Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vituzzu: Difference between revisions

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

• Keep Keep --Stïnger (会話) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply ]
• Keep Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove On 9 June 2023 steward Sakrestsu globally locked my account. Vituzzu justified Sakretsu's action to me by email [Ticket#2023060910010749]. I appealed to the stewards, on 19 June "The Signpost" published an article about this, which led to long talk page discussions. On 7 July the stewards accepted my appeal and the global lock was lifted. All's well that ends well - no hard feelings on my part. But there are some disturbing facts that have not been made public. On 20 June 2023 Vituzzu, who doesn't usually edit en.wiki, made four consecutive edits [1], [2], [3], [4] to correct the spelling of my name in references to a volume I edited. This was actually a threat of doxing because the next day he wrote to me that confidentiality is in favour of all involved parties (also in favour of you) [Ticket#2023062110003761]. He mentioned that I had made COI edits per WP:SELFCITE back in 2014 when I used an alternative account to restore a work of mine from the bibliography of a now-deleted it.wiki article. Back in 2014 I had made less than a couple of edits on any WMF projects and I knew nothing about COI, socks, or any other WP policies and guidelines. I never used that sock again and in June 2022 I voluntarily disclosed its existence to it.wiki admins, who didn't block it at the time (they blocked it one year later, after my indefinite block on it.wiki). On 13 July 2023 Vituzzu made good on his 21 June threat by posting this comment in the Signpost discussion. The comment contains a link to the edit history of my old inactive sock, which shows only one edit, this one, on which my name appears. In so doing, Vituzzu exposed my personal identity, which I had never revelead on site. Editors from it.wiki and en.wiki wrote to me asking if Vituzzu had just doxed me, which I couldn't deny. I wrote to the English Wikipedia Oversight asking for Vituzzu's edit to be suppressed; my request was denied but Vituzzu partially self-reverted explaining I took its publicity for granted, I was wrong. But given his edits of 20 June and the content of his 21 June email (confidentiality is in favour of all involved parties) I strongly doubt that his mistake was unintentional. A few months earlier I had been threatened on Wiki, so revealing my identity in such a highly visible discussion at "The Signpost" was very poor behaviour on the part of a steward. --Gitz6666 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Why didn't you ask for the relevant diffs to be suppressed? And why are you giving so much visibility to them?
  On at 12:06 CET on the 26 January 2014 you wrote, in an article talkpage, with your main account Gitz6666 Vituzzu (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  1. I don't think that you stumbled upon [my] abuse (the 2014 COI edit with a self-citation), I think you were there to retaliate. My sock had been inactive since 2014, I had lost its password, I had publicly revealed its existence in June 2022. But it was blocked in June 2023, after the "Alessandro Orsini affair" that led to my local indef block and global lock - maybe to have a linkable connection between Gitz6666 and that old COI edit?
  2. Honestly I don't remember the deleted edit of 26 Jan 2014, it may be true that I revealed my identity then - as I said, I was not an active user at the time. But I do know that on 20-21 June 2023 you threatened to reveal my identity and that on 13 July 2023 you did so. I'm not overly concerned about my privacy, but I think others should be made aware of your behaviour.
  3. Finally, I did ask for the relevant diff - that is, your comment at the Signpost - to be suppressed. Oversight didn't accept my request possibly because, as you now explained, I had already revealed my identity in that deleted diff of 2014, and so you were allowed to use such information in appropriate forums, although I'm not entirely sure the Signpost discussion was an appropriate forum.

  Gitz6666 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  So, in short, I didn't any doxx. Fine with me. Vituzzu (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  @Vituzzu:, can you explain why some of the entries of that user's block log has the blocking admin's name revision-deleted? Is this normal in it.wiki? Leaderboard (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I don't want to sound rude, but how is this question related to my confirmation? Vituzzu (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Vituzzu, aren't stewards there to answer questions from the community, regardless of how related they are to your confirmation? --Ferien (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  They are here to ask questions about their own actions, even about their own wiki-related views, but there are more appropriate venues for generic questions. Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hi @Vituzzu:, the reason I was asking this is that I was trying to understand what was going on with that user, and was confused to see the revision-deletion on the user name (which is very unusual from my experience). I do apologise if it sounded irrelevant, but that wasn't the intent. A single sentence or two would have been enough - I wasn't looking for depth here. Leaderboard (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Got it, thank you. Btw as a general matter, such actions are justifiable only under wiki-related issues impacting real lives. Vituzzu (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep Comment above me took my attention. But overall I don't know the whole story, Vituzzu's work has been good, they are a great steward and I've not seen anything which indicates a lack of trust. EPIC (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Titore (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Superspritz ^{tell me} 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - (削除) I see no issues with Vituzzu's actions in the case above. (削除ここまで) Good work overall as usual, and tends to be responsive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep A pillar against all kinds of POV-pushing.--Friniate (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove--Fenikals (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Weak remove. The whole Gitz affair leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Stewards can do great work, but they need to be able to know when to step back on activities that involve their home wikis. I'm not quite sure why a Steward who is an administrator on ItWiki was so heavily involved in reinforcing this global lock that was later overturned, and I've been unsatisfied with all explanations I've heard since. This is weak only inasmuch as there may be some plausible explanation for why the actions were appropriate, but I haven't heard nor seen any, and it's been months. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I wasn't involved in any local block, I think I never interacted with Gitz6666 before endorsing his global lock for reasons which appeared pretty strong to me at that time. Actually it was me to ask for further opinions/comments by fellow stewards which lead to the unlock. What I regret was being dragged in a toxic discussion which followed the unlock. Vituzzu (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I don't see where Red-tailed hawk claims that you had been involved in any local block.

  Actually it was me ... - it is good to know that you apparently had concerns about Sakretsu's highly problematic global lock and helped overturn it. However, that was certainly not the impression one got in this discussion, where you were a vocal defender of it. In particular, you second[ed] Sakretsu's word one by one [5] in reference to a statement that, as explained in detail here I considered to be very weird coming from a steward in Sakretsu's situation, also because their 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. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'm pretty sure everyone here is perfectly fine with the simple fact that asking for comments by trusted volunteers is a standard practice in complex cases. Anyway can you please detail my alleged conflict of interest? I'm lost about this new allegation. Vituzzu (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Vituzzu, this obfuscatory, misleading and combative communication style is quite concerning for someone laying claim to one of the highest positions of trust in the global Wikimedia movement. To highlight in detail how it manifest just in the example of this comment:

  • Regarding can you please detail my alleged conflict of interest?: I'm unsure what you basing this demand on or where you see such a new allegation being made. The reference to that COI policy was obviously with regard to Sakretsu who had used his steward rights to take this highly problematic action that was later repealed, rather than you (again, I explained the concerns with regard to these three policies in much more detail back in June on the linked Signpost talk page, where you and Sakretsu entirely failed to address them, despite your heavy activity in other parts of that discussion). The fact that you yourself were so heavily involved in reinforcing that problematic action - as Red-tailed hawk summarized it - casts serious doubts on your judgment as steward, but is not necessarily covered by the letter of that particular steward policy. - In other words, you are using a strawman tactic here, and that right after I had called you out for similarly insinuating that Red-tailed hawk had said something that they did not actually say.
  • I'm pretty sure everyone here is perfectly fine with the simple fact that asking for comments by trusted volunteers is a standard practice in complex cases - what is the point of this remark? Again, nobody had criticized you for "asking for comments" by other stewards. Rather, what's strange is that despite having insisted incessantly in public that Sakretsu's action was not a mistake, you now appear to claim credit for its correction (Actually it was me to ask for further opinions/comments by fellow stewards which lead to the unlock). And this is especially strange if, as you say, this kind of notification is just a run-of-the-mill "standard practice" - not to speak of the fact that an appeal was filed in the case, which you fail to include in your theory of what "lead to the unlock". - Rather, what sounds more plausible to me as a possible substantial segment of the causality path is that other stewards - likely including some who are less directly involved with itwiki - looked at the matter, shook their heads and made it clear to Sakretsu that his decision could not stand. (If that is what happened, credits to them for doing the right thing.)

  And you are playing all these rhetorical games while still avoiding to address the wider issues with regard to the three aforementioned policies.

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  It's hard to tackle hounding, it's even harder to tackle a similar framing. Anyway, let's go back to the scratch: I've been accused of doxxing, I brought proofs that I didn't doxx anybody. I've been asked to justify my upholding of a global lock performed by a fellow steward, and I did or, at least, I don't see more questions about this point, but rather my answer being given extra meanings (and you're going on down this path). What I can't do (it would be quite unfair) is replying about actions which weren't performed by me. Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep A very valuable steward. --Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Hard remove – sorry, no, doxxing is a massive no as an admin for me, let alone a steward. And instead of apologising for what is rather an otherwise frightening action, they doubled down. Not the behaviour I'd expect from a steward. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I strongly deny any doxxing allegation, both in the letter of the policy (user declared their identity) and in intentions. Vituzzu (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep--Bramfab (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Civvì (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎ ^{(You talkin' to me?)} 21:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Prodraxis _(talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep A pillar of this wigwam. --Pequod76 ^{(talk )} 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep One of the best users of the whole Wikimedia movement. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Aplasia (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Torsolo (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --.mau. ✉ 10:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Keep --Fcarbonara (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep per EPIC. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove-Juandev (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per w:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media Levivich (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  i.e. upholding that a certain global lock was warranted? Vituzzu (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Not just that you upheld it, but how you upheld it. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  The that part is not acceptable: different opinions about cases is the only thing which prevents the creation of ego chambers. About the how I pushed for transparency (e.g. asking the locked user to user VRT instead of private emails) and broader opinions (e.g. gathering the permission from *every* involved party to read and share with other functionaries). There's a framing of this whole case as a vast plot against an user, but while two Italian admins ended up being seriously harrassed, from stewards perspective it was the reviewing of a decision with no drama at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I find you to be dishonest in your answers, in your description of what happened in the past. I found your answers on the Signpost page to be dishonest (and those of others involved), and I find your answers and descriptions here to be dishonest. This is disqualifying in my views for any advanced permissions. To use an American idiom, you "circled the wagons," and you added a lot to the drama, as evidenced by your comments on that Signpost page. Here, you are similarly adding to the drama by pretending like you didn't do and say what is recorded on Wikipedia, or that there was "no drama at all," or that your being "hounded." Voting against your confirmation is accountability, not hounding. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all, it can be confirmed by anyone who partecipated. Accusing me of being "dishonest" while I try providing any possible proof is a bias which I'm pretty sure I have no chance to overcome. Coordinating comments and votes on external forums is hounding, by definition. Vituzzu (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  The drama I refer to is your comments on the Signpost page I linked to. Another example of "dishonest" is your comment here, "The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all." Like no kidding, you know I don't know what the discussion among the stewards was since I'm not a steward. So you know by "drama," I wasn't referring to the discussion among stewards. I was referring to the Signpost page. And you know this. But you pretend like "The discussion among stewards wasn't a drama at all" is somehow responsive to what I said. It isn't. I know it, you know it, everyone reading this knows it, but instead of honestly addressing the thing I'm actually talking about -- your comments on the Signpost page -- you act like the discussion among stewards is relevant. That's just dishonest. Levivich (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I wrote that from stewards perspective it was the reviewing of a decision with no drama at all, but you wrote that [I am] pretending like [...] there was "no drama at all. I know that being dragged into endless polemic about details by several users at the same time is exactly the way hounding is carried out, but I can't accept to be called "dishonest" in a such plainly false way. Vituzzu (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove per Gitz6666 and Red-tailed hawk. --Nemoralis (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Have been reviewing this for a while and I can't really comment on the Gitz6666 situation. But I'm far from impressed from the reply to Leaderboard above. I don't want to sound rude, but how is this question related to my confirmation? I would expect stewards to be answering questions they receive during confirmation, regardless of how much they relate to them actually being confirmed, as stewards should be open to the community. Ok, this might not have been a necessary question to ask, but Vituzzu did respond and chose to question the question instead of just answering the question at hand to resolve the concerns raised. That isn't the attitude I expect from a steward. --Ferien (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think you've missed that the action in question wasn't performed by me. Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Then why did you choose to question the question instead of just giving that answer? Or answering what you know about that situation with RevDelling admins names, as an itwiki admin? --Ferien (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Because the principle that anyone should be accountable for their own actions only (rather than others') is non-negotiable. BTW why did you assume that the action in question has been made by me? Vituzzu (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Where did I assume the action in question was made by you? --Ferien (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Fair, in this whole "case" I've been subject to a (still ongoing) severe hounding, so I'm glad I draw a wrong conclusion. Vituzzu (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Neutral Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep The Gitz-related accusations (to which I do not agree) are based on actions that Vittuzzu made as a normal user (he backed - not performed - the glock, which could have been done by any user) and not as a steward, hence they must be discussed in an appropriate place and are not a valid reason for his removal. valcio ••• 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I did not look into any of the context to be clear, but if a lock they supported is the issue, I don't see how this can be irrelevant to their role as a steward – doesn't it mean they would have performed it themself too? Sure, any user can request the deletion of a page, but does that mean submitting bad deletion requests can be ignored as "irrelevant" when electing an administrator? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  The issue is that the main arguments agains their confirmation are edits done on en.wiki prior to the global block. As for the legitimacy of the lock’s backing, your comparison kind of misses the point: the action has been controversial and even if it was eventually lifted, multiple stewards agreed on it at one point; there have been no abuses, only different interpretations of the guidelines which were eventually resolved with the locks’ lift. But that is no one’s fault. valcio ••• 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  edits done on en.wiki prior to the global block This must be a typo or a mistake by Valcio: the edits were made after the global lock and also (most importantly) the day after the publication of the Signpost article, on 20 June. Sorry, this cannot be a coincidence: as Vito made clear in his emails, he was reacting to that publication by shifting the ground of confrontation elsewhere - my alleged COI editing per WP:SELFCITE, the risks to my privacy. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have indeed misread the dates, please do ignore that one information but notice that this does not affect my initial comment or previous reply at all.

  I honestly can’t reply further as instead of replying to my comment you are stating your allegations again. Not having access to your private conversation, I could not possibly address them even if I wanted to. valcio ••• 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove I don't feel that we ever got to the bottom of what was going on in the Gitz6666 affair, but one thing that seems clear (per the Signpost discussion) is that Vituzzu does not respond appropriately to criticism. Again, I have not reached a conclusion about the doxxing allegations above, but I can conclude (from the comments on this page) that Vituzzu would rather use flippant rhetorical tricks to close off discussion than actually engage with the issues raised. I expect a steward to operate with appropriate transparency, be prepared to justify their actions, and to handle criticism with due humility. Based on these two issues alone, I lack confidence in Vituzzu's suitability to be a steward, without having to reach a firm conclusion about their conduct in the underlying cases. Bovlb (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  It's unfair to draw similar conclusion upon a single discussion in which I've been targeted with false accusations, tho. Vituzzu (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz6666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN 466 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Orsini? Vituzzu (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Another small but telling example of the kind of misleading, combative rhetorical tactics that Vituzzu has now been called out for by several people on this discussion page alone.

  Anyone spending half a minute to, say, check the Signpost's summary of the affair will understand Andreas' reference; it is very hard to believe that Vituzzu has forgotten that name. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'll repeat the question in a more clear way. Which actions of mine should I justify/explain in "Orsini affair"? Vituzzu (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Are you really trying to disentangle your responsibilities for my global lock from Sakretsu's here? In my eyes yours are far greater than Sakretsu's - mistakes happen, although it would be nice to acknowledge them and apologise. But yours are on a completely different level. Between 9 and 22 June you wrote me six emails on the subject, justifying Sakretsu's actions and asking me questions about my behaviour. You suggested that I inform my hysterical wikipediocray friends that confidentiality was also in my favour, while correcting the spelling of my name in four en.wiki articles. You made 25 comments in the Signpost discussion calling me out for very minor misbehaviour (COI editing for self-citation by a good-faith newbie) that had occurred nine years earlier. After the global lock was lifted, you wrote on the it.wiki mailing list that I was wrong in claiming that the stewards had cleared me of the doxing and threats allegations [6], thereby reinforcing the absurd notion that I had engaged in such despicable behaviour. I'm not asking for apologies but why couldn't you simply admit that mine was a bad glock, e.g., "after reviewing the matter more thoroughly, we came to the conclusion that there was no basis for claiming that you doxed or threatened anybody"? No, you said to that small and cohesive editorial community, "It does not seem right to embroider and attach completely arbitrary meanings to our actions". Very bad attitude, shameful and pointless behaviour. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Six emails through VRT: any communication between me and you had been carried out through transparent means per my sole choice. Those emails were the core of the investigation about you. About self-citations, you weren't longer a newbie when citing yourself in 2021, and I focused upon your self-citations for two reasons: they'd been done both in a fraudolent way (socking, in 2014) or not (in 2021) and you threatened (in my opinion) another user for the same behavior. As I already wrote, we set a high standards of "due process" and I concurred that evidences weren't clear-cut to hold a global lock: I think that out of the two main allegations you are responsible of only one of the two, but the relevant email can be also read as "goofy" rather than "threatening". At the beginning I thought it was a 2/2. Resorting to any means, including exploiting the worst case of doxxing ever, to be right at all costs and making your opponents look bad is exactly the behaviour that led to your final indef block on itwiki.
  

  Back to the topic, how am I involved in "Orsini case"? Vituzzu (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  You are right, we need to be very clear about this. If the "Orsini case" is a group of admins publishing an attack page against a public figure and then preventing any changes to that article for over a year by intimidating and blocking editors who were trying to fix that blatant BLP violation - yes, you had nothing to do with this and probably you didn't like it. If the "Orsini case" is an admin in COI indefinitely blocking me [7] for having made a single edit (not an edit war) to that forbidden article, mentioning WP:BLP in the edit summary - you're right again, it wasn't you. If the "Orsini case" is two Italian stewards globally locking my account following the publication in the national press of an article about this incident [8] - sorry, it was you and Sakretsu.

  And you are still trying to smear and provoke me. I didn't threaten or dox anyone, though I received threats and my personal identity was divulged by you. The idea that I threatened a user because they had made a self-citation is false and also ridiculous, as I have already demonstrated in the appropriate venue (I didn't threatened them and self-citation was not the point at issue).

  You claim that I've made a second more recent COI edit in 2021: this one [9] creating an entire section on the constitution of Israel and citing, alongside other sources, an article in a book I co-edited. But I was not the author of that article and I had no financial, academic or other interest in its circulation on Wikipedia. It was not COI editing, at least not according to it.wiki standards. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  So you finally admitted you're putting the blame of everything you didn't agree/like/whatever on me. Although you later admitted to be involved with the article, it is not something which triggered the lock. The lock, as you already know, was due to two reasons: the first one was the report that you were responsible of an off-wiki threat to the blocking admin. This report proved to be unverifiable and, I'm almost sure it wasn't you to be responsible. The second reason was an email you sent about another admin whom you considerd to be acting in COI (according to your personal definition). In the second case, to me, you meant to be threatening, but I accept the email in question could be read in a non-threatening way. Vituzzu (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

What you've just said is correct (except that I don't blame you for everything). It is an accurate summary of the case. There's just one important piece of information missing: I was instructed by the stewards themselves on how to report this alleged case of COI editing. On 1 June (i.e. before my global lock) the stewards suggested a procedure (write to a trusted it.wiki admin and/or try to contact it.wiki bureaucrats on Meta) which I followed step by step. But the bureaucrats never replied to me, so I was prevented from sharing this information with them, and when I wrote to the trusted it.wiki admin, I asked for nothing in return and made it clear that I had no intention of sharing this information with anyone else - so there was no doxxing and no threats on my part. On 5 June il Fatto Quotidiano published their article on Gitz/Orsini (without my input, interview or other information from me) and on 9 June I got globally locked. As far as I know, all it.wiki users are still persuaded that I engaged in doxxing and threats. --Gitz6666 (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

you later admitted to be involved with the article No, sorry, this is not correct. I became "involved" only after my indefinite block on it.wiki (24 May). Before then, I was in no way "involved" or in COI.--Gitz6666 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems to the that this sentence "Il Fatto Quotidiano published their article on Gitz/Orsini (without my input, interview or other information from me)" does not fit with what you wrote on 19th June in a well known external forum "I have only shared privately (via email) diffs documenting Hypergio's activity on it.wiki (by the way, I didn't even send them directly to the journalist, but to a friend of mine who forwarded them to the journalist and possibly other people)." --Civvì (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

They are consistent, actually. I did privately share diffs documenting Hypergio's activity on it.wiki (Hypergio was the it.wiki admin who indefintely blocked me as a result of my editing on the Orsini article). It is likely that these diffs were then shared with others - they are inherently public information. But this was not done at my request or under my supervision. I've never sent or received an email (phone call, whatsap, etc.) from Il Fatto Quotidiano regarding the Orsini affair: they did not get any information from me (they got information from others). By the way, I don't think that when I subscribed to the WMF Terms of Use, I waived my right to speak to the press (which didn't happen), or to share diffs privately and comment on Wikipedia's life. We are not a sect, we are not a gang, we are an open digital community. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I tried to protect the reputation of it.wiki by correcting that attack page, which had been online for more than a year. After you kicked me out (and kicked other editors out for the same reason [10] [11]), protecting it was no longer my concern. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry but this is not completely clear to me, you shared information concerning the Wikimedia activity of a user unaware that this would be passed to other poeple or even end on a newspaper? So you shared it whithout any other purpose, just for the joy of sharing? --Civvì (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

For being totally innocent in the intimidation case, you were strangely well-informed. So much well-informed that there were details that I learnt from you, they were not public before you told them. How strange, isn't it?--Friniate (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Civvi. I told them, do whatever you want with this. With regard to Hypergio specifically, their identity had already been discovered by others since (as you know) they had been "doxxed" on a blog unrelated to me a few months earlier (quotation marks are needed here because, as Vituzzu explained above, it is not properly doxxing when the user has voluntarily posted their own information on Wiki). So I shared by email the diff where they identified themselves (I did not post them online as Vituzzu did with me at the Signpost) and I shared the diffs where they edited the article about the NATO agency they worked for (diffs revdeleted for no apparent reason by Gianfranco, if I'm not mistaken [12]). I also shared diffs about the positive reviews of Orsini's book being removed from the article, about editors being threatened and blocked for protesting, their edits with sources being removed from the article talk page, their request for comments on admin behaviour being annulled for no apparent reason. By your admins. Under your eyes.

@Friniate, I don't understand what you are saying or implying. intimidation in the glock terminology refers to something different (my second allegation of COI editing mentioned by Vituzzu here at 07:42, 9 February 2024, which did not concern Hypergio). I was well-informed, yes, but the information I had was what you can get from article histories and the WP search box. Sorry, maybe I didn't get what you mean. Gitz6666 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Help me to understand, so sharing the diff from the very first edits of the history of a user (Registered: 13:42, 25 June 2013) who had not even made "a couple of edits on any WMF projects and knew nothing about COI, socks, or any other WP policies and guidelines" to a third party in order to "do whatever you want with this." is perfecly ok for you? Let me also clarify that Hypergio did not block you "as a result of my editing on the Orsini article". He blocked you because back in December 2022 when you were unblocked from your previous indef block the community set the conditions that you should stay away from controversial topics and recentisms. Which you did not. And those are not "my admins" and this did not "happen under my eyes" because, as my edit history clearly shows, I never edit on recentisms or BLPs if not to revert blatant vandalism nor do I follow those articles or the discussions about them. --Civvì (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• When I said By your admins. Under your eyes, I meant "you Italian users", not you Civvì personally.
• If you work for a NATO agency and you block a user who is trying to remedy a blatant BLP violation against a vocal critic of NATO policy, the resulting shitstorm is on you, OK? Sorry, that's your fault, not mine. WP:COI is there to protect WP credibility and reputation, but also your reputation and that of the other interested parties (NATO, in this case). Besides, they found out who Hypergio was without my help. But even if I had been the first one to point the finger at their COI, it would have been my right to do so: no Italian admin would have ever responded to my appeal requests (which on it.wiki can only be made privately, by email). So, if I can't lodge a proper appeal, if I can't tell you about the COI of the admin who blocked me, and you wouldn't do anything about it anyway, I'll tell the world.
• On the merits of Hypergio's block, however, I agree with you: COI aside, it was a good block. My editing and behaviour at Orsini were impeccable and no, there was no topic ban in force - I could edit whatever article I wanted. Please share a diff showing that there was a community-imposed restriction on my editing rights (the closest thing to a T-ban was this comment by Actormusicus [13], which doesn't mention controversial topics and recentism). But it was a good block nonetheless, and when I decided to edit the Orsini article, I knew this would happen. I knowingly and deliberately violated the informally agreed conditions of my readmission to the community: no drama, no flames, no fuss. As soon as I saw the way it.wiki admins had treated the good-faith editors who had tried to edit that article, I knew that I was incompatible with your project. Unfortunately Il Fatto quotidiano also thought (without any input from me) that the administrative management of the article was very poor and that the indefinite block of an apparently good-faith editor added something to the whole story. Were they wrong? And whose fault is that? But Hypergio's block was good, I accept that, and in fact the only reason I asked to be unblocked was to voluntarily retire from it.wiki [14].
• This is all off-topic. Users are not reviewing Hypergio's block here, but Vituzzu's and Sakretsu's global lock. Your comments may suggest that their sanction was not based on the UCoC, but on a different universal code of conduct: "revenge revenge revenge! You fucked Hypergio? and now we fuck you". I suggest that an uninvolved editor place a collapse box around this flame. I will not reply any further.

Gitz6666 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Sorry, that was not clear at all.
• It never crossed your mind (nor that of your friends involved in this) that working for an agency X does not automatically mean that you are in the control center, never heard about offices having a canteen, a cafeteria, a purchase departement for stationery, or cleaning or maintenance people, drivers, janitors or other roles far far far away from the ivory tower. No, they work for agency X SO they are for sure and automatically in the center of the global conspiracy and that's enough to crash in people's lives, doxxing them on newspapers, harming them in their RL. Nice, so long for AGF. Besides, AFAIK there is no obligation for admins or functionaries to disclose their working place and, as far as I checked there have never been other edits then those done as a newbie on the article of that agency by that user.
• Yes, it was a good block. The admin never edited the article we are talking about, he was not involved in the controversy. You wrote it, there were conditions to your readmission. The whole discussion about the lifting of your indef block was based on an edit of yours (19:35, 6 giu 2022‎) I will not link it because it discloses your IP address but you can easily find it in which you made very precise declarations about what you would not do again, one of those was "Voglio evitare le voci e le pagine di discussione delle voci collegate all'Ucraina." In the reasons for your unblock it is stated "acquisito l'impegno dell'utente" so the terms of the agreement with the community were quite clear. Unfortunately we do not have a nice template for the talk page "Dear user, we are lifting your block and these are the conditions" but it is a good idea, we could create one for the future. But I am sure that a template would not have stopped you from overriding community decisions.
• No it is not OT, because together with what is visibile there were a lot of private exchanges and I very much hope that those who have access can read those exchanges within the context of the whole picture. This is the last message for me too, nothing more to be said. --Civvì (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep Vituzzu is an hard worker and a great user, one of those who are fully devoted to the movement. He's been a steward for over a decade and has done an immense work so far. I always appreciate his honest opinion, especially on complex matters. Definitely keep, otherwise I believe it would be a great loss for the steward team--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep, not sure what the Gitz affair is about, and a couple of Vituzzu's responses here are not ideal; but what I have seen doesn't really change my general view of Vituzzu as a good Steward. Java Hurricane 11:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  If you don't know what it's about, then your view is incomplete. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep Make Sakrestu's words my own. --.av gas 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove — L'affaire Gitz demonstrates less than sound judgment. —— SerialNumber 54129 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per Levivich et al. - Rotary Engine (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Responses here do not show the temperament one would wish of a steward, who must deal sensitively with a variety of users, even those who question or criticise. They tend to reinforce the bad impression from the approach taken at the Signpost talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove To respond to the glocking steward's (Sakretsu's) comment above, this is a media where anyone can be replaced by a cooler-headed anyone. SashiRolls (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove The comments on w:en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media are outrageous. Whether or not they are correct is one thing; the manner in which you handle disputes—a manner you double down upon in this section—is unacceptable. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Due to the Gitz Affair. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Lollo98 Text me 02:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per Red-Tailed hawk, Levivich, Andreas etc. Not the behaviour expected from a steward. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment Comment If I understand correctly, Vituzzu above acknowledged that he handled a request to the stewards@ mailbox on the matter of an action taken by Sakretsu on itwiki. Is it common practice among stewards to have a steward take an action on their homewiki and then have another steward with the same homewiki review it/handle requests/appeals? Nemo 06:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'd like an answer to this as well - comments from other stewards would be welcome too. Additionally, I want to know if it's standard practice to global-lock users like Gitz for a UCOC violation where there are issues at a single (or two) projects, by an admin who is involved in it (irrespective of whether this is justified on merits). Leaderboard (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  It wasn't an action on it.wiki, but a global one. Sakretsu locked Gitz6666 for off-wiki harassment, and I endorsed the lock, basing upon the information we had at that time. Later investigation/discussion brought to the lock to be reversed, with the highest transparency possible (given privacy policy bounds). Vituzzu (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  It was a global action taken in response to matters that were entirely local to it.WP.

  Surely you can see that it looks improper for two Italian Stewards to handle it, especially one whose name already appeared in Gitz's it:WP block log. Andreas JN 466 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep --Ilario (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Yiyi (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--TrinacrianGolem (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove At some point Vituzzu lost perspective on the issue with Gitz. People above have identified a number of concerns, for me it's several comments in the Signpost discussion which I find over the line and unacceptable for someone with the permissions a Steward has. Everyone can make mistakes and I had hoped he'd have been able to regain proper perspective in the months since. His conduct here shows this hasn't happened. Vituzzu's badgering of several editors voting remove and his choice of rhetoric when replying has caused a loss of trust for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Thanks for this; it sums up my perspective perfectly. We still don't know exactly what happened with Gitz, and the main reason for that is the lack of transparency and defensiveness shown by Vituzzu and others. To have any chance of reconfirmation here, they would have had to shown that they had learnt something from the experience, and that they have the humility to consider that they might have been wrong. Instead they are doubling down on the same arrogant, dismissive attitude. Utterly disqualifying for a steward, I'm afraid. The community can't afford to hand advanced permissions to loose cannons who refuse to admit mistakes. Bovlb (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think I lost my temper rather than my judgment: I found that one of the accusations towards Gitz6666 wasn't provable. Following the heated discussion at Signpost I choose to abstain even from checking/blocking his local block evasions. Vituzzu (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove Lost confidence on him after the whole Gitz debacle.- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Taivo (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep My trust in him remained unchanged, I would even leave him my house keys. It would be very detrimental to the project to lose his contribution as a steward (but I'm sure his fellow stewards already know this). --Horcrux (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep per Phyrexian. --Er Cicero (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Hypergio, now known as Vengo dalla Luna, is frustrated by being brought up in this conversation when it's irrelevant. His disillusionment with Wikipedia began when Gitz6666 blackmailed Hypergio, warning of potential repercussions if actions were taken against him, Wikipedia and the Agency he supposed to work for. This led to Hypergio stepping back from Wikipedia to avoid the negative attention stemming from an article in Il Fatto Quotidiano. Not due to any conflict of interest, but simply to shield himself and his family from the ensuing controversy. It's curious how Gitz absolved himself of responsibility for the article while admitting to passing information to a journalist through a friend, thus evading accountability. Now, Vituzzu is targeted, simply for not aligning with Gitz's viewpoints. Hypergio wishes to disengage from this discussion entirely. The focus should remain on evaluating Vituzzu's capabilities as a Steward, without involving Hypergio. From my side, there are no doubts about Vituzzu's suitability for the role. --Vengo dalla Luna (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Gitz6666 blackmailed Hypergio, warning of potential repercussions if actions were taken against him, Wikipedia and the Agency he supposed to work for. This never happened. The email I wrote to you on 1 June (which I first forwarded to the stewards on 15 June) is not blackmail. Since this is a very serious accusation, I'm now going to publish it here below in a collapsible box, both in Italian (original text) and in English; I will highlight the sentence to which you refer. Gitz6666 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

--Gitz6666 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Buongiorno a tutti, sono Gitz ... Non sono un POV-pusher sull'Ucraina: ho opinioni mie, naturalmente, ... penso che tenermi lontano dall'Ucraina (in senso lato) possa essere un modo per rendere più semplice la mia reintegrazione nella comunità. Nel rispetto delle regole 1 e 2 potrei partecipare alle discussioni ai progetti e al bar, ma mi impegno a tenermi lontano da NS 0 e NS 1. ... 20:35, 6 giu 2022 (CEST)

Unfortunately, the commitment Gitz made to the community, for which he was unlocked, was demonstrably not fulfilled, as indirectly confirmed by Gitz itself in the aforementioned email.

Furthermore, since the blog mentioned by Gitz only revealed Hypergio's first and last name, without indicating his occupation, was the doxing on his RL that connected him with their workplace carried out directly by Gitz or by someone who then transmitted it to him and was promptly accepted by him? This is a detail that I would like to be clarified.--Bramfab (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Which doxing on his RL that connected him with their workplace are you referring to? Where did Gitz6666 publish this information? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

"In several places, including the email above that you can read. This states that "I understand that you are an employee or collaborator of ". The link between "Hypergio" -> "real life person" -> "his employer" was not present in a single source (i.e. the blog mentioned, which is also a small and well-defined niche), but a targeted doxing action was necessary to find the right connection between the two ends of the chain. Who made this doxing? I would like to know this detail because of the context that I indicated in response to your ping in the discussion on Sakretsu."--Bramfab (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That is a very strange response. My question was specifically "Where did Gitz6666 publish this information?" (emphasis added) And I had already read the email above when asking it.

Doxing generally involves the *publishing* of personal information, see e.g. w:en:Doxing or wikt:en:dox#Verb. Even the most stretched version of the term will not include a private email sent to the "doxed" person itself - after all, they already have this information. Or would you also argue that Vituzzu doxed Gitz6666 merely by sending him an email telling him that he was aware of his (Gitz6666's) real life identity, by (to reuse your words) "find[ing] the right connection between the two ends of the chain"? (As reported above, He mentioned that I had made COI edits per WP:SELFCITE back in 2014 when I used an alternative account to restore a work of mine from the bibliography of a now-deleted it.wiki article.) That's not what people mean when they allege that Vituzzu may have doxed Gitz6666, rather, these concerns are about Vituzzu's public edits.

I would like to assume that there is merely a language problem here, but on your user page you claim to have an "advanced knowledge of English."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It is not a problem of not knowing English perfectly (let's strive to be inclusive, please), but of not using words to hide or obscure reality. Someone investigated to the point of connecting Hypergio with his employer. Who found the connection? (or which organization?) This is the detail I'm asking for. The connection was then kindly passed to a friend of a journalist who "naively" passed it on to a journalist. Everything written after that sounds like an "excusatio non petita" to me.--Bramfab (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know who first discovered the connection, Bramfab, but it wasn't hard to find. A friend of mine who is not a wikipedian asked me "Is this the Hypergio who blocked you?" and gave me the URL of a blog that claimed Hypergio's name was XY and the URL of a LinkedIn account that said XY worked for the NCIA. I typed "XY" into the it.wiki search box, found the diff where Hypergio reveals their identity, looked at Hypergio's contributions at the time, and found the diffs where they edit the NCIA article. I was then able to confirm Hypergio's identity by sharing those diffs. As far as I know, there was no organisation involved, just private individuals interested in the Orsini article. Gitz6666 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Detail clarified. So you finalised this investigation! for a so 'private' interest that you communicated directly or indirectly to a journalist from a newspaper with a bias towards Ukraine and NATO? --Bramfab (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

No, you are the one who is biased. It was you who included in the article body the verbatim quotation from the blog of a convicted member of the Red Brigades who was harshly critical of Orsini's book on that armed organisation. This content was contested on the article talk page and you repeatedly insisted that it should have been retained. This was in blatant contradiction to it:WP:BLP (Fanzine, forum e blog personali non possono essere utilizzati come fonti per informazioni riguardanti una persona vivente). We were "private individuals", I said, but it was a matter of upholding public values, including the integrity of WP's editorial process and article content. Gitz6666 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As said above, the detail is clarified, that's all I need. Your additional comments are completely off-topic regarding the purpose of this page.--Bramfab (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Incidentally, the article by the scholar, a former Red Brigades member, is a critical review of the book and the thesis contained therein, and does not disclose anything about the life of the living author, on which it does not even dwell.--Bramfab (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Strong Keep Keep! After reading and pondering all of the allegiations written here and elsewhere, I am even more convinced that Vituzzu is a very precious asset for all the WikiMedia projects. Peace! - εΔ ω 01:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral Neutral --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove, generally over the Gitz6666 fiasco. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment Comment Concerns about canvassing; moved to Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2024#Canvassing concerns per TmV. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This section has since been moved to Talk:Stewards/Elections_2024#Canvassing_concerns. Victor Schmidt (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep From a trusted person I heard about a company against this Wikipedian and came to support him in this situation. Lvova (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep As for what I've seen so far, a good user and steward. --Borgil (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Spinoziano (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Jaqen (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove sorry, but the whole Gitz issue was and is not properly handled. A straight forward apology would have been way better.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -jkb- 18:23, 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) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• ((k)) - based on fact-checking Gitz on other matters I cannot believe a work he says — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elinruby (talk)
• Remove Remove per Bovlb/Barkeep. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove —per Red-tailed hawk and others. Loss of trust... --Silve rije 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep he has my trust, even more after what I read in this procedure --Ombra 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep don't touch my (削除) breil (削除ここまで) Vituzzu --Mastrocom </> void ClickToInbox(); 07:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove, per Barkeep49 and others. The impression is that this user feels somewhat above accountability. LindsayH (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per Barkeep49. Nobody is above accountability. HouseBlaster (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I've been trying being accountable for almost two decades, and this is what actually lead to some conflicts or troubles (including a court case) I could had avoid by simpling ignoring requests/whatever. This doesn't mean I've always being successful, expecially while being dragged into polemics. Vituzzu (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove The badgering this user has done above, especially to editors asking legitimate questions about their actions as a Steward, lead me to believe that this user should not retain the rights. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I considered some questions to be in bad faith, mainly those holding me accountable for thing I've never being involved into. I was influenced by hounding at signpost discussion, wikipediocracy canvassing posts, etc, and a series of elements which are quite hard to tackle or ignore. While I must apologize for heating up I strongly deny that my actions in any of the functionaries roles I hold were influenced by this conflict. Vituzzu (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove irrespective of the actual details of the original issue, the way this candidate has responded to enquiries and concerns in this thread is unacceptable as a steward in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Par Barkeep; repeated poor judgment. The argument that it was ok to edit citations involving the supposed real-life identity of an editor you had conflict with because they had disclosed it and then removed it years ago doesn't hold up-- it's simply a bad idea. Moneytrees (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  I never had a conflict with Gitz6666, I don't think I never interacted with him before the allegation he had phoned to the workplace of a former it.wiki administrator tho. I took for granted his identity was known (he wrote about it in long topics while quarreling with the subject of a BLP) and I didn't mean to be threatening at all. Vituzzu (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  The whole Gitz affair is very confusing for outsiders to understand. Thank you for confirming a key point, that it was alleged that they phoned an it.wiki administrator at work. Who made this allegation? Was this allegation the basis for the UCoC determination and the global lock? Is this phone call the same one referenced in the artlcle as "contacted by Il Fatto , he did not want to reply, subsequently making himself untraceable on social media"? If so, do we know whether the reporter identified themselves with name, occupation, and place of work? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep Full confidence in capability and objectivity. The accusation of doxing, with which the matter opens - and all that follows - does not stand up. The identity of the subject was well known for 10 years, always remained visible to all those capable of reading and doing 1+1+1 [15] [16] [17]. The blocking, applied by me, of his first sockpuppet, Muenzer75, on 5 June 2023 was a due act, resulting from a very clear but fortuitous technical outcome; until then it had remained at large as a form of courtesy, letting the correspondence between users and person go unnoticed, since, as the links show, there was an obvious match. --Elwood (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  Just for reference, the UCoC defines Doxing as follows:

  • Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

  In other words, whether someone ten years ago left breadcrumbs (two IP edits and one logged-in edit) that can be used for detective work to guess their identity today is immaterial and forms no part of the Wikimedia definition of doxing. The only thing that matters is whether you have obtained explicit consent to share someone's name on the Wikimedia projects. If you haven't obtained such explicit consent, you're doxing. Note: the UCoC demands explicit consent, not implicit consent.

  Moreover, blocking an alternate account that made one (1) edit a decade ago and since then had been silent, and using that as a tool in a BLP dispute – concerning a case where Italian admins circled wagons to protect what was a clear BLP violation – seems like battleground behaviour and an abuse of admin privileges to me. That is the sort of thing that saw the Croatian Wikipedia go down the drain. Andreas JN 466 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

  (Edit conflict.) So the reason you blocked that long-dormant sock, Muenzer, in June 2023 was not to protect the encyclopaedia from any disruption coming from me, but to retract that form of courtesy that let my personal identity go unnoticed. That's exactly how I understood it and in my eyes it looks like a questionable rationale for your action. Note that on it.wiki my identity was not visible to all those capable of reading but only to those who were admins and had access to this diff en:WP:HARASS, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia [...] The definition of "on Wikipedia" has previously been the subject of dispute. A September 2019 RfC clarified that even if a user voluntarily posts their own personal information on a Wikimedia project that is not the English Wikipedia, it may still be outing under certain circumstances to re-post that information on the English Wikipedia. It is generally more acceptable to reference information voluntarily disclosed only on another Wikimedia project if it is clear the user does not mind wider dissemination [...]. Editors are urged to take care to err on the side of privacy". Regards, Gitz6666 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(Edit conflict.) No, it was the consequence of a CU check which revealed anomalies that needed to be fixed and about which I am not required to give further details. --Elwood (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Even though there has been much discussion, it cannot be denied that "The identity of the subject was well known for 10 years."--Bramfab (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

And this because he signed with his first name in one message and the surname could be guessed from the context in another? So if someone used Fede/Federico (a similarly common name) in their username, and provided sufficient context for the surname to be inferred, should we also consider that to be a well known identity? I don't know, this seems a slippery slope. Nemo 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The Orsini BLP dispute had absolutely nothing to do with Gitz6666's identity. Bringing it up as part of opposition research and instrumentalising it in this manner is admin abuse, plain and simple. Andreas JN 466 10:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Surname in the link to pdf [19] indicated in the discussion of the SP.--Bramfab (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jayen466 as I already said, there were self citations in 2021 and I focused upon this because the email in which (according to my reading of the email in question) Gitz6666 threatened another focused also upon self-citations.

Btw there are more appropriate venues to discuss about this, above all there are people entrusted with doing this in an unbiased way. But, just to clarify the point, full name has been used with no apparent problem by Gitz6666. Again, from my perspective, given his tone in discussion, edits, even socking itself, it was something pretty uncontroversial and public. When Gitz6666 changed his mind, I eventually seconded his wish by editing my message at the Signpost. Vituzzu (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

When Gitz6666 changed his mind No, I have never changed my mind. I have always kept my identity private on en.wiki and also on it.wiki since I started to get more involved there in 2021. Your 20 June edits on en.wiki and the content of your 21 June email to me suggest that you were threatening to reveal my identity. The fact that at the Signpost discussion you brought up the trivial and completely irrelevant issue of my 2014 COI editing suggests that you were acting in retaliation. (追記) If an alternative explanation is possible and I misinterpreted your behaviour, I apologise. (追記ここまで) Gitz6666 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) --13:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply ]

• Steward confirmation statements 2024