Stewards/elections 2011-2/votes/Ruy Pugliesi

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ruy_Pugliesi talk · contribs · SULinfo (globalcontribs · crosswiki-ness · confirm eligibility
translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions: See Stewards/elections 2011-2/Questions#Ruy_Pugliesi

1. --Lucas Nunes 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
2. --Shizhao 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
3. --Jca raballo 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Support Support --minhhuy*= 02:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

   (削除) {{Support}} -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで) Moving to oppose. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

5. Jafeluv 06:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Support Support --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli ^mesaj 08:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
7. --Ibrahim Dede 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Support Support--►RajeshPandey 08:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
9. Could not see what he did wrong in that CU incident.--Jsjsjs1111 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
10. Support Support Yup--^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 10:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
11. --თოგო ^(D) 11:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC) If there had really been any abuse, the arbcom would have finished the case much sooner.[reply ]
12. Support Support--RajeshUnuppally 12:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
13. Support Support --CutOffTies 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
14. --George ^Talk 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
15. Support Support I opened the ArbCom request while i was member of the pt.wiki ArbCom. The request remain opened while waiting for a response by the Ombudsman Commission. If a member of the OC says now they couldn't find any evidences on that, i think it's enough. So, it isn't a reason for voting against. Actually, it's easy to submit a request to the ArbCom, regarding anyone's actions. Even easier is to expose complains at the village pump. But proving is not that easy, and i can only evaluate his ability for acting as a steward by looking his general actions and opinions, not by unproven accusations. CasteloBranco ^msg 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    Note: Castelobranco was excluded of this ArbCom's case because he was CheckUser too, thefore, he was no idea of what the ArbCom are discussing. JSSX 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    Yes, that's my opinion, as you have yours and the other people voting for or against have theirs. Neither of our opinions represents the ArbCom, obviously. The ArbCom opinion will someday be presented in the proper space. Until then, nobody here has no such idea. Even you. CasteloBranco ^msg 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

16. This user seems like he would make a good steward. Quadell 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
17. Support Support, not only because I trust the user but in an attempt to combat what I perceive as a spurious personalization of discussions, and an embarassing attempt to bring to Meta the ridiculously silly feuds which have plagued ptwiki in years. Even users who are not active in that wiki anymore are coming here to vote against their personal 'enemies'. RafaAzevedo 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
18. Sa vh ^ñ 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
19. Afil 00:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
20. --Gavin.collins 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
21. Striker ^talk 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
22. I see your activities in kawiki, good luck! — Mikheil88 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
23. Palapa 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
24. Support Support. It seems like the user would make a fine steward, and it also seems that the CU abuse matter has little to no supporting evidence. I'm not going to oppose just to be on the "safe side", based uniquely on allegiances. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
25. It seems like the majority of opposing votes are based on the arbcom and subsequent OC acquittal. Assuming there's no further evidence brought to light on that matter then I support his application for stewardship Al.locke 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
26. Whatever concerns he may had in past but I always found his actions constructive.He is a good vandal fighter and good admin too.I see no problem with him with steward tools.No one is perfect there may be one or two mistakes but we shouldn't stop any potential one due to it.--Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 02:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
27. --Stryn 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
28. Support Support per above comments. I agree that the user is active crosswiki-wise, and has made many good decisions, and has also (unfortunately for me) beat me to reverting many small-wiki vandalism. Hazard-SJ ± 17:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
29. Michaelmas1957 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
30. As I see it, the concerns over CU abuses have not been validated, so I am putting those aside. No other concerns spring to mind. 1ForTheMoney 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
31. teñolle confianza, despois de ollar o asunto apuntado na wiki en portugués--Elvire 15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
32. Support Support Yes --Rdelre 11:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
33. Support Support need to fight vandalism Mugginsx 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
34. Support Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
35. --Jusjih 10:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
36. Bullmoosebell 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
37. Yes Openskye 03:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
38. Vago 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
39. Support Support Thogo's comments put an absolute end to the CU issues, full stop!! If the OC says no violation took place then NO violation took place. The election committee must disregard such opposes as rely on the CU violation issue; it's only fair since the OC says no vio took place! fr33k man 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
40. I have sysop and bureaucrat status on ptwiki, so I know very well the accusations against Pugliesi and I am completely convinced that there's nothing to be afraid of. The Arbcom case is still open because a response by the Ombudsman Commission is being waited, but Thogo's comment is very clarifying. Ruy is a very experienced and trustworthy user and will make a good steward. --ThiagoRuiz ^talk 01:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
41. On a personality level, I think he is fine. As for the other issues, I don't know pt enough to comment but I haven't seen much beyond that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
42. Jandalhandler 02:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
43. Willy oath 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
44. Silent ^(Contact) 11:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
45. — Manti core 11:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    (削除) — Qualified and skilled --Csisc 15:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで) Sorry, not eligible. Sa vh ^ñ 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

46. The CheckUser issues do not worry me. —mc10 (t/c) 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
47. Blanket Support Support for all candidates as opposition to the blanket opposition by User:Riffic, in support of open balloting. --Yair rand 07:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
48. Since ombudsmans told Ruy didn't violate privacy policy I don't see any reason to oppose. --Vituzzu 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
49. Support Support GastelEtzwane 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
50. Cedalyon 07:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
51. MADe 14:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
52. Support Support-- Bogger 05:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
53. Support Support Yes -- Pelo trabalho prestado. Odacir Blanco 10:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
54. ...Aurora... 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
55. Support Support Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 17:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC) One of the best pt-wiki sysops!!!![reply ]

    (削除) Support Support Xico CLJ 10:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで) not eligible —DerHexer (Talk) 01:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

56. Support Support Have seen much help from this candidate at ru:wiktionary, supposedly not only there. --Al Silonov 15:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
57. Support Support. VonTasha 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
58. Support Support Mardetanha ^talk 10:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
59. Support Support I've worked with Ruy on strategy wiki, and interacted briefly on Meta and IRC. I've had no complaints so far, but I do have my concerns about the past from pt wiki. This is for moral and emotional support. Theo10011 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

1. While I definitely supported you for global rollback and would for global sysop, I think that with possible CU concerns that steward isn't the best role for you to be in. You'd most likely do fine, but you've been part of a lot of drama as a result of the checkuser incident(s), and so I can't support this. Sorry, Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

   Dude, the ombudsmen commission says no violation took place. Perhaps change your vote? fr33k man 01:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

2. GRS73 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Um usuário envolvido neste tipo de caso não pode ser eleito para função de Steward. Curioso que na sua apresentação como candidato o usuário não fez referência ao assunto e quando indagado sobre o tema verificação respondeu como se seu período como verificador na Wiki-pt fosse o mais normal da história da Wikipédia.[reply ]
3. Nixón 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Oppose Oppose As appointed above, this user has an open process (arbcom) in lusophone wikipedia about misuse of checkuser tool. --- @lestaty ^discuţie 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

   Please note that this is not the user ́s fault. We (the ombudsmen commission) reported to the arbcom two months ago that we have not found any privacy violations and we recommended that the arbcom may additionally check the reasoning of the CU checks (which we couldn't do as we are not involved in the ptwiki community). The arbcom obviously didn't do that or didn't find anything. In any case, the arbcom should have closed that case meanwhile. Two months after our report are enough time to do that. --თოგო ^(D) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

   Note: Arbcom resolutions (at this time): Ricco21 - unblock and Indech - unblock. Leandro Martinez msg 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

5. Oppose Oppose This user has an open process (ArbCom) in lusophone wikipedia about misuse of checkuser tool. I know this editor since 2008. I don't think he can speaks gl-1, sk-1, sq-1, ms-1, hi-1... JSSX 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
6. No. Arbcom issue still open... Severe privacy problems, misuse of checkuser tool. Leandro Martinez msg 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
7. --MF-W 11:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Oppose Oppose I think that new stewards should be people with more experiences over wikimedia, who are active long time at help desks or as supporters or at least have experiences with that, being a member of ArbCom doesn't give you any experiences similar to support over small wikis with rather no active admins or bureacrats, for this you should have abilities to communicate with many communities rather than doing similar work as judge (what IMHO ArbCom members at least think they are), apart of that (same as in Teles case) there seems to be certain issues, which doesn't make you look trustworth for this, maybe later when it all become clear. I apologize but I can't support this nomination now. Petrb 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
9. Oppose Oppose Aleposta 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
10. Oppose Oppose --Gue rillero 14:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
11. Oppose Não, sorry, but after this case, I don't trust in this user. As steward, an error or accusation like that is irreparable. Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
12. Can't support anyone who has been accused of CU abuse. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    Pmlineditor, do you think that only accusing someone of any kind of abuses is enough to consider this person guilty? Please consider reading Thogo's comment above. Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi ^◥ 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

13. Oppose Oppose Pugliesi's friends are in need to not mix up their relationship with the need to follow Wikimedia policies, Ombusdman commission is in the need to be very less slowly than waiting for months to say something (so, this canvass comment is double dealer; What I'm supposed to expect from some that says this from a ArbCom request openned by stablished users!?) and pt.wikipedia ArbCom is in the need to be less slowly and to be more effective. Simply as is. Lugusto • ※(注記) 18:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
14. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
15. Oppose Oppose Nice poa 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
16. Oppose Oppose Concerns with pending arbcom case. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
17. Oppose Oppose Vini 175 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
18. Oppose OpposeVery serious accusations, I can't support this user for now.--В и к и в и н д р е ц и 20:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
19. Not suitable for the role IMHO. --Nemo 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
20. --Taichi - (あ!) 02:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    I would kindly ask people to take their own conclusions based on facts, not on rumors. On ptwiki, any registered user can place an request to Arbitration Committee, no matter the reasoning provided are true or not. Although such request is not closed yet, the ombudsman commission has already investigated that and the conclusion given is there is no abuse in this case and we should have no reasons to not trust their judgement, IMHO. Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi ^◥ 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    The ArbCom proccess about Ruy Pugliesi usage of CU tools has oppened by stablished users. This is the fact. You, Ruy, who is desperately trying to distort the facts. Lugusto • ※(注記) 16:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    Note: OC is not judging that, ArbCom is; and that is not acusations, are evidences in a ArbCom process who had been accepted (if was not true the case would be denied on spot). Decisions until now: Arbcom resolutions: Ricco21 - unblock, Sabrina - unblock and Indech - unblock. In Indech case, for example, the stewards confirmed that was no sock puppet. JSSX 11:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    I was about to reply here in order to explain some incomplete and tendencious information given above. However, it seems Thogo's comment and what was already explained here about such checkuser actions are enough. The lastest checkuser requested for Indech (done on Meta, by a steward, in 2011) has nothing to do with the previous one, occurred in 2010, when the local Arbitration Committe decided to give him a second chance, although they have found strong evidences of both accounts being related. Ruy Pugliesi ^◥ 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

21. Albertus Aditya 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
22. -- Marco Aurelio 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
23. -- Ul1-82-2 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
24. --Holder 17:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
25. --Sergey Semenov ^talk 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
26. Another old time Wikipedian. Xania 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
27. Difficult Prashanthns 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
28. --Bua333 18:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
29. Oppose Oppose RaymondSutanto 23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
30. Oppose Oppose BetoCG 04:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
31. Oppose Oppose Of course not, this is one of the most controversial wikipedians on Wiki-pt and Wikimedia itself, a simple positions collector throughout Wikimedia. To date, failure to who should solve the case, the stewards, there is a request for verification of its behavior as verifier not resolved in Wiki-pt's Arbcom. He has the most biased behavior possible at Wikipt as administrator along with his "friend" Teles, another one candidate to steward, both only "positions collectors" in this project and ad hominem sysops on wiki-pt. I can't believe till now he was elected sysop on Meta. A "lot of drama editor" every election he tries to collect another position around. MachoCarioca 08:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
32. sorry FiliP ██ 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
33. Too many concens, I am afraid. --Mercy 08:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
34. Blanket 'NO' votes for all candidates to protest open balloting. riffic 07:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
35. Per CU advent. Onjacktallcuca 19:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
36. Oppose Oppose I do not think the checkuser event is significant except that it has exposed you to controversy. Since you are a good editor I think that time will prove you correct. I am happy that आपकी हिंदी बहुत अछि है and I am also glad that you have a close working relationship with Teles, who I endorsed. It seems as though you have been sick for a week and have been unable to respond to questions about your stewardship. I wish you a speedy recovery but without a basis on which I support you like your answering questions, I cannot endorse you. Wait a year, let your controversy concerning CU resolve, and be well during your next run. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
37. Oppose Oppose Concerns with pending arbcom case, here. Belanidia 15:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    (削除) Oppose Oppose Robertogilnei 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで) not eligible —DerHexer (Talk) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

38. no. no no no no no. DarkoNeko 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
39. I'm worried even not by possible CU tool misuse or errors. Even if they were, it's not a great problem, as all we are mere humans and make errors. But I'm worried by the fact that I see no any signs of understanding of the other side. Even if there was no misuse, he should be more careful. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

    (削除) No. no portuguese stewards til portuguese Wikipedia as improved. Why you want to be steward? Work on the portuguese matter, you have there a lot to do! Jorge alo 04:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで) Not eligible to vote. Does not have enough edits.[reply ]

40. No - Modernist 12:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
41. Oppose Oppose sorry :(--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
42. Oppose Strong oppose I will not repeat what all the people already said. Béria Lima ^msg 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
43. Oppose Oppose --NaBUru38 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

1. ← fetch comms 01:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

   (削除) --В и к и в и н д р е ц и 04:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) (削除ここまで)moving to oppose--В и к и в и н д р е ц и 20:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

2. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 09:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Worm ^TT 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Indecisive...--Davidbottan 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Slon02 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Dbiel 05:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
7. micki t 08:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
8. --WizardOfOz ^talk 09:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
9. - Davecrosby uk 20:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
10. Not sure on this one. I'll think on it. ···日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
11. Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
12. --Oneiros 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
13. Good work all around and in normal circunstances I would support him, but I'd like to see the ArbCom case closed first. José Luiz ^talk 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
14. Tttom 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
15. --Lantrix 14:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
16. I really disagree with these kind of aggressive comments on vote pages, which prevents me from supporting. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2011-2/votes/Ruy_Pugliesi&oldid=24929648"

Categories:

• Steward elections 2011-2/votes
• Steward elections 2011-2/votes/all