Stewards/Confirm/2024/Sakretsu: Difference between revisions

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

• Keep Keep --Stïnger (会話) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply ]
• Keep Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep EPIC (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Thank you. --Titore (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Torsolo (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - just wait til you're looking back at your original election page and see it was ten years ago... :S – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Atlante (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Sakretsu, your actions and communications around the Gitz6666 case (where, following a dispute on your home wiki, you globally locked an editor including on other projects where they had been very active, with a rationale that many have questioned) were highly problematic. Back then I explained in detail why I considered your answer to a question about the lock's rationale to be very weird coming from a steward in your situation, and how your action raised some serious questions with regard to Stewards policy#Avoid conflicts of interest, Stewards policy#Check local policies and en:Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards. I never got a response from you, nor am I aware of other subsequent statements by you addressing these points (feel free to let me know in case I overlooked them). - I do want to acknowledge that your highly problematic action was reverted on appeal (after it drew the attention of other stewards), and that you announced this reversal yourself. However, I didn't see any apology or other statements by you suitable for assuring the English Wikipedia community and other non-itwiki projects that similar transgressions on your part won't happen again in the future. It also feels quite disingenuous that you leave out this high-profile incident (which received media attention and lots of community discussion) from your wordy reflections about the past year etc. in your confirmation statement above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I never hesitated to further explain my rationale to fellow stewards and other functionaries that had signed the confidentiality agreement - to the best of my knowledge, my actions around this case were not deemed abusive. An appeal was accepted a month later, and that was the end of it. It's true that itwiki is my homewiki, but that doesn't necessarily mean I had a conflict of interest in this particular situation. I wasn't involved in any editorial dispute on itwiki. I didn't override any local consensus. In fact, the itwiki community can revert/contest any actions I do whenever they want. Just like the global community, global functionaries in particular, can do the same with the actions I do as a steward. I'm well aware that I'm not a superuser. But of course, no problem for me if anyone decides to oppose my confirmation for any reason. Sakretsu (炸裂) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎ ^{(You talkin' to me?)} 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 21:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Sakretsu was right about Gitz. As we say in Italy, time is a gentleman. --Pequod76 ^{(talk )} 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Friniate (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Stewards can do great work, but they need to be able to know when to step back on activities that involve their home wikis in their capacities as Steward. To this day, I have not seen a satisfactory explanation of the way the Gitz case was handled, nor have I seen satisfactory apologies made about it. It was a bad global lock that was overturned, and it essentially kept one of the communities on which Gitz was quite active (the English Wikipedia) completely blindsided. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Grazie. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Tmv (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep, without any comments on whether the reason to lock was valid or not, I agree with Red-tailed hawk that they shouldn't have acted in the first place because of home-wiki rule, but not a significant reason to not keep (atleast for me), they have done good work otherwise. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)and[reply ]
• Remove Remove Loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN 466 22:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Great steward. I agree with CptViraj's comment. --valcio ••• 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -- Spinoziano (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Java Hurricane 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --.av gas 11:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove — per User:HaeB —— SerialNumber 54129 18:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Lollo98 Text me 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per Haeb and Hawk. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment Comment I'd like to know how Sakretsu interprets "home wiki" in the Stewards policy. Is itwiki one of them? Above I read "It's true that itwiki is my homewiki", but the stated reason for using steward buttons to intervene on an itwiki matter does not seem to be one of those allowed by the policy ("clear-cut cases (such as self-requested removal) or emergencies"). Nemo 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  +1. Andreas JN 466 07:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The policy speaks about "actions taken on the home-wiki". But no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu, Gitz was blocked before and has remained blocked after. You could talk about the oppotunity of having a steward from a specific home-wiki blocking another user from that home-wiki in other wikis, but not of an infringement of the policy.--Friniate (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Sakretsu actually took an action on it.wiki in their capacity as it.wiki admin: they blocked me indefinitely [1]. So I don't understand your comment, @Friniate, no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu. If I'm not mistaken, however, the point is different. By globally locking me, Sakretsu changed my rights (e.g., I couldn't be unblocked by another it.wiki admin, I couldn't log in and receive notifications, etc.) and they did so in their home wiki and in a case that was not "clear-cut" or "emergency". If that is so, then they had a conflict of interest as defined by steward policy [2]. But let's hear from Sakretsu on this. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not completely true, you should provide the complete blocklog, Sakretsu did not block you indef, you were already blocked indef from the 23rd of May. --Civvì (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As you perfectly know, Sakretsu simply changed the rationale, he did not "block you indefenitely". And he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity, accountable to the it.wiki community. He did not use his role as a steward to influence the internal dynamics of his home-wiki, that's what it matters to the policy. Then of course, everyone can have different opinions if something, although allowed by the policy, is also appropriate.--Friniate (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

"no action was taken on it.wiki by Sakretsu" seems to contradict "he did so in an it.wiki-admin capacity" Levivich (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep --Ilario (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep I am confused about why home wiki rules didn't stop Sakretsu from being the one to do the ban. However, even if he was wrong that is a single event that does not suggest he cannot continue good work as a steward. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Question Question: I have some questions for Sakretsu. My apologies if some of these have been asked and answered elsewhere, but I think it would be helpful to have a brief summary here for the assistance of voters.
  • Like HaeB, I find it puzzling that you didn't mention the Gitz6666 case in your request for confirmation as it seems like something that ought to be considered by any voter. Could you please explain this omission?
  • Gitz6666's block log is certainly complex, and there have been many hands in it. Could you please explain your action of 2023年06月09日T17:07:55?
  • Regarding the same block log, I note that three of the actions have had the username removed. This seems like an extraordinary action, as admins are usually expected to stand behind their actions, so I'm not sure what would justify this. Not only is it concealed who performed these administrative actions, but it is also unclear who made the concealments. Can you tell us who made these concealments and why? What is the relevant policy that governs such actions?
  • On 2023年06月09日T16:11:56 you globally locked Gitz6666's account for "violation of the UCoC, threatening and intimidating behaviour". Obviously you cannot reveal private information, but can you please briefly explain what the basis was for this action?
  • On 2023年06月09日T16:11:56 you unlocked the account ("appeal accepted"). Do you still believe that the original locking was a correct steward action based on the information available at the time?

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Stïnger, ValterVB, EPIC, JrandWP, Titore, Prodraxis, V0lkanic, Superspritz, Torsolo, Ajraddatz, Atlante, Novak Watchmen, Ruthven, Pppery, SHB2000, 9Aaron3, and Bramfab: Please forgive the mass ping, but I have a couple of questions for you. Being a steward is usually a fairly boring job: There is generally little after-action discussion, and actions are seldom reversed. In the Gitz affair, we had a steward action that proved to be extremely controversial, generating a lot of discussion, including coverage in the national press and an article in the ENWP Signpost, and subsequently being reversed. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter, it seems to me that this affair is materially relevant to any consideration of Sakretsu for reconfirmation as steward, yet they chose to omit any mention of it, and it was not raised here until after your vote. My question for you is: Were you aware of this matter when you voted? If not, would knowing about either the affair itself or Sakretsu's choice to conceal it have affected your deliberation? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Ero al corrente della situazione e non ho riscontrato problemi tali da inficiare le riconferme. (I was aware of the situation and did not see any problems that would invalidate the reconfirmations.) ValterVB (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep PawełMM (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Seawolf35 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Great steward, thank you for your work. --Er Cicero (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - εΔ ω 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --WikiBayer 👤💬 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove - I think that this user's actions and comments related to the global lock of the user discussed above by multiple voters fell short of the standard we should expect from someone who holds advanced permissions. Hatman31 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - based on fact-checking Gitz on other topics Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmation statements 2024