too. And since that request, the user developed a anger against all CheckUsers. Some time after that request, he start to use the account Dbc2004 to continue to push his POV in pt.wiki. Two months after, he ofend a user in the user talk page, and after a request I blocked him for 3 days. When he comes back of the block he open the request you cited above.

At that time, I was preparing myself to move to Portugal to apply for a college (I actually move 1 week after the end of request). I was extremelly busy studying for it (even because I need to write the application exam in european portuguese - who is quite different from brazilian portuguese) and was in my grandma house saying "goodbye" to her and relaxing a little (She lives near the beach). That all to say that I only see the request 4 days after the request begin (my grandma does not had internet in her home), so I got there and said my reasons for the block and said that i would not say anything more about that because I had other things to do. I reconize that the way was not the best one to say - even because people does not know (until now) what I was doing at the time and they understand my pharse as a "I don't care" statement, so some people vote against me because of that. That, with the votes of people i had block and socks I have discovered with the others CU made the rest.

The only PS is that the Dbc2004 account was in fact a sock, who was caught 1,5 months i lost the flags in that CU request. Béria Lima ^msg 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me help. The link with the statement of Béria on her desysop request is this: (diff). That is where she says that she is too much busy having a sunbath on the beach to worry with the request after saying that is very good to receive a gift in the middle of the holiday. There was no abuse of the sysop tool I have to say (in my opinion). As can be seen on the request, many people changed the vote after her statement, that was considered not very serious.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Beria, you apparently disagree with some behavior (defined by you as a "scandal") of two pt.wiki users on SRCU. According to you, the stewards also disagree. You said here on pt.wiki Village Pump reffering to the stewards, that "What they are doing is pure "boycott" to requests from pt.wiki to not have to put up with the two at SRCU." [1]. (1) Where did you get that info? (2) After elected as a steward, would you also "boycott" a request in a similar occasion? Do you agree with this suppose behavior of the stewards? (3) Don't you think this kind of "boycott" is harmful to the whole project?” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you may know, pt.wiki is my home wiki. So, having any kind of opinion i could have, I shouldn't perform any steward action there. Béria Lima ^msg 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask that. I'm not talking about "conflict of interest". Sorry if my English is not perfect, but you can ask me to clarify the question if there's any incomprehensible part. You didn't answer the points 1, 2 and 3. The "info" I'm talking about is that thing you said about an alleged "boycott" made by the stewards. The "similar occasion" I said above obviously wouldn't involve your homewiki.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pt.wiki problems should be discuss in pt.wiki. The people who told me is irrelevant to the case, if they are right is not up to me to judge, and I don't believe en.wiki, de.wiki, fr.wiki, nl.wiki, es.wiki or nl.wiki will have that kind of problem any time soon, so the choice is not in my hands. If is harmfull? The original situation is harmful enough to me, no need to blame stewards for that. Béria Lima ^msg 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about pt.wiki problems. Sorry, but I will have to use bold and maybe underline a few words, since apparently I can not make myself clear to you. I'm talking about answering requests on SRCU, which is something a steward does every day. I did not blame any steward for the "harmful" "situation" you said above. I'm talking about the things you said. You said that the stewards are doing a "boycott". If this alleged accusation that you have done is true, it is not a "pt.wiki problem", since it is not the behavior of any user of pt.wiki and it does not occur on pt.wiki subdomain. We are here at a section with your name. I'm discussing about the requests on SRCU, which is something that you as a steward will attend. So, this is not a "pt.wiki problem". You still didn't answer the points 1, 2 and 3 up there. If you don't want to answer the question for any reason just say so and will not bother anymore (if I am), but, please, don't change the subject. I didn't understand why you listed wikis; since I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about your future actions as a steward using something you said about some supposed stewards actions (supposed by you).” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe you don't understand the answer because i don't separate it, let's try again with the same sentence as before and this time with separate answers:

Answer to (1): The people who told me is irrelevant to the case.

Answer to (2): If they are right is not up to me to judge, and I don't believe en.wiki, de.wiki, fr.wiki, nl.wiki, es.wiki or nl.wiki will have that kind of problem any time soon, so the choice is not in my hands.

I listed the wikis where because they are the only in the same situation (in numbers of articles and visitors) than pt.wiki. Should i only make a ratification: I forgot it.wiki in the original list.

Answer to (3): If is harmfull? The original situation is harmful enough to me, no need to blame stewards for that. Béria Lima ^msg 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Of course that the problem here is not because you didn't "separate" the answer. The problem is that you didn't answer my question. Let's then try a simple question: Why did say on pt.wiki Village Pump that the stewards are doing a "boycott" against the pt.wiki users?” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's be clear here: First you ask me about a general case similar to pt.wiki one. The answer is above. Now you are asking about the pt.wiki case itself, and for that the answer is above too: "pt.wiki problems should be discuss in pt.wiki". Béria Lima ^msg 08:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Béria, If you don't want to answer, just say "I don't want to answer", but you are still running from the question. Do I have to use bold again? Of course I'm not talking about a "pt.wiki problem". I'm talking about something you said about the requests made here on Meta that are responded by the stewards at SRCU. It is something that you will do as a steward. That is why I am talking about it.
So, you've accused the stewards on pt.wiki Village Pump, saying that they are doing a "boycott" against pt.wiki, which is very serious. If it is happening here on Meta and not in pt.wiki; if the alleged "boycott" is not being done by an user of pt.wiki, why it would be a "pt.wiki problem"? You do such a serious accusation and you don't have a diff or anything to prove it. Should I take this accusation as 'false' or you will you be able to justify it? Why did you say (diff) that the stewards are doing a "boycott" here on Meta?” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 17:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why someone say something? Beucase they want to and that is still a free "country". If you had ask for the "reasons" i said that, I've done it because all request coming for pt.wiki was (and are) quite long open without any reaction and that looks like boycott to me. Thanks for your question. Béria Lima ^msg 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That is the answer to 1. Feel free to answer 2 and 3 (or not... you decide). This is probably my last comment, so good luck.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Those answers you already have above. Thanks for your (many) questions. Béria Lima ^msg 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Beria, in november 2009, the user Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt opened this section on pt.wiki Village Pump to notify the community about a violation of the privacy policy. He said there that your access to the checkusers' mailing list was only removed after six months from the day you lost the flag of checkuser and you kept receiving private mails during this time. The case was also discused here. (1) Why did this happen? (2) Why didn't you comment on this case on that discussion?” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As you may read above (since you linked here) I was moving out from Brazil this time, and I forgot to ask my removal of the mailing list. Since I received that in a mail I don't check that often and that had a filter to ignore my imbox, I only notice that until months after and then I got to Sir ask him why I still had the acess. He removed and tell me he need to say that to the community. Béria Lima ^msg 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the point 1. You didn't answer the point 2. Is that your final answer?” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See my statement, Teles. Is twice as big as any other candidate. Why I would put more stuff there? Béria Lima ^msg 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get why you talk about your statement. I'm not talking about your statement. I didn't ask you to "put more stuff there". Please, read the question again; your answer had nothing to do with it.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you asked me why i don't put the case here. Since the only place to put something "here" is my statement, I told you why I don't put there, and repeat now: The statement was too big (the original one was twice the size the one you can see in my page), and even that you can see in my page is still too big. Béria Lima ^msg 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Beria, but I've never said that. I've never asked you to "put the case here". In which part of my message I said that? I will wait a few more time to a better answer to this question and the question above. We are really having some communication trouble here.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I could swear you did write that: "(2) Why didn't you comment on this case on that discussion?", but if you say you don't please contact a CheckUser, your account could have been compromised. Béria Lima ^msg 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, we are really having a communication trouble here and your last message proves it. Where in the phrase above I ask you to "put more stuff" on your statement (or anywhere). I didn't ask you to do anything.
I said: "The case was also discused here. (1) Why did this happen? (2) Why didn't you comment on this case on that discussion?" - "this case" reffers to the violation of the privacy policy done by you according to that discussion on pt.wiki involving the CU mailing list. When I say "that discussion", I am reffering to this discussion that I linked before and the focus of my question. So, I am asking why didn't you comment in that discussion where you were accused of violation of privacy policy? Is it clear now?” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

First I would request you to not use bold or other thinks because that is really distracted, and everybody can read the question even without it.

Now the answer to your new question: I don't write there because, as you may have read, that discussion was a request for comment about the fact, not the announcement of it. Is not up to me to comment about my own behaviour, so I let that to the community. However, when a user come ask me, I answer it in his talk page and he copy my response in the page (is in gray in the top of the page), you should read it and see that is the same I just give here. Béria Lima ^msg 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

If you are asking me to not use bold, I won't use. But I was just trying to make you undestand my question, since I was clearly not understood per your answer, saying that I said something I've never said. Now I see you understand my "new question". Thanks for responding. However, what you said above is not exactly what is written on that discussion. The focus of that discussion is that you should ask the removal of the access to the mailing list. It would avoid the privacy violation. You said here that you "forgot" to ask the removal and you said there that somebody forgot to remove your access. You should have asked that and it is very hard to believe that during six months you didn't know you was receiving all checkusers messages. There are days that the mailing list receive ten or more messages and you couldn't note that. Besides, you were accused of "violation of privacy policy". When an user is accused of such a serious issue - is expected that he worry about explaining the case. You, however, asked other user to comment for you because - as you said - not want to turn this into a "circus". Perhaps it is just my opinion.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And your question is? Béria Lima ^msg 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No question. As said above, it is just my opinion on your comment. You've answered my question and I thank you for that. Others will be able to read it and take their own decisions.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 17:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not a request for comments Teles. You should have done that in pt.wiki and didn't. Béria Lima ^msg 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what is this page for. I made a question and you answered. If it is not allowed for me to comment on your answer, I didn't know that and I am sorry. If a sysop corroborate you note, I will remove my last coment. However, I disagree with you when you say that I should have done it on pt.wiki. This question is about the 'privacy policy' and the access to the 'checkusers mailing list'. A steward must have the complete understanding of the privacy policy and have access to the CU mailing list. So, here is the perfect place to bring this issue. We have nothing to discuss about it on pt.wiki. Good luck.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You really know, Teles? Because my talk page is empty (my pt.wiki one too) and you know my IRC nick, but still chose to come here. You really want to understand the question?

Answering what you didn't question: I don't had access to one single mail (and here the bold is to really caught the attention) because: 1. I didn't know i receive thoses; and 2. When I discovered, I ask the removal and delete it all mails. I know the policy very well (as a former CU) and i would never misuse my access or the trust of the community. Thank you again for you question. Béria Lima ^msg 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You leave me a question. As I normally answer all the questions someone does to me I will answer that too. I think I do know. You are a candidate and this is the place to leave the questions to candidates. The questions must be related with the flag of 'steward'. My first question is about the requests on SRCU and something you said about it. My second question is about the privacy policy and the access to the checkusers mailing list. My third question is about the way you mistreated another user here on Meta that was contested by a steward and that is something to avoid no matter what flag you have. So, requests on SRCU, privacy policy, CU's mailing list and the treatment with other users it all involves the steward flag and you are not different from the others candidates to require that I use your talk page.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• In november 2010, you received this message from the steward Mardetanha. He reffered to this message of yours, saying that "such tone is not tolerated here". I'm not sure but I think that is why he removed your autopatroll flag, granting again minutes after "per discussion" with you. Do you disagree with the position of Mardetanha? Thanks for responding.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What position? Talk with a user if you believe something could happens or remove-restore the flag? I agree with both actions. Béria Lima ^msg 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please refrain from posting more than 2 relevant questions per candidate. Thanks. Bennylin 04:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Beria, you've been blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia (your home wiki) with an expiry time of 3 days due to "personal attacks and misconduct". Later, as mentioned above by Teles, you've received this warning from an administrator on Meta-Wiki and had your autopatrolled flag temporarily revoked. Do you think such behavior is acceptable for a candidate to steward? Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First, the same request is applicable to you too. I can read without marking them bold and everything, so no need to use those.

I was blocked there because I said, you were not doing your job as a CU in the right way, and you became offend of that, and asked my block (during my block my two bots were running - in my pc), because even the adm who made the block, trust me enough to let that happen, even he knew that I might use the bot accounts to edit. And that kind of trust should be found in a steward, yes. Know that a steward will not abuse the rights which are given by people, and that's important.

My flag here was not removed as a punishment (as you always try to look like) - but as a prevention while the steward (Mardentanha) was talking to me. If I had done something wrong I would not have the flag back, don't you think? Béria Lima ^msg 13:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not true, Beria. You haven't been blocked by "criticizing" me. That's not the way things happened. After a detailed checkuser result, you remained treating a newbie like a sockpuppet and also clearly offended me. Such behavior strongly violates en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith and en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The block request can be found here. Calling someone a "blighter" ("corrupto" [pt]), as you done, is not a criticism; it's a clear violation of "no personal attacks" policy. Furthermore, the last checkuser action performed on Meta-wiki has confirmed all previous results: unrelated.

Your autopatrolled flag, well... the administrator Mardetanha has told me that he is used to warn first and, next time, if you ofended me or someone else, you'd be blocked on sight. ;)

Thanks, anyway. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 17:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Beria, se non rappresenti unanimità neanche alla pt.wikipedia.org, perchè sei candidata a steward, un posto altissimo e troppo importante? È possibile che la tua voglia di essere eletta sia la voglia di tutta la comunità? Junius 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The steward flag is not only for a local cummunity, is for all editors in all projects. pt.wiki is only one project out there, and the consensus we are looking for here is of that global group.

One note: Please write your questions in English. Despite the fact I can understand Italian, not all people can.

Thanks for your question, Béria Lima ^msg 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do you consider that your lack of fluency in the English language could pose a problem in terms of both understanding requests made by non-Portuguese speaking users and/or making yourself understood by them? RafaAzevedo 12:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My "lack of fluency"? I'm not a native english speaker but I do not consider this is a problem to understand requests by non portuguese speakers. After all, all people in that section are brazilians, and we are talking in English. If you - a non native english speaker - can understand me, I belive my english will not be a problem to anyone. If someone do not understand Portuguese or English, I can understand Spanish, Italian and French too (but can't write in the last two). Thanks for you question. Béria Lima ^msg 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a remark, apparently, the pt wiki don't have its babel box at the same level as other wikis. For comparison, the babel box on the fr wikis have 5 levels fr:Modèle:Utilisateur en-5 and 1 natural level fr:Modèle:Utilisateur en-n. The babel on meta have 4 levels and 1 natural Template:User language. The babel on the pt wiki have 3 levels, I could not find a natural level... So I guess an en-2 on pt wiki is more like an en-3 here... esby 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Eeeh ? I thought we (frwiki) stopped at level 3 too. When did that change ? DarkoNeko 10:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Béria, your "lack of fluency". It is patent to anyone following this discussion that you are struggling both to understand and to make yourself understood by other users (namely, with Teles above - and he's also Brazilian!). I don't trust you will have an easier time with users from other linguistic backgrounds (say, for instance, a Chinese native). RafaAzevedo 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I really don't think her English is a barrier to do the steward job. I believe you all familiar with the steward request pages, where stewards mainly discuss with other people and deal various requests. I don't see they use English which is complicated to understand. She is also very active on IRC channels, where she mostly discuss in English, and people understand her statements. Besides, she understands three more languages (and can write in one), perhaps we should see this as an advantage (rather than talking about her English)? It's a multi-lingual environment, so I think it shouldn't be the right concern.

I'm not a native English speaker (I'm from South Asia) either, and if we have a problem to understand the English of a Chinese or Korean, I think, it's that Chinese's problem, because s/he failed to express what s/he thinks, but that's also not a problem actually. We have Chinese speakers too. They can help, and it's a matter of collaboration. — Tanvir • 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess, since it's just a matter of opinions, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I must confess I found the struggle to communicate appropriately with fellow Portuguese-speaking users (who could even, unlike users from other linguistic backgrounds, infer from any possible mistakes she was making what she meant) shown above a bit unsettling. RafaAzevedo 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Você acha que pedidos a stewards devem ser direcionados em inglês? Por quê? CasteloBranco^msg 20:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have some points in that question. For one side, no one should be "forced" to use other language to do a request. In other hand, if you ask something in - i don't know - French for example, the number of stewards who can answer you are not that big, and we need to think even the stewards who are able to speak in French normally will not be able to perform the action because of home wiki problem (a french speaker will probably have be a French project as home wiki). And we are talking of French here, imagine if we are talking of Russian or Portuguese? Of course that don't means that we can't help someone in his maternal language, but the request itself, I believe, should be done in English, in order to have a fast and effective answer. Béria Lima ^msg 13:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, today we have Google Translate or other similar machine translation services, which reduce this problem. mickit 13:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And unfortunately, there are some peole concerning about these questions on multilingualism that will not understand us. That's why I'm asking this in portuguese (your mother language) and in a steward election. If "the number of the stewards who can answer [in other languages than English] are not that big", the solution could be not to choose candidates that think everyone can talk in English (but not in Russian), or "the request itself, I believe, should be done in English, in order to have a fast and effective answer". We must remember (almost) all english-based projects have its own bureaucrats and checkers and will not need stewards help that often. I was wondering which Beria should we consider in this election, if that one who does a great job on Commons, or that other one who used to do some controversial things on pt.wiki. I would make other questions in order to decide this, but now I think it's not needed anymore. Sorry. CasteloBranco^msg 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• After your "demotion", you asked again for administrator rights, at a later time. As a result, your request became unsucceeded. Nowadays, it clearly seems you are not a trusted user in your homewiki anymore. Do you consider you can be trustworthy enough to become a steward? Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bhawani Gautam Rhk

• Hi Bhawani Gautam Rhk. Could you please explain how you wish to help as a steward, seeing stewards are most often involved in cross-wiki work, and you have little or no edits in non-home wikis (that is, except the Nepali or English wikis)? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Pmlineditor, when I started to work on wikis, I found Nepali wiki having only 5000 articles, this is the main reason why I contributed more on Nepali wiki.I started to work there. After becoming sysop I encouraged people and spent more time working there. Now there are more than 10000 articles within two months. I have worked on Hindi wiki also and now I have decided to spend more time in contributing on Hindi and Sanskrit Wikis. You know that Nepali, Hindi, Sanskrit are written in the same script (e.i Dewanagari) and Nepali and Hindi are main languages of Indian sub-continent( India, Nepal, Myanmar and Bhutan) and spoken by millions of peoples. hundreds of articles written or translated or edited per day on the wikis of above languages. I found most of the people do good job and a few person may be doing not good, vandalism is the problem which should be checked. I think that there should be a steward (who knows these languages natively) for checking cross wiki vandalism and granting sysop status to active user by knowing the opinion of local community, his/her contributions and ability. That's why I have nominated myself for stewards election 2011. Thanks- Bhawani Gautam Rhk 13:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But you are aware of the fact that stewards should not decide on requests concerning their home wikis? --MF-W 12:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bsadowski1

• Do you think your near constant use of IRC is will help or hinder your role as a Steward? :) Do you think your work with cross-wiki vandal fighting will hinder your ability to work as a Steward or do you feel that the Steward role will be used primarily to help your cross-wiki vandal fighting? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the many roles of a steward is to help with cross-wiki issues or abuse. The channels I am in on IRC are useful in helping with certain tasks (there is one, for example that watches small wikis). The other roles such as setting user rights (locally and globally) I can manage to do as well (to myself and others). I think it will help me, in fact. I do believe that on wiki actions are more important than basing off actions as requested on Internet Relay Chat. I will look here at Meta as often as I can for any steward/CU requests. --Bsadowski1 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if you realize this or not, but if this nomination passes you will be in a very small group of stewards who only speak one language (The others being both ex-stewards, Angela and Jimbo Wales). A large part of being a steward is being able to speak more than one language, so you are able to help out in more than the confined area of English (aided, of course, by Google translate). What would you say sets you apart from other candidates in your ability to be an effective steward while only having mastery on one language? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My efficiency and my availability. I am on for much of the afternoon and part of the night. I am not, however, available in the mornings on weekdays because of school. --Bsadowski1 08:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cekli829

• Please explain why you want to become steward. Your only right is the "sysop" on a project, so why would you actively participate on other projects, then go to this page? --minhhuy*= 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Cekli829, could you please explain, why you have been blocked on hywiki? Thank you very much, --Holder 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Holder! I was blocked because I placed flag of Azerbaijan in my page. --Cekli829 14:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  What are you gonna do about this? I am not sure if steward should be blocked on any Wikimedia project... Abronikowski 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just a word: being blocked isn't bad by itself. Being blocked for a valid malevolent action is another thing. See my block log at pl.wiki ;) Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Abronikowski! To block me by Armenian was malevolance. --Cekli829 06:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, but this block is still active. What will you do, if any steward action will be needed on this wiki (say at the moment only you will be online)?Abronikowski 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Hy.wiki has 6 users with sysop powers. I checked the first one's activity and he was active just yesterday, so there will probably be no need of a steward acting there, since stewards can act only on projects without active admins. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 13:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have blocked the account of Cekli829, not because of azerbajan flag, but because he preaching and doing anti armenian actions and I thought he can't work in armenian wikipedia with the anti armenian mood.. He has maid the antiarmenian template (in 09.03.2009) with armenian blocked flag and put in his Azərbaycanca user page. After blocking he wrote in his page AZERBAIJAN may cause you kill Armenians and put our names in list entitled: g.t (read göt) ermənilər... (you can translate). Before elections he is delete all of this.--Beko 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  Beko! This is not my spelling! Skutbot wrote it!

Beko!

Bu nədir?

What is it?

Что это такое?

Was ist das?

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

¿Qué es?

Che cosa è?

Ինչ է դա:

və bu və bu: Էջեր, որոնք հղում են դեպի Պատկեր:Flag-map of Azerbaijan.png

Siz terrorçuları dəstəkləyirsiniz! Siz separatçıları dəstəkləyirsiniz! Siz Dünyada sülhün bərqərar olmasına çox ciddi zərbə vurursunuz! HyViki-də özbaşnalığa son qoyun! Birləşmiş Millətlər Təşkilatının müvafiq normativ aktlarına zidd hərəkət etməyin! Mən - Cekli829 Separatçı Ermənistana YOX deyirəm! Siz də separatçılara YOX deyin! --Cekli829 08:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Very convenient bot for instalation anti armenian appeals, and only in your user page, and which you have not remove for more than a month.
2. Your anti armenian flag instaled in 09. 03. 2009, but this file was instaled in 18. 10. 2009, 10 months later after yours.
3. I do not understand the azerbaijani language.--Beko 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Cekli829! According to a photo on your personal page you are very young. How old are you? (stewards must be at least 18 years old) --Al Silonov 14:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Al Silonov! This photo belongs to 1990. I am 28 year old. --Cekli829 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Cekli829, What can you tell us about Requests for comment/User:Cekli829?.. Cheers, –BruTe ^talk 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, BRUTE! No problems! This was a misunderstanding. --Cekli829 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK – could you translate this page into English, so everybody will know what has happened? Abronikowski 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  There's always this Bennylin 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  No, sorry. I don‘t speak English well. --Cekli829 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation Dear Admin!. The problem is very serious: 1. On the ballot which was held at Azerbaijan Wikipedia [1] Admin. Cekli829 [2] could not gather the required number of votes. The rule is said: Status-kvonun dəyişilməsi ilə bağlı səsvermələrdə səsvermədə iştirak edənlərin ən azı 2/3-si müsbət rəy bildirməlidir (neytral səslər cəmi səsə daxildir) [3]. To change the status quo, 2 / 3 of all votes (and is considered neutral) should vote for. But on this vote is not enough: 22 votes. 22 <23.34 This means that User Cekli829 [4] does not deserve to be an administrator. 2.When from Cekli829 need to show a source, he says: I am the source itself [5] 3. During the voting offers a User to vote for another User: [6] 4. See: [7] I think all the arguments are very serious and sufficient to deprive Cekli829 status of sysop. In Azerbaijan, Wikipedia is not a steward, to it I hope for you! - Irada 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I mention this here: [8] - Irada 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Dear users! I welcomed you before, you write about me her reaction to the next file I want. I believe, will the right decision. First, notice that it, not a soul on the activities of her next file Azərbaycandilli Wikipedia şikayətim there. Whether it is the administrator, as well as user activity, such as a natural Although the mistakes, and some points on this opinion, I expressed to him personally. And from time to time, even if it itself has admitted his mistakes. I accept all this, of course. And you only have 1 request on the issue. Trust Administrator Irada khanim səsverməsinə getməyini request. How do I do it again, and I got confidence. I can not confirm it lehimə voted 22 to the user. How is it, dear bürokratımız Sortilegus Summing up the voting was approved. I have them all here yazmışdım. - Cekli829 08:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC) See also: User talk: a meta-only # Irada - Cekli829 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cekli829 said, that he don't know English well, but is it real to be stuard and don't know English? It is very difficult and unreal for a stuard.Pandukht 12:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pandukht! No problem! --Cekli829 13:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso

• In this discuss, you complained about a user having information in userspace and not moving it fast enough to mainspace. It also seemed like you wanted the pages deleted and the user banned. Do you think this unique understanding of what a Wiki is, a forceful response to another user without policy justification, and the lack of recognizing community opposition to your unique views would hinder your ability to be a Steward? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  Simple has a policy of not allowing articles to be copied over from en and just left sitting there, they are expected to be simplified as they are copied over. There was a policy justification to my comments in that discussion. Not sure where you are getting a forceful response from, what I suggest in that discussion is that the community let you know of that policy and of the policy that simple has where users banned/blocked on another wmf wiki have a one strike policy on simple. Nowhere did I suggest you should be banned. Please do not misstate what was actually said in that discussion. I would also note, that I clearly recognized the communities opposition as no actions were taken against the communities wishes. I have implemented many community decisions that I both have agreed with and not agreed with, as everyone is, I too am bound by consensus but that doesn't mean I can't speak my mind on a given topic. As such I have no such unique views as you call them, so I don't believe I have any views that would hinder my ability to be a Steward. -Djsasso 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Simple has a policy of not allowing articles to be copied over from en and just left sitting there" It was pointed out that Simple has no policy backing up anything you claim. Why do you think putting up original interpretation of how a project works when you were told very clearly by the community you were wrong in a question here would show that you can be trusted as a Steward? It would seem that an appropriate response was "I learned that what I did was wrong and I promised to abide only by community consensus". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does. Speedy deletion A3 to quote "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change.". What wasn't agreed on was if that extended to user space or not. Again please don't misstate what was in that discussion. I would also note, that at no time have I ever done anything against consensus. So I would appreciate it if you stopped implying that I have. -Djsasso 17:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out, that applies only to main space, and your mentioning of bans and other intimidatory acts were shot down by the community. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that you have a solitary view on a policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually bans were not talked about, because, as I am now repeating, I never suggested banning you in that discussion. As well at that point whether or not that policy extended to userspace had never been explored. Now that it has the community came to a decision and I have no problem with it as I follow whatever the community decides. However, your comments here have brought it to light again and talking has begun about maybe changing it as your articles have now sat there for a year unchanged or moved to main space in some cases. And in that very discussion people agreed with my view if in the end you didn't actually improve them and eventually move them to article space that it was an issue. Which you still haven't. So a few people are talking about proposing a concrete time limit to all namespaces. That being said its clear no matter what I say that you won't accept my answer so that is all I have to say on this matter. -Djsasso 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Actually bans were not talked about" You mentioned the "ban" word, prompting at least one user to say that no administrative action was needed and others on IRC to say that I couldn't be blocked or banned over it. And my articles sat there for a year because you were so poisonous I had to deal with things besides simplifying pages. Does that not bother you at all? I'm not the only one who got tired of doing hard work while there was such problems. You could have apologized, stated you were too aggressive, etc. A Steward needs to be willing to admit they were too harsh, acted too fast, acted too slow, etc. A Steward serves the people, not their own self, and must always put the rest before them. It isn't a status or a reward, but serious work with no gain. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Or that issue I brought up was indeed true and valid, that you were using simple as a sandbox to get around your ban on en with no intention of simplifying them. That you disappeared as soon as you finished your articles in complex english without even trying to simplify them. Frankly you've proved the issue I saw, and a number of people on simple now agree. I am well aware that a steward serves the people. I do not treat it as a status or reward, anyone who would put themselves through nomination for such things, and then through the often difficult work of a steward would be nuts to think its a "status symbol" or that there is "gain" to it. If anything its a sacrifice of your time for the betterment of the goals of the projects. I only put myself up because I was asked to and because I thought I could help. If the community feels I can't then I have no problem with that. -Djsasso 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"that issue I brought up was indeed true and valid" An issue you had the minority opinion with many admin disagreeing with you. Unilateralism is not appropriate for an admin or a Steward. You still think you are "correct" in pushing an idea without basis, against the community's will, and doing so to chase off people who did more work than you did. That is not healthy for any project. And for "with no intention of simplifying them", it was clear that I was working in DYK helping many people simplify pages and already simplified three of my own while working with Peter to help with his. Your own statements show an inability to adequately state the reality when it undermines your argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is just a case of a few users interpreting policies differently. Ottava, DJ listened to the community and didn't take any actions. He spoke his mind, and the community thought differently. If, after this discussion DJ had deleted the pages and blocked your account, then I think we would have a larger issue. I really think it's time we move on from this, as no breach of policy or disregard for community consensus took place.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose Djsasso. I just want him to recognize that attracting more users willing to work is the ultimate goal of the wikis and that he should prioritize that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, Djsasso. First of all, do you work well on the IRC channels? What is your nick, in which channels can you normally be found and at what hours? Will you become more active around the cross-wiki and steward related channels such as #cvn-sw^connect or #wikimedia-stewards^connect?

• If you don’t succeed this year, what will you do to try to improve yourself? Will you become more active on other projects? Will you try to run again next year?

-- Good luck in the elections, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I am on IRC often as I mention in my statement, prior to now I am usually just in the simple and en channels since that is where I am most often working. However I do occasionally drop by cvn-sw, wikimedia-stewards and wikimedia-privacy. If I were a steward I would of course be in any channels that were related to steward work more often. My nick is the same on there as on-wiki. And as for times I am usually on between 8:30am and 11pm Atlantic Standard Time, however the earlier hours in that time span are during work hours so I tend to be on and off alot. As for if I will try again, I am not sure. I am somewhat disappointed by this process as I have been getting alot of opposition for lack of x-wiki experience, when the x-wiki experience counter shows me to have fairly consistant edit numbers with most (not all) of the current candidates running. That being said edit numbers are of course not everything. I had intended to work more in the permissions area and bot req area since I am a global bot operator. As well as in Steward related CU cases since alot of my off-wiki work relates to dealing with a number of the pieces of information that are involved in such checks on a daily basis. I may end up trying to work more in the xwiki anti vandal work to improve myself if I do decide I want to try again in the future. But at this point I am not sure what the next year will hold if I am not successful. -Djsasso 12:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eptalon

• Hello Eptalon. Which are the steward areas you're most interested in helping out if elected? -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dferg. I am currently active at a small wiki, where I basically have all available rights. If I am allowed to generalize, the steward-relevant tasks I do at that wiki, to others, my "stewardship" will probably be much more about fighting (cross-wiki) vandalism, and removing libelous info, than it would be about promoting or demoting user, or changing user groups. When I decided, stewardship would be something I could try, I was also interested in helping out other small wikis; in such wikis, it does not make sense to appoint a checkuser, or a bureaucrat. I hope this answers your question. --Eptalon 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fr33kman

• Thanks for volunteering. Are there any nonstandard steward activities you expect to partake in, aside from the usual cross-wiki patrolling? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well stewards are tasked with jobs like global renaming users, manipulating pages with massive histories, deleting global accounts, adding and removing people to and from groups who aren't perhaps "normal" editors, but may need access, such as staff members of WMF etc. They also get involved in SUL attachments and detachments. So apart from my global sysop (if elected I would remain a GS, they are different roles) activities within the SWMT, I'd get involved in the bureaucratic side of global activities. Hope that answers your question. :) fr33kman 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • PS: As an aside, I probably won't get too much involved in global bots as I think that there are MUCH more qualified people than I to do so; both current stewards and one or two candidates for this time around spring to mind if they get elected. fr33kman 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have stated: "we need many more stewards than we have, I have a good amount of knowledge of what stewards do and how the tools work". Could you please list some specific areas you feel that we are lacking Stewards and how you would be able to help? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We certainly do need more stewards. For quite a varied number of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, I'd like to see more diversity with stewards being encouraged to join from all demographics and abilities. One of the things that has happened at simplewiki is that many more female editors have joined recently and it's become a bit of a changed place to work at, one I like more. As to where I think we are lacking stewards those places would be more xwiki anti-vandalism (global vandals sometimes are not shut down quick enough), bureaucratic decisions as the current lot of stewards handling those tend to be the same people a lot and in dealing with mailing list enquiries. It'd also be nice to see a few more stewaards on IRC as not all are and it can sometimes be a while before they can answer. Hope all that helps Ottava, :) fr33kman 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You won me on saying that more females create an environment that "it's become a bit of a changed place to work at, one I like more.". :D Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be able to answer your questions, fr33kman 06:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jafeluv

• In your opinion, what are the stewards' most important tasks? How do you expect to help performing them? CasteloBranco^msg 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your question. The most critical role of stewards is handling emergency situations and privacy-related issues, including oversighting private or libellous information, handling checkuser data, and countering crosswiki abuse. While I have not held checkuser or oversight rights myself, I am aware of the policies regarding the use of both tools. I have made a few checkuser^[1][2][3] and oversight requests, and have strived to read up on the policies in cases of rejected requests to better my understanding of them. I was the primary drafter of fi.wikipedia's revision deletion policy, which made me more closely aware of the limits of what material is appropriate to be oversighted and what needs to be countered by other means. Handling crosswiki vandalism and spam is something of which I already have experience,^[1][2] and having steward rights would enable me to help in this area more effectively. Jafeluv 11:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your answer. CasteloBranco^msg 19:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to have a lot of experience in cross-wiki vandal-fight. And also editing in a multilingual project. Can you point any particular situation in which the steward status would have been more useful (for the project, of course) than those you already have now? CasteloBranco^msg 19:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think I could have helped more in this sockpuppetry case if I had steward rights at the time. Nobody seemed to respond to the original report, and the first steward I contacted about it didn't respond to the queries either. When I made a request to lock some of the confirmed accounts, it was for some reason silently declined although the puppeteer was already globally locked. It wasn't until December that Trijnstel, who did an amazing amount of work in the case, got all accounts sorted out and found someone to lock the remaining ones. Having access to global lock/block tools would have enabled me to more quickly resolve the problems instead of going around asking people for help. Being able to run checkuser myself would also be helpful in similar cases where small projects are involved (although AFAIK in this occasion all the involved projects did have local checkusers). In general, though, I've noticed that stewards usually respond pretty quickly to requests where unmistakeable disruption is involved. It tends to be the not-so-clear-cut cases that remain unresolved for longer. Jafeluv 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Dankon. CasteloBranco^msg 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kameraad Pjotr

• Thank you for being a candidate in this year's elections. Could you elaborate a bit on what kind of work you plan on doing as a steward? In your statement you mention having a lack of time a number of times. Do you think that would be an issue in the future? --Erwin 11:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not have a clearly defined idea what kind of work I plan on doing; but I guess it will be more or less the same way I know decide what I'm going to work on, namely clearing backlogs.
  • The lack of time I mentioned was mostly due to the switch from high school to university and the problems with planning that were associated with it. I don't think that will become a new issue in the future. (The fact that I quit OTRS was because I wasn't really doing anything OTRS-related any more, and I preferred to simply stop OTRS.)
  • Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hi, I know it's kinda childish of me to ask you about this, but I nevertheless think there's more to it than appears. It's about my complaint about one of your actions (a deletion) as a commons admin a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to know if this is part of the way you structurally work/think/feel about our projects or just incidental. Wether you perform actions to get rid of backlogs or other task lists, or if there is a philosophy behind your actions. You deleted a picture I took of a few people around a copyrighted statue in public space. The copyrighted object was, according to you, such an important part of the composition that it violated policies. My question is: would you keep this picture or delete it, and can you explain why? Woodwalker_talk 21:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going into detail whether this image should be deleted or not, that's something for Commons. Whether I delete it or not would depend on the relevant copyright laws (U.K. and U.S.), and the interpretation of freedom of panorama, de minimis and the threshold of originality in the source country. In short, if either the law or policy clearly states that it has to be deleted, it must be deleted, no matter what my personal feelings about the image are.
  • Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reaction, but it's still unclear to me. This should indeed not be about particular cases, but imagine -in general- a case where the law or policy is multi-interpretable. How do you treat such a case and how do you arrive at your conclusions? Woodwalker_talk 15:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I interpret the law or policy in the strictest way possible. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your answer. Woodwalker_talk 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good to see you here as well, dear Pjotr! Can you PM (or tell in public...) some details about the conflict you were involved in? Alvast dank, Patio 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The editorial conflict was a dispute over the naming of the "Holy Roman Empire" in Dutch. One user preferred only to use sources in Dutch, while I used sources in other languages. The conflict was mostly over which sources were best for the Dutch wikipedia. This conflict took a great deal of time, and as I was in my first year in university and having exams, I decided to end my involvement in the Dutch wikipedia, in combination with a lack of time. Kameraad Pjotr 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Helder! Thanks. They changed luckily. A lot of sources in other languages are accepted now. Patio 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• I know it is not question that is connected with steward position, but I want to know if support practice deleting files on Commons because of the FOP limits or you think that policies should be review to allow uploading photos you can legally make, collect and distribute, but have a partial restriction of usage for some purposes. --Dezidor 00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If the law or de Wikimedia policy allow reviewing the FOP policy, I see no problem. But if it isn't allowed (e.g. introducing non-commercial restrictions or the like), then I oppose the review. Kameraad Pjotr 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Manuelt15

• ...

מתניה

• Hi Matanya, could you explain why you have the sysop flag on Hebrew Wikiquote? I'm unfortunately not aware of the project's prerequisites, but your contribution page only shows about 20 edits, some of which are apparently imported from elsewhere since they were made before you even registered the account. The flag seems to have been given for no apparent reason after you made your nomination statement here [2][3], so I'm trying to figure out what happened there. Thanks and good luck, Jafeluv 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you use vvv's sul tool it is 6 edits... Valid question and Jafeluv is not the only one interested in the answer - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The Hebrew Wikiquote was Suffering from vandals, and the local bureaucrat asked me to join and assist. since it has a low amount of changes I haven't had a real chance to help yet. מתניה 02:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayur

• Hi Mayur. Could you please explain how you wish to help as a steward, seeing stewards are most often involved in cross-wiki work, and you have little or no edits in non-home wikis (that is, except the Hindi or Sanskrit wikis)? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you forgot about Punjabi wiki, bhojpuri wiki, hindi wiktionary, hindi wikibooks, hindi wikisource and hindi wikiquote where i am also active :-).However I have made a lot of contribution to my home project but these are every kind of contribution whether it is bot, stopping vandalism, installing gadgets, making abuse filter, improving media wiki user interface and installing transliteration tool in Hindi(which is also being used by some another devnagri based projets) when every Indian project was shifted to vector theme. By my lots of contribution of different varieties i have learnt a lot about media wiki and wiki usability .Now I am able and efficient to do every kind of stuff on any wiki project and that will be useful in any cross wiki issue. I also have ability to deal every kind of vandalism specially in Indus languages which all are mainly based on devnagri script, I am well aware of many indus languages. I can read nearly all Indus languages and write many of them. I have generally identified that every Indus wiki is being vandalized a lot and their admins are not able to fight or revert them (like in case of massive vandalism by any bot account very less admins know to deal with them As it requires use of nuke and "roll back" command) Similarly there are also various concerns of such type.I have knowledge of each bureaucrat and admin tools. Apart from this i have designed many abuse filters to avoid vandalism. I am also able to run many bot stuff. I am also familier with mediawiki interface and can identify any interface related problem in indus and non indus wiki projects. Now the main concern is less contribution to other projects so i shall say that i rather choose one of the project (hindi wiki) among all indus languages to improve the project. All indus languages wiki are suffering from copyright violation and vandalism. Hindi wiki was worstly effected because it was the biggest project among indus languages and had many active users. So i devoted most of my initial time to improve that project, But from last 2-3 months i am trying to contribute other Indian projects and that will increase day by day. Most of Indus wiki have many copy right violated and vandalised material, i have good command on many indus languages so i can easily identify vandalized and copy right violated stuff and I have ability to solve any interface problem and massive vandalism that's why i nominated myself for stewardship. I can assure that if i am provided this opportunity there will be no vandalism and copy right violation activity specially in indus wikis. I said "no" because i am available every time on wiki as you can see from my contributions.However i will also try my level best to do such stuffs in non indus wikis whenever that will require. Thank you for your query.--Mayur 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hi, Mayur. Apart from maintenance, what's you main activity in the main namespace? I see that for instance you performed several thousands of minor edits on January, 9. Thank you, Nemo 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi nemo, that was for adding categories to date related article so that after categorization we may easily improve that stuff, they also have some common mistakes that’s why i had to made many edit in a single day. Apart from that i have written many featured article in Hindi Wikipedia. I was promoted to sysopship due to my good contribution in main space, at that time i had not done any technical stuff. But i was promoted to bureaucrat flag due to my technical ability and contributions, i changed the interface of Hindi wiki and resolved many script related problem. I installed many gadgets and vector theme related problems. I do every kind of good stuff that a wikipedian can do in wiki project. Thank you--Mayur 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for your answer. Why didn't you use a bot for those changes? --Nemo 11:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    • I used temporary Flood flag for these edits which again used for massive edit by admins, Thank you--Mayur 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can you explain why you have all the following flags on your home wiki: Autopatrolled; Bureaucrat; Editprotected; Eliminator; Interface_editor; Ipblock-exempt; Reviewer; Rollbacker; Sysop? Thank you, Nemo 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A little bit of confusion but i will make clear it, Actually we have many user group on hi wiki and we have translated them accordingly, like editprotected is translated to experienced users, Eliminator is for vandal controller, roll back is for roll back etc.., Now sysopship and bureaucratship is community consensus based promotion.For other we have made our wiki policies according to which we have made groups for each work, like i am an admin and crat so i have also rollback, eliminator right so thats why i was included in this group so that any user for help regarding these user group's work may also contact me or any member to this group. Autopatrolled is given to some reliable user who can be easily hide from recent changes for easily reviewing the recent changes. Interface editor is basically interface admin so if any help is required regarding interface then a user can easily contact that person, Now i am completely responsible for any interface related issue so that’s why i was assigned that flag so that any user can eaily contact any interface admin for interface related issue. Reviewer is for reviewing flagged edits for the same reason as i explained above i was assigned this user group too for more transparency. there are some more user group like importer, interwiki importer, oversighter, confirmed user these all have nothing to do with a assistance to any new user so that’s why these flags have not assigned for me and i you will check my log , i am only person which have reveiwed many times inspite of many reveiwer similar for other user groups.The think is I am very active on my home project and do every kind of operation whether it is article cration, bot activity, interface activity or any activity or assistance regarding these flags.Thank you for your queries--Mayur 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for your answer. I know what those groups mean. I would like you to elaborate a bit on this sort of "transparency" policy. In other wikis redundant rights are not assigned or are explicitly forbidden. Thank you, Nemo 11:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Thank you nemo, as i have explained in hindi wiki if you are admin then you will be also kept in group of rollbacker, reveiwer,

Interface_editor; Ipblock-exempt; etc because as an admin you already have such rights, so for a any user seeking help for these group related work will contact to members of these groups.Thank you--Mayur 13:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how you are familiar with Admin & Patroller activities? Most of your uploads doesn't have a proper licenses/source (For eg 1, 2, 3, 4) --Kiran Gopi 08:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi, kiran I am surely familiar with admin and patroller activities as it includes removing vandalism, protecting pages, managing interface problems, rollback false edits, deleting copyrighted and vandalized material etc. these all works can be checked in my admin logs. And patrolling activities is basically checking editions of others and i have also done such type of activities so that these edits can be hide from RC and we can easily monitor RC. Now the important thing that you told is licenses of upload so i would say that there are a lots of problem regarding this in in hi wiki, when i started there were very less people who know such policies. There are no of images still having no source. To resolve such problems i implemented the same set as given in English wiki for hi wiki that can be seen in my contributions of 22 jan.This is a big problem in many indo lang wikis. So i have also joined OTRS team to resolve such type of issues. Very soon i am in formation of a bot which will remove all non sources images so i am still waiting for it. As per my total upload to hi wiki can be seen here, So i don’t think that most of my uploaded images have no source information. The few images(not most as can be seen in my contribution list) you talked about are the very old uploads of mine when i just started editing on hi wiki. As i told we are in process for formation of a bot which will remove non sourced images, As soon as i form that bot we will inform all users to check their uploads and give sources information otherwise bot will delete their uploads. I think such activities may also helpful for other Indian languages too and this is a one day work then.I will give one week or some more time (as per community need) time to users to correct the sources otherwise delete these images that they uploaded, after one week my bot will delete all non liecensed images. Thank you for such important query--Mayur 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentifisto

• During last year's election, you managed to get just under 80% approval with a few concerns over maturity. What areas have you improved in to meet the concerns people had last year? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your question. I worked on addressing people's concerns by being heedful of the potential issues in my interactions (although some may just be blunders, for which I can only apologize) and always attempted to listen to feedback. -- Mentifisto 13:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PeterSymonds

• You have stated: "I can assist with the various routine steward tasks that arise, including Steward requests, and assisting with preventing cross-wiki abuse." A major function of Stewards is the use of dealing with IP related matters. What experience and background do you have regarding IPs? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I've never had access to the CheckUser tool, but am familiar with its function and use. As for rangeblocks, IP blocks, and the like, I have served as a volunteer Sockpuppet Investigations clerk on the English Wikipedia, and have made quite a few judgements on what is and is not needed. I also understand how to calculate rangeblocks, and have blocked quite a few on several wikis. Length of IP blocks, and which settings to use (eg. anon-only or not) is something I have a sound knowledge of. As for IP privacy, I am aware of the dangers of linking an IP address to any accounts, and also my role as the holder of private information with regard to the Privacy Policy. Privacy has been something I observe strongly, having come into contact with private information in the past.
  • This question is quite broad, but I think I've covered the basics of what you're asking. Let me know if you need further clarification. PeterSymonds 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pratyeka

• Pratyeka, you have not created a SUL account. Please be quickly implemented to engage candidates. Your writing ability is great. But I want you to explain more: you can often participate in the preservation? Do you have experience in cleaning up global (such as anti-vandalism, spam, sockpuppets, open proxy ...)?. Thank you --minhhuy*= 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Pratyeka has SUL - Registered: 2010-08-12T11:20:19. LeinaD (t) 13:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry --minhhuy*= 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have been an administrator of en.wiki for more than seven years, but used admin tools only eight times. Why do you want to become a steward if you seem not to be interested in administrative work? Ruslik 13:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Like all volunteers, I can only contribute within the constraints of my own circumstance, the primary constraints being time and interest mainly. Whilst there are administrators who have the time and motivation to seek out and resolve common day-to-day issues, in addition to using wikipedia I also work full time, am presently settling in a new country, writing a book, etc. and thus am not that "time rich". However, I do not see this as a problem. On the contrary, I believe that 'light touch' control is the best possible strategy for Wikipedia as a whole, and that the occasional and considered use of my administrative powers over a long term shows that I am a responsible person with an understanding of the nature of the community and the proper use of privileges granted. Pratyeka 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I would add that, as per my original statement, I foresee myself having additional time in 2011 and if elected will make a personal commitment to spend regular time volunteering. Probably this would mean, at the very least, a couple of hours per day. Pratyeka 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• You've no experience at all in any wiki except en.wiki and commons. There's only 1 edit in the japanese wiki (remove of interwiki zh:), that's all. I don't see you editing in other language wikis. So I don't understand the motivation of being a steward for helping these wikis you don't know at all. And by the way: In the smaller German wiki you wouldn't even become admin today with an edit count < 4.000 there. Did you ever get through some kind of rfa on en.wiki? Did you hold admin rights the whole time the last years or did you resign in between and got elected again? --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It is true that until present I have rarely edited other language wikis. I did make occasional anonymous changes to other language wikis prior to the multi-wiki (SUL) login system. Furthermore, whilst I am multilingual (I have learned Chinese, plus a limited amount of additional languages) this is not a stated requirement for steward status. I am not sure that 'knowing' a particular language wiki is necessarily a requirement or a benefit when looking at steward status, as I see the steward role as an impartial one that, like in law, is best carried out without prior connection to the subject that may cause a conflict of interest. "Yes", I was elected as an Administrator through the regular process at the time on English wikipedia. I have not resigned. Pratyeka 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can you please also tell me why you restored the article en:Coral Consortium without discussion and without removing the text with the obvious copyright violation? --Geitost ^diskusjon 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have specialist knowledge of the industry in which the consortium operates. Given this background, from memory the edit in question was made considering both the consortium's historical significance within the field, the lack of appropriate third party text describing the consortium, and the publicly published, self-describing nature of the text in question. I consider use of the text "fair use" and not copyright violation. It is common practice for organisations and businesses to provide self-descriptive text, for example in press releases, and for this text to be reprinted elsewhere. Furthermore, I am not certain that this is the appropriate forum for raising questions about individual past edits. Pratyeka 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your informative answers. I think there must be quite different laws in English speaking areas than in German speaking cause we haven't such thing as fair use with texts in the German wiki and would delete such things after 2 weeks without permission (OTRS), so this also probably might be a cultural problem. I'll think about it and also see what others mean. I think that especially if someone hasn't been so active that many people know him enough, one has to look at the last actions also, and that was this last admin log that I didn't understand at all. And I don't think a steward has to know all projects that a steward has to edit but a steward should also know some projects in other languages a bit and have some experience in cross-wiki actions. That's all. --Geitost ^diskusjon 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think it's a cultural problem. The content you removed here was a direct copy (adding only the word "stated") from the external source, which is (c) 2009 Coral Consortium Corp., all rights reserved. The English Wikipedia does apply fair use for text, but AFAIK that only applies to direct quotations that are marked as such. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. Jafeluv 07:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Quoting an organisation's stated purpose is not copyright infringement, but rather use of primary-source, objective information to properly illustrate its nature. Again, if anyone would like to discuss a particular edit I believe that talk pages are the correct forum. This page is supposed to be on-topic, succinct discussion. Pratyeka 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruslik0

• Каковы по вашему критерии отзыва технических прав у администратора? DonRumata 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  (Translation: What are, in your opinion, the criteria for desysoping?)

• More exact translation: In your opinion, what is the criteria for recalling and/or commenting on the technical rights of an administrator?

• Критерии сильно зависят от проекта. Что является критерием в русской Википедии может им не быть в английской. Задача стюарда состоит в том, чтобы проверить, что эти критерии были выполнены перед тем как снять (технический) флаг. Ruslik 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  (Translation: They depend heavily on a project. A criterion existing in the Russian Wikipedia may not be valid in the English one. Stewards have to check that these criteria are satisfied before removing the technical flag.)

• Могут ли заговоры и интриги быть полезны для развития проекта? Обывало 15:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (Translation: Can conspiracy and manipulation be useful in a wiki project?)

  Это, я понимаю, риторический вопрос? Ruslik 19:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (Translation: That was a rhetorical question, right?)

• Как вы относитесь к альтернативным вики-проектам на русском языке? Обывало 15:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  (Translation: What do you think about alternative Wiki-projects in the Russian language?)

  Никак не отношусь, поскольку ничего о них не знаю. Ruslik 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  (Translation: I have no opinion about these projects, because I know nothing about them.)

Note: Could you please talk in english? So we can read too? Béria Lima ^msg 18:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Meta is a multilingual project. Translations would be a nice courtesy, though (and I see they've been added above). Jafeluv 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Наиболее частым вандализмом в русском Викисловаре является использование мата вне статей о матерной лексике. Как с этим борются в смежных проектах? Следует ли предупреждать анонимов о факте вандализма перед применением блокировки? (The most frequent vandalism in the Russian Wiktionary is using a dirty words outside the articles of obscene vocabulary. How administrators are struggling against this in the other wiki projects? Do you think it is necessary to give warning before the blocking of anonymous vandals?) DonRumata 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  On en.wiki vandals (including those adding such words as "penis", "fuck" etc) are usually warned at the first offense. Then warnings are escalated—there exist five levels of warnings. After that the account (including anonymous users) may be blocked. Actually, IP addresses may be blocked only temporary as they can be reassigned to another computer after some time. IP addresses used for vandalism over a long period of time may be subject to long term blocks—up to a year. I suppose on other projects the situation is similar: anonymous users are warned for isolated cases of vandalism and blocked for persistent vandalizing, though on Russian Wiktionary anonymous users are seemed to be blocked at the first offense. Ruslik 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Since the following pages are not translated into Russian (or, no proper interwikies are set) by now:

• Arbitration
• Arbitration Policy
• Guide to arbitration

I assume that you may lack an experience in resolving the most complex or intractable disputes within the framework of the abovenamed guidelines in ru-wiki. However: shall you treat as an abuse when sysops chosen as the members of the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom)

• Create duplicate accounts for themselves to perform controversial edits aimed to, say, check the attitude of the community to the newcomers?
• Continue to perform actions of sysops in wikies where dozens of other sysops are available to perform them? Note that, at the same time, the specific actions of these arbiters may become a subject of dispute, in which ArbCom (including themselves) is the last resort.

Also: you have no user page in ru-wiki (Ruslik0 link to a non-existing page), and your contribution there counts for 12 (twelve) edits since December, 2007, and the last edit there occured more than a year ago. Do you foresee any obstacles in your future steward activities related to the Russian Wikipedia, given your experience there and the degree of awareness of the events in the life of local (ru-wiki) community?

(Изложение последнего вопроса: Не предвидите ли Вы будущих осложнений в выполнении функций стюарда в отношении ру-вики, где Ваше пребывание с 2007 года отмечено лишь 12 правками, из которых вне поля статей (Форум/Вопросы) только одна, а последняя имела место более года назад? (Translation: One last question. Do you anticipate any problems in acting as a steward for ru-wiki when you only have 12 edits over there, only one of which was for a non-article (a template, in this case), and your last edit being more than a year ago?)

Thanks in advance, — Cherurbino 11:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I actually do not understand what is the connection between the lack of a Russian translation of the English Wikipedia arbitration policy and my experience in resolving disputes. Could you clarify your question?
2. As I understand stewards do not usually resolve "the most complex or intractable disputes", and even when they do they are not bound by the English Wikipedia policies. Stewards most often act as executors of local consensus reached on a particular project. They are not global arbitrators.
3. As to socketpupets created by an administrator "to perform controversial edits", I think it is a bad idea regardless of whether this arbitrator is a member of arbcom or not. I must qualify my answer though, as I do not known all circumstances.
4. Sysops are generally not forbidden from acting as sysops when they are serving in the Arbitration Committee. In the English Wikipedia arbitrators are actually quite active administrators. Other projects may have different policies. In the German Wikipedia, as I know, sysops who are elected to the ArbCom temporaly resign. If an arbitrator is a party to a case under consideration by ArbCom, they must recuse.
5. Since my contributions number only 12 in the Russian Wikipedia, I therefore foresee no obstacles for me acting as a steward there.

Ruslik 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also interested in finding out how disputes are handled on Russian Wikipedia, since the policy has not been translated. What policy do they follow? USchick 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They follow this policy. Unfortunately I am not familiar with it. Ruslik 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (Translation: Wikipedia: Arbitration Committee / Principles of Arbitration)

1. Вы написали, что Ваш родной язык русский, однако Ваш вклад в русску Википедию очень беден - 12 правок. Почему так? --A1 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (Translation: You said that Russian is your native language, but you really haven't contributed much to the Russian Wikipedia. Why is that?)

   Потому, что мне было всегда более интересно писать статьи по английски. Ruslik 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (Translation: Because I was always more interested in writing articles in English.)

Вы написали, что у вас большой вклад в Викитеку. В каком языковом домене? Число правок в английской и русской у вас очень незначительно, см. s:en:Special:Contributions/Ruslik0 и s:ru:Special:Contributions/Ruslik0. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 07:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (Translation: You said that you have contributed a lot to Wikisource. What language was that in? I only see a few edits in the English and Russian language versions.)

Это ошибка. Я имел в виду Викисклад (Commons). Ruslik 18:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (Translation: That was a mistake. I meant Commons.)

Swatjester

• Hi SWAT Jester, in you opening statement you mentioned language courses that you plan on taking, care to elaborate. You were also a legal intern, and I assume you have a legal background or qualification, would you care to divulge some info that might be helpful. Thanks and Good Luck. Theo10011 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not much to elaborate on, at this point. I am going to be moving overseas for work, but I don't know precisely where yet, which will determine what language. I should know by June. Yes, I was a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation during the early days of Mike Godwin's tenure. I'm an IP attorney, which I guess might help with some cross-wiki copyright infringement issues, but probably is not very relevant as a steward. It does give me a bit of a background though. One of my areas of contribution is on OTRS, where I'm one of a very few people who handle tickets to the legal queue -- because of this I've had a fair bit of experience with investigating small-wiki vandalism (which often coincides with angry legal emails). This experience I think will be very valuable as a steward when knowing what to look for. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have only English as a language, yet most English projects are large enough not to warrant much Steward based action. Do you feel that this limitation could affect your ability to serve as a Steward? You have provided very little in what Steward areas you would work on (lots on experience, though), could you elaborate on this with regard to the first question? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it limits me much at all. For the limited purpose of steward actions, knowing only English (which as I've stated, is a temporary thing for the next few months until language school starts) is sufficient to express what I need to say -- someone on the local project will also understand English and be able to understand me. As well, I'm much better at reading other languages than I am writing/speaking them. As for what Steward areas -- all of them. I wouldn't want to restrict one area over another before actually getting into the work and seeing what it's like. And even then, I'd want to be available for whatever comes up at the time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that you used your staff account to lock a user citing crosswiki abuse. While locking is an extreme measure we use against vandals and crosswiki spammers, it is not a usual practice for a Staff member to do so. Staff members usually ask a Steward to handle it if such an action is deemed necessary, and a Steward usually verifies the contributions of the user to take appropriate action. After reviewing the contribution of the user that was locked by you, it appears that he did try to act as if he is an authority in two wikimedia projects (enwiki and tenwiki) and both projects have local admins to handle it. Would you please explain the reason behind your decision to use your staff account to lock the account yourself, rather than following the usual practice? What was your justification in deciding that the account should be locked, rather than warning and blocking the user locally? --Jyothis 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The particular lock came at the request and authorization of another staff member, hence why it was on my staff account. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain further. Also, please try to answer the second question as well. Thanks --Jyothis 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think my answer explains pretty well, another staff member requested that the user account be locked due to the cross-wiki impersonation that you noted above, and I was working for the WMF at that time, and was slightly less busy than everyone else at the time and did the lock. That answers both of your questions. but let me clarify. Ten.wiki is not a normal wiki, and the block was not a normal block. The user was impersonating administrators on multiple wikis, including making edits implying authority on ten.wiki. (For those of you who are unaware, ten.wiki is the wiki set up for the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration.) Several staff members were concerned about this particular user potentially disrupting the tenth anniversary process so we blocked him, and it would have been inappropriate not to lock the account immediately as well due to the ongoing cross-wiki vandalism. All of the staff, including myself, were quite busy at the time, and we didn't have time to wait around for a steward to do the procedure for us. We were busy running a fundraiser, and a 10th anniversary celebration, and all the other aspects of daily life at WMF. But let me reiterate -- this was a staff action, on my staff account. That is an entirely different scenario than a volunteer steward action, on my volunteer account. But thank you for highlighting exactly why I keep separate accounts. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dan, thanks for all of your work for the projects, including on the last fundraiser. I take Jyothis's question is about Karan.102, and that you were worried about the user's brief insertion of himself into a list of inactive admins, and his posting of a Bhopal wiki-ten event offering "A presentation by... Karan Gupta, one of the youngest Wikipedia administrators." A block on ten.wiki is understandable.

I'm concerned that the office asked for the account to be locked. That's not normally something the office should do, even in cases of obvious crosswiki vandalism - this is what our cross-wiki vandalism patrollers are for, and they are usually available on short notice around the clock. Locking of accounts that are not obviously vandalism-only should be done very rarely, with care and discussion. (We might make this clearer on the page about global locks, so it doesn't become standard practice.) In this case, Karan wasn't a very active editor, so there was no emergency, and as far as I can see, while he was blocked locally on ten:wp, he caused only minor trouble on en:wp, his homewiki (the messages he received there last month were chiding but friendly). I'm not sure that a steward, on review, would have found reason to lock the account. I see that a local admin on tenwiki was involved in the discussion there. Was a local admin on his homewiki asked to review the situation? Why was no mention of the lock left on his userpage or talk there? –SJ · talk | translate 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sj. I'll answer the questions as I can see them, and if I've missed something please let me know and I'll follow up. 1) Why the office was involved -- In fact, I'm going to dispute you that it is not normally something the office should do. tenwiki is not a normal wiki. It is a specific purpose wiki, similar to the way that wmfwiki, outreach, etc. is a specific purpose wiki. This wiki more than others was much more likely to involve things like names, addresses, and other information due to the nature of what happened there -- setting up WikiX parties. A person pretending to be an admin on tenwiki could easily "social engineer" personal information under the guise of WikiX. That is not a situation I would want to have happen. Now, a local block solves the problem on en.wp. And it solves it on tenwiki. But this is a vandal only account. Are we going to local block him on every single one of hundreds of projects in hundreds of languages that he pops up on? That's ridiculous. A global lock is the only way to prevent him from doing this cross-wiki, which he's already shown that he is more than willing to do. It would have been irresponsible not to globally lock him. 2) Local admins review- On my volunteer account, I am an admin on both local wikis. Again, I could have sought a SECOND review, but with what time? Plus as you noted, on tenwiki there was a review. 3) Not sure where you get he wasn't notified -- he was notified on his tenwiki user page, where he was recently active. 4) Emergency -- as I note above, there were circumstances which justified an immediate lock. So you and I must disagree that there was an emergency, because I think there was. 5) You say " Locking of accounts that are not obviously vandalism-only should be done very rarely, with care and discussion." This is irrelevant. This was a vandalism-only account. -- I hope this covers everything raised. If I missed anything, or left off part of a sentence incomplete, please point it out for me and I'll followup. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender}

Thanks for addressing those questions. For notification, I meant on his home wiki (en:wp). I believe locking is used less widely than you surmise - most such trolling accounts are simply blocked locally on wikis where they are active. (And I sympathize with your view on office actions; moving that discussion to the relevant talk page.) –SJ · talk | translate 11:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I'd like to interject quickly here... that particular day, I was buried under other things, so I didn't hear this conversation but I've done some checking. There are a couple of different accounts of exactly what happened there, but it seems to me that a block was authorized by Steven Walling, who intended for it to be a local block. One way or another, it got interpreted as a global lock, and got executed that way. That's not something that we specifically requested at the office. I think it's likely that in the heat of an incredibly busy day, communications broke down, and that's a shame. I take responsibility for the actions of my staff, and since I'm the person who requests the staff rights that were used here, I thought I'd make a couple of points.

First, when we give staff rights, I'm pretty clear that checkuser and oversight are to be used in exceptional circumstances, and only by personnel authorized to use them. I've never included global lock in that list, because (frankly) I forgot it was part of the package. I've never used it, to the best of my recollection. Dan would likely not have known that it's the type of thing that we wouldn't tend to do internally, because I never told him. I'm going to fix that in the future, when we assign staff rights.

Second, we're investigating ways to make sure this won't reoccur, mostly by developing a proposal to separate out the staff rights into "families" of rights that might be commonly needed by tech staff, community staff, etc.

In short, the fundraiser was crazy and chaotic, and we made a lot of judgment calls in any given day. This particular one isn't one that I would have made, but the fault in not giving Dan the full information about the proper use of the rights is mine. If I had done that, whether or not the global lock was requested, he would likely not have used the global lock tool here. Philippe (WMF) 01:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Philippe. --Jyothis 02:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that Philippe's description is as I recall it. I also wanted to point out that there are other relevant diffs (forgive me if they were posted above and I didn't see them) where community members were troubled by this user, such as on the mailing lists and en. Philippe is also correct in pointing out that global locks made by staff are not a standard or ongoing practice. Steven Walling at work 04:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WizardOfOz

• Hi WizardOfOz. Could you please explain why you were blocked in hrwiki? Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure! If you have the time, the whole answer can be finded here. In short: the user Kubura which is a sysop on hrwiki, has blocked me for infinite for my action on meta, which had nothing to do with the Wikipedia on croatian. After the request for comment, which can be seen in the link above, Kubura was desysoped from a steward. After some discussions on hr.wiki trough the community, he became his flag from a local crat back. I´ve closed this RfC after that action. After some days, I´ve been unblocked by Vodomar on hrwiki to have a chance to contact Kubura and to solve the whole case. But, Ex13, which is also a sysop there, blocked me for two years with the explanation that I´ve had my chance on meta. If you need some additional informations, just feel fre to ask. THX --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hello WizardOfOz, could you tell something about the original cause of that block ("which had nothing to do with the Wikipedia on croatian")? - Lolsimon 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure! I´ve removed a trolling comment of Kubura where he is talking about users edits and patroling issue of hrwiki on a request for global rollback. He didn´t get it that this is not a voting, and started with trolling even as he was warned by another user here and here. I explained him the whole process here again. But he didn´t stop with his trolling and editcountitis. So i removed the garbage, and have been blocked on hr wiki short after that. If you read the RfC which is linked above, you will also see his words on IRC where he confirms that he blocked me for my action on meta. As i don´t want to transfer the whole RfC here, please read it there. A part is hidden (because of the lenght) so you can open the edit window to see the whole case. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Dear WizardOfOz, I just have read answers to the question of Lolsimon. and I must say that do not understand why you are calling there in your answer the statements of other users "garbage" and "trolling" ? I checked the difflinks.But there I could not find any garbage and no trolling. It this the way that you call people who think different than you? --Modzzak 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. No it is not the way I call a user (or his edits) who take part in a constructive discussion, but a way i call a user who didn´t stop posting offtopic material, even as he was warned by two other users (one of them also a sysop). This was a discussion about global rights, and the user who requested them was more than "quite active" globaly. If you take a look at Dalibors crosswiki edits, you will see what I mean. At this moment, Kubura didn´t even have a right to take a part in the discussion, because he didn´t had a unified account (which he still not have) and also no connection between the account here on meta and on hrwiki (just after that discussion and as I warned him that another sysop will block him he addded a link on his page). At the moment he post his "comments", I was on IRC (this page is monitored on #wikimedia-stewards) and there was a short discussion to block him for trolling by another sysop (and please don´t ask me who was the other, than i don´t know it anymore after a year, but perhaps this sysop is watching this page and can add his two cents), so my reaction was the better way in my eyes. And per definition (first sentence), those edits by Kubura were trolling. So I´m free to call such behavior trolling, and edits of a user with such behavior as garbage. Thanks for your question. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I have nothing to do with that, and I do not saw the whole case. But that is inapropriate for sure: "Users shold now how they (on de.wiki) treat the opponents and opposer's arguments. Behaviour in style: "block the opponent, and then it'll my way". Anybody interested can see that. That way all other opponents are intimidated. True is that that group of usurpators cannot push their personal attitudes on other wiki. projects, because they're beaten with arguments. Arguments that they blatantly ignore on de.wiki". If is "trolling" or "garbage" is up to you to decide, but that should not be on wiki, because that is ofensive for all de.wiki users. Béria Lima ^msg 20:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Why have you rudely interfered in the election process above? Why no simple notification instead of labeling? What gives you the right to label others? If you had opposite views, why you labeled that user? Why you took him the right to clarify his point? You told that tht user is a troll buthere in the section you removed [4] he warned that you posted offtopic komments. AContributor 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Hallo AContributor, nice to see you posting twice after 5 years. Read my answer above and you will see that he´s been warned twice. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
          • But that still does not give you the rght to label users. If the stand of tht user was contrary to yours, that is not an excuse to label others. Not then, not now. AContributor 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes it does. I´m not labeling but I told just a fact. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• How can we be sure that you will not abuse your tools since you are in the conflict with the users from the that project? Questionnaire1555 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I´m not in conflict with "the users" and even not with "a single user" from this project :D. If you belive or not, some of my best wikiwide friends are from this project and I´ve met some of them already in RL. All of them are, or have been sysops there. And the fact is that as a steward, I shouldn´t act on project where I´m active. 700 edits on hrwiki shows that I am/have been active there, and in that case can´t act as a steward on that project. The third reason is, that I don´t even have in mind to abuse anything or any tool I´m working with :D. Thank you for your question. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You are not in the konflict wht the users from wikipdia in Croatian? This blog looks bad. You scare me. Why do you attack that project? Why are you against their chapter? Do they need to build a kind of en:Chrysler Building to satisfy your expectations? Why do you attack the user that has no global account? It is optional. Why do you attack that project at all? The post above on your blog looks kind of as you have something against Israel. It scares me. Truly scares me. Are the attacks on Wikipedia in Croatian and the taking the stewards' position the jumpboard for something else? We do not need Arab-Israeli war on Meta. We need balanced user for steward, not the steward that is going to wage his wars using his tools. AContributor 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I´m not attackng the project, just telling the truth. And there are just facts I also posted here on meta in the RfC. It is nice that you are scared, but you dont need to be scared :D The text about Al-Khalil is a quote from this book. Those words are writen there so feel free to attack the author :D. And I´m not sure that Konzelmann is going to make any kind of war here on meta. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• You gave a user a 3 month block for opposing an admin. You then labeled his being upset over massive ip range blocks as trolling. Why is it that you feel that a unilateral block of excessive time for something that is quite appropriate is acceptable when you are a well-known IRC associate and friend to the person being opposed? How can you be trusted in any capacity as a steward when you use administrative rights in startling and inappropriate ways? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For first, i din´t block him for opposing, but for personal attack. I asked him to provide diffs for such behavior so i could also change my vote in that case. Blocking of an IP range, is not a "abuse of administrative power or a cross wiki stalking" as he had talk about and still claimed in his answer. If this is a abuse, we should desysop all of the sysops trough the projects for abusing tools. Stalking others is a bad issue, but calling someone stalker without any evidence is against the 4th pillar of the Wikipedia and not assuming of good faith. And if your definition of friendship is "hanging around on same channels on IRC without any interaction between each other", i will say yes, I am a friend of MoiraMoira. Otherway, I call it hanging around on same channels on IRC without any interaction between each other and not friendship. --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Claiming that is a personal attack is irresponsible and inappropriate. That is -your- opinion, which is biased. He provided strong evidence and you didn't like it. 3 months is extremely excessive. Your trying to say that it is common for admin to make such a block without evidence, based on your standard, would deserve a 3 month block. Your response above is more "trolling" than his concerns. There are major problems on nl and instead of recognizing it, you further them. tha isn't appropriate conduct for an admin or a steward. And I am many others in the Steward channel are witness to you doing more than just "hanging out" with Moira on IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • For first he is blocked for his behavior here on meta and not on nlwiki. He has the possibility to request a unblock and we can let another sysop decide. And as a witness, I would like you to provide a log of any conversation between me and and Moira! Also it will be nice if you could provide the usenames of those "other", so we can ask them what have I "done" with Moira? You have my permission to show those logs, and I´m sure that Moira will have nothing against. If not, you shold use another words because it is a clear defamation. If so, I would like to see you apologize as this is for sure not a behavior I will accept towards me! --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • PS: I´ve just asked Moira to confirm that she have nothing against publishing those logs. --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • "For first he is blocked for his behavior here on meta and not on nlwiki" Even Herbythyme has recognized there are some problems. Is your intention to defend an undefendable block as long as you can? Is that appropriate behavior for a person who wants to be Steward? The only one who needs to apologize here is you for making blocks that aren't appropriate. Blocks -do- cause harm. Blocking to stifle a person you disagree with causes a lot of harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • As a side note, you quickness to label people "troll" and say they are "defaming" when it clearly isn't the case promotes an atmosphere of hostility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • And lets be honest here - if your block was in defense of a friend, then that would at least be -excusable- as it would be a slip of judgment to protect someone. If you want to say that you did it because you believe it was right and necessary, that is rather scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record - I am occasionally in the steward channel when I need help from a steward for a cross wiki vandal or something of the kind like a lock or a checkuser or conferring with colleagues about problems spanning more wikiversions. I do not know WizardOfOz well, just know he is a helpful person always and he is a sysop on meta like I am one on nl-wiki and global so that is all. I am very happy with his attitude and work always. My conversations in the steward channel are factual (with the occasional joke or nice comment) and I do not recall any conversation off topic or weird with Wizard OfOz at all except for friendly exchanges in a group. This sounds so utterly wrong what this Ottava Rima is writing. MoiraMoira 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Moira, just 2 days ago you were on the same side of WizardOfOz in a discussion with me in the #wikimedia-stewards channel and were basically answering each others sentences. That isn't just "normal" or "commonplace". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no attentions to defend enything I have done, because I am always standing behind the things I do. My explanation about block is above. Once more: he can request a unblock, and another sysop can (perhaps Herby?) decide what to do. This what you have done above is defamation (and yes, I have no problem to call the things they are). Once more: wold you please provide the nicks of "other" wittneses and a log of the conversation? Or are you just looking for something to badge me because I told you to to calm down two days before (conversation of a huor or so in query)? As i can remember, you have said something like "they have no balls to handle", but realy... do you have some to povide evidence and the names of your wittneses? Beneth, you are writing about a conversation with you, and not with Moira, and my try to stop your flooding of channel. But feel fre to post all logs so other can judge. And to your addition: I did it because I belive it was right and necessary. So plese if you could provide the evidence now? Thanks in advance! --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, instead of saying that maybe 3 months was excessive you merely say someone can unblock him? If you were to accidentally demolish someone's home would you say that it is okay because someone else could build a new one? And WizardOfOz, my statements were based on seeing you two in the chat and typing around the same time. I am friends with half of that channel, and I am sure that if someone saw J.delanoy, Jyothis, Mard, PeterSymonds, Juliancolton, etc. block someone for opposing me then they would be questioned about their motives. It is not too big of a leap to assume that someone who wants to be a Steward, who has stayed in the room for over a year, and talks at the same time as Moira would be their friend. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So let us post our last conversation here, do i have your permission? --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already said the same stuff publicly. I am waiting for you to fix your mistaken block. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Think you will wait long, as I am not going to fix anything and will end the feeding of the troll here. Best regards. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So Herbythyme is a troll for saying your block should be ended? "I am inclined to agree with him. I actually thought Guido's unblock request (which he withdrew) was quite sensible in which he apologised for his behaviour. I would not be against unblocking at this stage". Why is it everyone you disagree with is a "troll"? Why do you think labelling people in negative ways is an appropriate substitute for discussion or dealing with other people's concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why? Wht is the problem if someone disagrees with you? Why always labeling? Does every opponent risks being labeled "troll" if has different opinion than your opinion? What is so bad if there is a different opinion? AContributor 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As to the objections of Ottava Rima, see Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. This user is highly disruptive, and argues tendentiously, long after any sensible fact might justify. If anyone here is inclined to believe Ottava, I urge very careful checking, he sometimes has something verifiable, where he bothers to provide evidence at all, but it's been cherry-picked and other facts completely contradict his assertions. For examples, see the RfC. Ottava has political motives for supporting Guido den Broeder, per recent activity on Wikiversity. As to the "mistaken block," I originally thought that the length might be excessive, but, then again, maybe not. Maybe it was just right. The biggest problem was that nobody attended to Guido den Broeder's unblock request, when it was active. See Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Guido_den_Broeder. This usage of an election to attempt to coerce an action is typical for Ottava.

I do not know the work of WizardOfOz and have no opinion on the election. Because I've personally concluded that Ottava is, indeed, trolling, about as seriously as I've ever seen, I certainly won't hold the usage of that term against WizardOfOz. Sometimes it's necessary to be frank; the real issue is respect for consensus and understanding when to recuse and/or consult. --Abd

• Okay, WizardOfOz, question. What do you think of proposed recusal policy on Wikiversity, as to general principles? --Abd 03:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For the first, I´m sorry that I´m not so familiar with wikiversity. It is on community to decide if they want to implement a recusal, but in my opinion, it is enough if a sysop (comparing custodian) take care not to be involved in such practice or wheel-warring. As I have make a request for comment about Kubura, I´ve asked a crat to remove my sysop flag due this request. Just as preventive, not to handle as a sysop who have a COI. I think, that every sysop should be a example in the community, but sometimes it is hard to do it that way. Concensus is for me the highest principle wikiwide. But there, where a concensus is not possible without personal wars, there should be a instance who can decide (perhaps fundation or ombudsman even if they don´t realy act that way), or a kind of global arbcom as it been proposed here on meta. Even if there was a action of an steward trough the request I maded, I still think that this shouldn`t be done by a steward, but from another instance elected for such things. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Dear Wizzard od OZ. I have another and for me very important question to you: Do you have anything to do with this "Wizzard of OZ" on this blog? http://wizardofoz-wikipedia.blogspot.com/

--Modzzak 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes it is my blog. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Hi. A user by the name of iDangerMouse has the Wikipedia cloak "WizardOfOz" on the IRC. Are you iDangerMouse? Sven Manguard 02:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No my cloak is Seha. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• WizardOfOz shows his attitude towards hr wiki writing that hr wiki have state insignia on front page, which is simply not the truth. State insignia are flag and coat of arms, and neither is on hr wiki front page. On hr wiki front page are two connected red boxes in gray circle, which distantly resemble part of official coat of arms which have 5x5 red and white boxes (checkers) and other elements, but to call this graphic element of design of hr wiki front page either nationalistic or state insignia, you really must have some deep issues either with project or state insignia in question. SpeedyGonsales 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Is this a question? If those are not state insignia, would you explain the objections raised here? And those are examples: [5], [6], [7], [8].

  kroz povijest šahovnica je bila dio hrvatskog identiteta, u današnjem globaliziranom svijetu 21. stoljeća u svijetu su crveno-bijele kockice na dresu hrvatske reprezentacije (nogometne, rukometne ili bilo koje druge) poznate svugdje, od Japana i Filipina preko Srbije i Španjolske do Nikaragve i Guatemale. Ako nekome nije jasno zašto, odgovor je zapravo očit: pola reprezentacija svijeta ima jednobojne dresove, druga polovica dvobojne; jedino reprezentacija Hrvatske ima kockice na dresu, od kakvih 180 država na planeti Zemlji. Isti uzorak često se rabi svugdje gdje ima govornika hrvatskog jezika (BiH, Kanada, SAD, Australija), opet na dresovima hrvatskih športskih klubova ili kulturnih udruga. Crveno-bijele kockice su dio hrvatske kulture na isti način kao i hrvatski jezik, na isti način kao što je i Wikipedija na hrvatskom jeziku doprinos očuvanju te iste kulture. Na ovu wikipediju je dobrodošao svatko, ali slažem se s Uskboyem: kome smeta pleter, kockice ili naša zastava ne mora ni dolazit na hr.wiki. SpeedyGonsales 11:32, 28. veljače 2010. (CET)

• Your words. And now those boxes are nothing? --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  PS: Just the translation of your last sentence: If someone is disturbed by the croatian wattle, boxes or our flag, he don´t need to come on hrwiki. --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• You said that on hr.wiki main page are state insignia. Also, you mentioned someting about nationalism on hr.wiki. But everyone knows how croatian state insignia looks like. What is your position about your home wiki main page? Is it nationalistic? In the heder you could find BH CoA, Islam..., and in the footer you could find BH topics, etc. I didnt find anything similar on hr main page--Ex13 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes I said, and that is a fact even if changed, it is there. The CoA of BH you are talking about, is in the part about the portals, the same is with the portal Islam, IT, Sport, Biology, Biographies and so on. Those which are listed there, are the one with the most qualitative content. If you are climing that there should be any connection with the politics of the Wikipedia on bosnian, you are wrong. The fact is that i have invite an user from hrwiki to improve the article about christianity on bswiki (you can ask Fraxinus if this is true). And he have done it, and i thanks him for that (because it was a shame to have such poor article). The same was asked about the portal and other articles about the same topic, but unfortunaly he doesn´t have time to improve others. This topic is poore on bswiki, and i know it, that is why i asked someone who is actualy writing those articles on hrwiki. This is something i also discussed with other users from hrwiki. The same is with the portal Croatia. But to come back to the topic you raised: No i dont think that bswiki is "nationalistic". We dont block a user for inappropriate name if he have a geographic definition in his name, or this one, another one, or if they claim their nationality, or this one, and this is just a part one sysop done. All those names will be alowed on other wikis. It is a wonder that user MacedonianBoy, who is a sysop on mkwiki, is not blocked for his name like the last example. And this is leading me to say yes, not hrwiki but the "leadership" is nationalistic, and there is too much politic in hrwiki discussions and decicions. The best part is that i have been attacked by Speedy for actions of another sysop on bswiki and untill today, noone has try to contact him and to talk with him. --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, on hr wiki nicknames which use national designations as part of name are routinely blocked. If you are aware of dissolution of SFRJ and of national tensions which are still alive and present in hearts and minds of many users, you can call our policy nationalistic only if you do not assume good faith or maybe have some other issue with grasping which problems could arise if nicknames as Serbian Kosovo & Albanian Kosovo appear and start editing articles like Kosovo & Srbija. Just to mention, de wiki has similar policy - Politisch konnotierte Namen, insbesondere aus dem NS-Umfeld. WizardOfOz should mention his objections to policy on appropriate project, when his block expires. To object here, on project called meta on his questions page in candidacy for steward, I find that both distasteful and abusive.
• Secondly, if bs wiki have portal BiH on front page, then BiH CoA is normal to be present, and as hr wiki does not have portal Croatia on front page it is nationalistic if it has graphical symbol of two red squares on front page. I thought of putting here screenshots, but I rest my case as I do not intend to argue with such hypocrisy.
• Third, noone has try to contact him and to talk with him. I did, although not on Wikipedia page, but through private email. SpeedyGonsales 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

wpedzich

• What happened that caused you to resign? Tornado1555 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say it was an overload of in-wiki functions as well as real-life changes: this diff tells the story from the April 2009 point of view and in retrospect it holds true; I was not able to cope with that much for that moment. It's highly possible I would react otherwise when confronted with the situation once again, but in April 2009 I felt it was (unfortunately?) the only way. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I cannot vote as I only recently joined and have made about only 7 edits or so, but I would support you if I could. I wish you good luck! Tornado1555 21:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Stewards perform their services to the whole community, so apart from the votes themselves, every bit of moral support is certainly appreciated. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Hello there, If you think it too personal, you are welcome to leave it, but when you say you can spare time more than in these days, does it mean partly your baby has grown up enough and not to cry out (or at least less times) to get his dad back? :) --Aphaia 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Partially. The baby doesn't seem like a baby anymore, has more hair than Dad does, goes to kindergarten and generally enjoys life on a much different (and more independent) level. Another part could be that 2 years ago I was suffering from the "growing pains" of growing into a completely new working environment, working in a previously completely unknown profession, and since then the situation has also much improved. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 13:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
          • This question really made me wince. I want our community to be the kind of place where people facing all kinds of constraints on their activity are supported and encouraged to contribute however they can. It pains me that Wpedzich had to reassure us his kid won't stand in the way of him being an effective steward. So instead I'd like to ask this question: how do you think the challenges of the past few years have made you wiser, and what kind of positive effect do you expect (or hope) them to have on your stewardship, if appointed? --Ori.livneh 16:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (I am going to cut down on the indent, care for the people who do not use extra wide screens...) I hope the events of the past few years showed me some way to avoid burnout. You cannot be at all the possible places where people wish you to be, you cannot react in the middle of the night (or sit and wonder afterwards if you as a Wikimedian could have prevented an editwar / a vandal / some other havoc from happening). It's taught me balance, I think, showed that saying "sorry, I can't make it this time" is not a completely bad thing. I like being useful to some purpose (if not noble, then at least positive) and I will try to be around when I am needed, but I hope the community will also understand cases when I am actually not a jack-in-the-box popping up to repair some damage. We all have real lives, maybe except bots, so I hope the extensive classes of balance and avoiding burnout will be helpful. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 11:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Could you post some quick experience statistics in bold, showing: How long it was since you joined, how many edits you have made, and how many articles you have written? Tornado1555 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My main project was and still is pl.wikipedia, where I have made some 24000 34000+ edits since late 2006, making me the 130th most active user, bots included, as of Oct. 2010 (78th most active human editor). I am mostly a translator; my new article count can be not-so-impressive (45), but I've improved articles using my translation skills (I have graduated English philology) and spent tireless hours patrolling recent changes. On the community level, I was one of the people responsible for the creation of pl.wiki's ArbCom and served a term of a year on the Commitee. I have been present on Meta, doing translation work on fundraisers, Board of Trustees elections, and such. I am immune to editcountitis, so the figures can be rough approximations. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 22:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

    For everybody: use this syntax to obtain SUL statistics for any user you like. Cherurbino 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)