Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vituzzu: Difference between revisions

Vituzzu

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

English:

• Languages: it, en, scn
• Personal info: I've been a steward for more than 12 years and I've been appreciating the opportunity to work in a great team, with a good panel of diverse opinions when tackling problems. Although I'm concerned by its shrinking, I must appreciate old and new members, but also clerks' committment. Language barriers are still a problem when it comes to prevent new systematic failures of projects, but I think overall awareness of such risks as increased in years. So, I'd like to serve for another year.

বাংলা:

• ভাষা:
• ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Deutsch:

• Sprachen:
• Informationen zur Person: translation needed

español:

• Idiomas:
• Información personal: translation needed

magyar:

• Nyelvek:
• Személyes információk: translation needed

italiano:

• Lingue: it, en, scn
• Informazioni personali: Sono steward da più di 12 anni e ho avuto modo di apprezzare l'opportunità di lavorare in un bel gruppo, con un buon ventaglio di opioni diverse nell'affrontare i problemi. Malgrado sia un po' preoccupato dal fatto che la sua consistenza numerica si vada riducendo, apprezzo sia i vecchi che i nuovi membri e l'impegno profuso dai clerk. Le barriere linguistiche continuano a essere un problema nel prevenire dei "fallimenti sistemici" di interi progetti, ma credo che comunque la consapevolezza complessiv adi tali problemi sia aumentata nel corso degli anni. Insomma, vorrei continuare a svolgere la mansione per un altro anno.

Nederlands:

• Taalvaardigheid:
• Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

русский:

• Языки:
• Личная информация: translation needed

Tiếng Việt:

• Ngôn ngữ: it, en, scn
• Thông tin cá nhân: Tôi đã là tiếp viên trong hơn 12 năm và tôi trân trọng cơ hội được làm việc trong một đội ngũ tuyệt vời, với nhiều ý kiến đa dạng khi giải quyết vấn đề. Mặc dù tôi lo ngại về sự thu hẹp đội ngũ, tôi vẫn phải ghi nhận sự cống hiến của các thành viên cũ và mới, cũng như các thư ký. Rào cản ngôn ngữ vẫn là một vấn đề khi ngăn chặn các thất bại mang tính hệ thống mới của các dự án, nhưng tôi nghĩ nhận thức chung về những rủi ro như vậy đã tăng lên trong những năm qua. Vì vậy, tôi muốn tiếp tục phục vụ dưới tư cách tiếp viên thêm một năm nữa.

中文（简体）:

• 可说语言:
• 个人资料: translation needed

中文（繁體）:

• 可說語言:
• 個人資料: translation needed

Comments about Vituzzu

• Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).
• Keep --ValterVB (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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 here (now deleted) you revealed your identity on wiki. When I stumbled upon your abuse of multiple accounts to push your works, I looked for more and I found that some citations (added by other users than you, thus perfectly legit) were mistyped.
  

  According to en.wiki policy If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. i.e. your allegation is, as usual, twice false: I was dealing with a COI and you self-identified. Vituzzu (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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

  @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)

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --Titore (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep--Superspritz^{tell me} 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no issues with Vituzzu's actions in the case above. Good work overall as usual, and tends to be responsive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A pillar against all kinds of POV-pushing.--Friniate (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Remove--Fenikals (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Keep --Actormusicus (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep--Atlante (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep A very valuable steward. --Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep --9Aaron3 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

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

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

• Remove per Gitz6666 and Red-tailed hawk. --Nemoralis (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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

  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)

  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)

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

  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)

• Neutral Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• Remove I don't feel that we ever got to the bottom of what was going on in the Glitz6666 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)

  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)

• Remove loss of trust after the whole handling of the Gitz666/Orsini affair. --Andreas JN466 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Keep--Mtarch11 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep ----Mannivu · ✉ 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep —Vale93b (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep--Equoreo (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)