Steward election/reconfirmation

[eppur si muove]

The Steward elections are on and I'm watching with interest how Vituzzi is doing after his outing Gitz during the Orsini affair. During the discussion, Vituzzi repeatedly lies about his outing of Gitz during the Signpost discussion...

[Pelican]

Just so others don't have to go search for it as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward ... 24#Vituzzu

[Starship Enterprise]

should hand out opposes in every direction

WMF lackies all of them

[Bezdomni]

I wonder how all those Italian admins heard their comrades were facing the music?

Interesting that Gitz did not vote to remove Sakretsu.

[Gitz]

Interesting that Gitz did not vote to remove Sakretsu.

You know, stewards don't grow on trees... I've read that they lack enough members on the team to face the big workload. Apart from the incident I was involved, I have no opinion about Sakretsu, neither good nor bad: I know very little about him. In the grand scheme of things maybe it's OK if he's kept - I really don't know.

In the end, regardless of whether he stays or is removed, I think he and the other stewards will have learnt that "Avoid conflicts of interest" is important steward policy. Hopefully the Italian stewards will pay more attention to it after this confirmation. Since it.wiki doesn't have a WP:INVOLVED policy yet, it's understandable they need some time and a push to learn...

[Gitz]

I wonder how all those Italian admins heard their comrades were facing the music?

if I counted correctly, so far 26 Italian admins plus one non-admin Italian user have voted for Vito's confirmation.

[eppur si muove]

I wonder how all those Italian admins heard their comrades were facing the music?

if I counted correctly, so far 26 Italian admins plus one non-admin Italian user have voted for Vito's confirmation.

It's ridiculous that Vito claims that he did not out you on en.wp when he provided a link to it.wiki which identifies a change to a paragraph in which only two names appear and one of them is quite obviously you. Before seeing that post of his on en.wiki I did not know your name. A couple of minutes after I read it I knew what you were called and a couple of minutes after that I knew where you worked. And on top of that he also stalked you by editing just those en.wiki articles in which your real name appears.

[Gitz]

I don't know. On 22 July I received an email from Oversight saying that, after discussion, ArbCom had decided not to suppress that edit per WP:OS. But I don't know anything about the rationale, maybe it's because (as Vito said) I had revealed my identity on it.wiki in 2014, on the talk page of a deleted article (which I had forgotten I had done).

[utbc]

What is this "confirm" business? It appears to be different from an election. Who's eligible to vote? I remember there was some election last year where other people were checking your eligibility to vote and striking if you weren't. That's not happening there.

[eppur si muove]

What is this "confirm" business? It appears to be different from an election.

To become a steward you need 80% support. Then annually, if someone wants to remain a steward, they need there to be a consensus for them to remain a steward. Consensus is determined by the stewards.

Who's eligible to vote?

In the steward elections which is running simultaneouslt with the confirmation, it says

Before you vote, you must:

have an account;
not primarily use the account for automated (bot) tasks;
have made at least 600 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis) before 01 November 2023;
have made at least 50 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis) between 01 August 2023 and 31 January 2024.

It's not obvious whether you need the same to take part in the confirmation discussion.

[eppur si muove]

I don't know. On 22 July I received an email from Oversight saying that, after discussion, ArbCom had decided not to suppress that edit per WP:OS. But I don't know anything about the rationale, maybe it's because (as Vito said) I had revealed my identity on it.wiki in 2014, on the talk page of a deleted article (which I had forgotten I had done).

The footnote to the Outing section in Wikipedia:Harassment (T-H-L) says:

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 (e.g. posted on a user's public userpage at another Wikimedia wiki) and less acceptable if it requires much "research" to find (particularly information later removed by the user in question).
Editors are urged to take care to err on the side of privacy, and to ask users before posting their personal information if there is any doubt. Posting information which might not constitute outing per se can still be unwise and reflect poorly on the poster's judgment.
This note only applies to cases where a user has voluntarily disclosed personal information on another Wikimedia project; it does not apply in the vast majority of OUTING cases.

If you have only disclosed your identity in a talk page to a deleted article then what Vituzzi has done is more like the "research" example rather than his posting in a situation that it is clear for your identity to be known. His claiming not to have outed you is poor quality wikilawyering.

[utbc]

Consensus is determined by the stewards.

Um.. that does not sound ideal. Kinda impressive that that's worked.

[Gitz]

If you have only disclosed your identity in a talk page to a deleted article then what Vituzzi has done is more like the "research" example rather than his posting in a situation that it is clear for your identity to be known. His claiming not to have outed you is poor quality wikilawyering.

Yes, you are right, that text you posted is very clear. I really don't know... perhaps I'm missing something big and obvious here. I just browsed through my correspondence with Vituzzu looking for something like an authorisation to disclose my name, e.g., "do whatever you want with this!", but I didn't find anything.

Perhaps I should have asked Primefac some clarification when they told me that ArbCom had declined my request for oversight.

[Elinruby]

That page has become a toxic timesink

[Vigilant]

Andreas bringing the heat with a uCoCk quote.

[Arishok]

56 keep to 31 remove by my count as of now. Not sure what the numerical standards are for Stewards but at 64% that wouldn’t generally suffice as a pass at RfA on Enwiki.

[redbaron]

56 keep to 31 remove by my count as of now. Not sure what the numerical standards are for Stewards but at 64% that wouldn’t generally suffice as a pass at RfA on Enwiki.

Numerical standard for election is 80% with a minimum of 30 support votes. Reconfirmation is decided by consensus and does not have a numerical standard, AFAIK, so I guess it would work in a similar way to RFA but with the 80% standard (as in, high 70s is the "steward chat" zone, and the further down it goes, the less chance for it to pass).

[Ron Lybonly]

What about Wim b (T-C-L), another Italian steward? Were they complicit?

[ArmasRebane]

Even if it's within their remit to reconfirm at that percentage it would be a massively dumb idea. Why would you blow credibility on a steward who lashes out at the most minor of criticisms? If he'd kept his mouth shut I doubt all those people would have been inspired to come out against the reconfirmation.

[Elinruby]

Even if it's within their remit to reconfirm at that percentage it would be a massively dumb idea. Why would you blow credibility on a steward who lashes out at the most minor of criticisms? If he'd kept his mouth shut I doubt all those people would have been inspired to come out against the reconfirmation.

I have to say that his responses aren't great, and I am a keep vote because I firmly believe Gitz lied through his teeth and you guys got played

[Gitz]

I firmly believe Gitz lied through his teeth and you guys got played

If I lied, as it.wiki admins Kirk39 and Superspritz claim (and also Elinruby here out of spite), it would be nice if they could expose my lies - and if they cannot prove that they are lies, they should at least explain what they are about, make their slanders less vague and foggy. I'm not referring to you, Elinruby, I know you usually know nothing about the things you talk about and just enjoy your lazy gibberish.

[utbc]

I'm not referring to you, Elinruby, I know you usually know nothing about the things you talk about and just enjoy your lazy gibberish.

WPO continues to not disappoint

[Elinruby]

I'm not referring to you, Elinruby, I know you usually know nothing about the things you talk about and just enjoy your lazy gibberish.

WPO continues to not disappoint

You never exactly lie, you just never once in the year I spent fact checking you in in war in Ukraine accurately represented a source. The words were usually there, followed by a "but'. Something like that.

But I am too busy right now for your bullshit, I have a coup to cover. Nice being patronized by you again. Good times

Well actually, correction: a lot of what you said about VM at ANI was mmm not so; you also used to claim consensus that you you didn't have quite a bit. Possibly you believed these things but you lost me at Bucha massacre was a hoax. Or when you swore you never leaked Gio's name---no you just gave some diffs to a friend and had him rid you of a troublesome priest.

Beeblebrox took a chance for you to tell you something you already knew. That was a shitty thing for you to do to him and now you've got a bunch of people claiming Vituzzu doxxed you. All I know is the only reason I know your name is that you yourself posted diffs of him correcting the spelling of your name. God give me some enemies like *that*.

You're a great lawyer, I give you that. We'd be better off with Beeblebrox though

Now like I said, I'm busy

[Gitz]

you lost me at Bucha massacre was a hoax.

I'm only replying because there is a small chance that there are still people who believe what Elinruby says - it's unlikely, but it can't be ruled out. This statement is completely false. I'm not saying that it is a lie, but I think that you are incapable of retaining enough information to make truthful statements. It's funny, but also not so funny.

[Elinruby]

you lost me at Bucha massacre was a hoax.

I'm only replying because there is a small chance that there are still people who believe what Elinruby says - it's unlikely, but it can't be ruled out. This statement is completely false. I'm not saying that it is a lie, but I think that you are incapable of retaining enough information to make truthful statements. It's funny, but also not so funny.

Big sigh. It's only been a couple of months since I reviewed this. I guess I can use a break from Brazilian fascists.

As usual what you are saying is true, but not true. You would never make a post that contained only four words. *That* part is true. But it's a really low bar, Gitz. Ok here we go... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bucha_massacre/Archive_3/The assertion of over 400 deaths (T-H-L)

458 bodies, 400 of which were not of people who were massacred

I'm done

[redbaron]

[Elinruby]

agreed but allow me just this one post then I promise to stfu

[Beeblebrox]

glad I popped in while it was still open to add my oppose for Vituzzu. If I had a say in it, I'd also vote to remove all the other Italian admins who had any part in the Gitz affair.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

glad I popped in while it was still open to add my oppose for Vituzzu. If I had a say in it, I'd also vote to remove all the other Italian admins who had any part in the Gitz affair.

You misplaced it, after the "<section end="comments" />" line, so it doesn't show when it's transcluded (and I can't fix it for you as I'm permanently logged out now).

[lonza leggiera]

glad I popped in while it was still open to add my oppose for Vituzzu. If I had a say in it, I'd also vote to remove all the other Italian admins who had any part in the Gitz affair.

You misplaced it, after the "<section end="comments" />" line, so it doesn't show when it's transcluded (and I can't fix it for you as I'm permanently logged out now).

Already fixed by
1234qwer1234qwer4 (T-C-L)

[Gitz]

Does anyone understand what Kirk is referring to when he tells Andreas "I'm reading about some user who defended the same one you're defending"?

[eppur si muove]

There's still a steady flow of Italian supports for Vituzzi. If all the votes from his home wiki were removed, I wonder what the numbers would be.

[eppur si muove]

Does anyone understand what Kirk is referring to when he tells Andreas "I'm reading about some user who defended the same one you're defending"?

I suspect that it is a jibe at Beeblebrox.

[Bezdomni]

There's still a steady flow of Italian supports for Vituzzi. If all the votes from his home wiki were removed, I wonder what the numbers would be.

More than six months ago, the stewards decided that Sakretsu's global lock of Gitz was unwarranted.
The Italian admins have been re-trying Gitz ad nauseum in that thread, when they should be discussing Vituzzu's suitability as a cabin attendant. (more spritz, less gitz...)

[Gitz]

I knew about Beeblebrox's suspension, I read about it on en.wiki and in the WO thread, but I completely missed that there was an element of it that was related to my global lock. I just read this comment where Beeblebrox explains that "If I hadn't come by this information due to the apparent bad advice they [Gitz] received, they would probably still be blocked with no idea why, but I'm ther bad guy in this sceanrio." I agree with this and am very grateful to Beeblebrox for warning me that there was a second "most serious accusation" against me. I knew nothing of this and the situation was truly Kafkesque, as Beeblebrox said. I'm sorry to hear that this had negative consequences on them. If I hadn't been informed of this second allegation, I wouldn't have been able to show the stewards my correspondence and prove that I had never threatened or blackmailed anyone. So Beeblebrox actually helped the stewards' investigation because I was able to provide them with new and relevant evidence.

[Gitz]

If all the votes from his home wiki were removed, I wonder what the numbers would be.

There may be some small errors but this is what I gathered:
* 42 users voted remove and 67 voted keep
* Out of the 67 votes for keep, 42 come from it.wiki users and 25 from other projects.
* Out of the 42 Italian votes, 38 come from it.wiki admins and 4 come from non-admins (including former admin Hypergio).

[Beeblebrox]

I knew about Beeblebrox's suspension, I read about it on en.wiki and in the WO thread, but I completely missed that there was an element of it that was related to my global lock. I just read this comment where Beeblebrox explains that "If I hadn't come by this information due to the apparent bad advice they [Gitz] received, they would probably still be blocked with no idea why, but I'm ther bad guy in this sceanrio." I agree with this and am very grateful to Beeblebrox for warning me that there was a second "most serious accusation" against me. I knew nothing of this and the situation was truly Kafkesque, as Beeblebrox said. I'm sorry to hear that this had negative consequences on them. If I hadn't been informed of this second allegation, I wouldn't have been able to show the stewards my correspondence and prove that I had never threatened or blackmailed anyone. So Beeblebrox actually helped the stewards' investigation because I was able to provide them with new and relevant evidence.

I've said elsewhere that I knew when I made the comment that some would see it as crossing a line. I felt the line needed to be crossed in this instance, because what they were doing was so blatantly unfair.

I think some of the arbs feel I may have damaged the already not-exactly-perfect relationship between the stewards and the committee, a relationship which some of the arbs had been trying to make better, with some success. My unwillingness to put that relationship ahead of an obvious moral failing was aparently not very popular with the committee. I was supposed to do it "the committee way" and discuss it for a few more weeks while you were globally locked for reasons that weren't being provided to you and were not supported by evidence.

You can run for ArbCom as a reformer who believes in transperency, and totally get elected, twice, but if you actually try and do what the people who elected you expected, you risk getting the boot, apparently.

[eppur si muove]

I've said elsewhere that I knew when I made the comment that some would see it as crossing a line. I felt the line needed to be crossed in this instance, because what they were doing was so blatantly unfair.

There's a parallel with your situation in what has been happening recently with the Hugo Awards. On of the Hugo Administration team leaked the correspondence between the various North American members of last year's team in which they discussed who to remove from the nomination list because it might embarrass their Chinese hosts. The immediate reaction to the leak from the person who was the head of this year's Hugo administration team was to denounce this as unethical and a breach of confidence. Of course what the Hugo team were doing was totally unethical. And how the stewards were treating Gitz was similarly unethical. Whistleblowers are unpopular with the unethical people they expose but are a great boon to society in general.

[Yamato]

Vituzzu is on the way out: link

[utbc]

I had thought EPIC was attempting some shenanigans, voting first, and voting to confirm all, massively downplaying the issues. I wonder what happened next.

[C&B]

Masti (T-C-L) looks to be on the ropes too. At least, floating between 75% and 77%, which is well less than the 80% needed in an election. But some leeway appears possible in this case.

[utbc]

It's official. V is gone, no one else.

[Beeblebrox]

It's official. V is gone, no one else.

I can't seem to find any actual documentation on that, where did you see it?

[redbaron]

It's official. V is gone, no one else.

I can't seem to find any actual documentation on that, where did you see it?

Here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:St ... nfirm/2024

[Beeblebrox]

It's official. V is gone, no one else.

I can't seem to find any actual documentation on that, where did you see it?

Here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:St ... nfirm/2024

I was going in circles from one link to the next, somehow I never hit that one, that is indeed quite clear, thanks!