Stewards/Confirm/2025/Albertoleoncio

Albertoleoncio

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

English:

Languages: pt, en-3
Personal info: Hello everyone! This is my first confirmation as a steward, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank the community for the trust given to me. I have not been as active as I would have liked, mainly because all of our request queues have been quickly emptied, even faster than my mouse can click. Despite this, I am (almost) always available and I try to solve all demands that are presented to me, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, whether complex technical issues or simple doubts, whether participating in meetings with the foundation, or just responding to messages via Telegram. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 13:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Informazioni personali: translation needed

Nederlands:

Taalvaardigheid:
Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

русский:

Языки:
Личная информация: translation needed

Tiếng Việt:

Ngôn ngữ:
Thông tin cá nhân: translation needed

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 Albertoleoncio

~~{{remove}} very low activity, see Stewards/statistics and Special:Log/Albertoleoncio.~~ --TenWhile6 14:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I‘ll abstain and see if the activity in their second year is better. --TenWhile6 13:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Unfortunately, your activity is very low, and is not what I expect from a Steward. --Stïnger （会話） 14:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

After demonstrating good judgement and no evidence of abuse was proven, I'll be

Neutral now. Will definitely be a remove vote next year if activity levels do not improve. --Stïnger （会話） 19:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Remove activity way too low, especially as a first year. --shb (t • c) 14:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~FTR I'm still maintaining my remove for the reasons mentioned by Pppery. //shb (t • c) 03:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

On third thoughts, I'm striking my remove – willing to give Alberto another year but I do agree with most of the arguments for removing; will probably

abstain. //shb (t • c) 23:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per SHB.--A09|(pogovor) 14:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. aqurs ❄️ 14:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Base on respond of answers and voice from other steward, switching to

Weak keep. aqurs ❄️ 15:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Per above, 86 steward-related actions in the past year (not counting renames as you were a renamer prior to being a steward). While I understand that timezone issues might cause a user to not use their rights actively but from Special:Log/globalauth/Albertoleoncio, your usage of gbl lock is essentially just once a month when SRG are sometimes filled with several "easy-to-close" requests. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 06:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, regretfully, due to the low number of actions, but I would welcome a future request when you'll be able to be more active. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit less strong than other votes. After a lot of extra thought, and given the arguments and additional information by Vermont and Ajraddatz, I'll change my initial vote; there's indeed a valid explanation for the activity level, other stewards have confirmed participation in internal channels, and at the end of the day there's nothing else that would make me lose confidence to you. In my original vote I said I would most probably welcome/support a future request, but there's no obvious benefit for the community and the project not to give that chance now instead. I'm covered by your response below. Good luck. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertoleoncio: what actually have you done as a steward? There's a lot that wouldn't show up publicly, and the stuff you've done seem to fall into that category. More detail would be helpful. Leaderboard (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: The problem is that I don't have "numbers" to present, which is what the community expects me to present, and unfortunately, I don't have them. But that doesn't mean I'm inactive, quite the opposite, but I end up just doing more complicated tasks. Two simple but illustrative examples: EPIC once complained about a page that was impossible to delete because of a database error (task T365482), but I went to solve it. An administrator of a small project asked me to delete almost a thousand pages, and I went to solve it. Again, I know a lot more was expected of me, but I focused on what I thought was most useful, even if it didn't generate as many stats. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 20:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK by me. Keep Leaderboard (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have talked in private with Alberto regarding this application, and I took in consideration his position of acknowledging that activity last year was not adequate. However, as it was his first year and as he actually acknowledges that is an issue and is willing to improve it, I would consider keeping. He is careful with sensitive information, dilligent with his actions, and I see no harm on giving him another try.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a weak keep per Teles above and as their activity has been just about sufficient, although not that high. I'll probably be coming back here if I have a final opinion. EPIC (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per below and what I've already commented I'm also leaning towards a Keep. Activity has been low, but also consistent, and as Johannes has stated, there isn't just the Meta-Wiki logs - they've sometimes participated in private communication channels and other steward work outside of Meta as well. All in all I think one of the main issues were that Alberto never really got started in the way that the others did and therefore mainly focused on activity related to their home wiki. I'm willing to give them another chance this year, because even though they haven't been that active in steward work, they are helpful when they are active, and the keep !voters overall bring up strong arguments. The worst that I think can really happen is the activity not increasing, and worst that I think can happen in that scenario is removing their tools next year. EPIC (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per TenWhile6 and SHB. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 15:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive user. JrandWP (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I had expected you to be much more active than you were, and as much as I would like to assume good faith that your activity will improve and that you are taking time getting into the tools, I think a year is more than enough time to get into the swing of how things are working. Sorry. --Ferien (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhitePhosphorus, Vermont, Giraffer, Sdrqaz and others make very compelling points. I still trust you and all of your actions have been appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sad to see you go but with such low activity I cannot vote differently. --Jan Myšák (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep per Teles; I don't think there is harm in giving them another term to become more active. I would absolutely be a remove in 2026 if activity levels do not improve. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to a full Keep. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove —Aopou {talk} 20:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Zafkiel GD | Talk 20:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, very week keep. Let's give him another chance, he might get more active in this year. This is not the last stewatds' election in our lives (hopefully), if the activity doesn't get better over the course of the next couple of months, he can always be removed in 12 months from now. Karol739 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to low activity. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 03:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per above. Neriah - 💬 - 08:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 09:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Remove~~, too inactive as a steward. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets make that a Neutral amd see where we will be in 2026... Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and somewhat strongly. I can understand the minimal on-wiki actions this year - it has not been a great year to learn how to be a steward, with very few entry-level requests available as a result of EPIC handling a majority of requests with very short response times. Albertoleoncio has remained active on his home wiki, where he is still a functionary, and for this year I think an exception is best. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Vermont, this was a bad year to be a new steward. Absent any signs of lack of trust, I think they should be given another chance. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Given that Albert's own explanation of what he's done is something that could have been done with only Global Sysop rights it utterly fails to convince me. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: assuming you are confirmed this year, what would you do different/which areas would you focus on? --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KonstantinaG07: I'm not going to promise something like "I'll do x actions by y amount of time", that's something that requires me to... compete(?) with other stewards, which isn't good for anyone or anything. I like working collectively, and that is what I intend to focus on more: taking more part in discussions (internal and external) and, at least, trying to fill the gaps left by stewards who unfortunately left the group recently. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 00:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Apologies if my wording was confusing, I was mostly interested in the steward areas you would like to focus on, but you otherwise covered me :) KonstantinaG07 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I usually only vote in confirmations for stewards I'm familiar with, I think that removal here would be a mistake. It's Albertoleoncio's first year and I haven't seen any concerns about the actual quality of actions, which should be the more important thing. Given his self-awareness and Vermont's arguments (something I've wondered about too), I'm willing to let him have another year and see what happens in next year's confirmation. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albertoleoncio handled less visible tasks, stayed active locally, and showed good judgment. Removing him now feels premature. Give him another year to prove himself. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple people qualified to properly assess Albertoleoncio's activity (Teles, Vermont, Ajraddatz) believe that another year would be better than removing. Given the absence of any obvious downsides, I'm happy to trust them on that. Giraffer (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Giraffer. I don't see any harm in giving him another chance. -kyykaarme (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some remove comments appear to be based on metawiki logs which don't show the whole picture. Alberto has given two examples [1], I can easily remember more, e.g. doing hundreds of deletions at tewiktionary [2] and fawiktionary [3]. Keep per XXBlackburnXx --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vermont. HouseBlaster (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Very low activity. I have high expectation for stewards. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ajraddatz. Mahir256 (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the lower stats, it's a trusted user and he helps a lot with tech tools (especially with bots at ptwiki). Also, absolutely 0 misuses of the tools. But, it's expected to grow the activities. --Eta Carinae (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Hasan (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really disagree with the current community ethos of ditching people if they don't see a fancy number of their log entries. This feels like shareholders hounding CEOs for quarterly earnings, and this directly incentivizes everyone to scramble for repetitive, no-brainer tasks for a healthy "financial" report with "company" growth (and no shade to those doing them – they are very important, and I appreciate their service!). While I don't know the candidate personally, judging by their statement, logs, and the comments above, I get the sense they have genuinely tried to do good work their first year, and the community's trust remains. That's enough for me. I'd recommend giving them another year. Maybe for the next confirmation, the candidate can provided a detailed breakdown of your accomplishments like this in the statement for better visibility. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Moral keep. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need users we can trust as stewards. I see no reason to doubt Alberto's commitment, skills and trustworthiness to remain a steward. --Joalpe (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inactivity causes no harm; bad activity does. Moreover, there are plausible explanations for the inactivity as per e.g. Vermont. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wiktionary had a vote on desysopping for inactivity, where inactivity is defined as no use of admin tools. Two options were given: after 2 years and after 5 years. Editors opted for 5 years. Thus, the English Wiktionary has this governed by a rule/policy and does not need to relitigate/redebate the matter repeatedly. The vote: wikt: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity. (I am the author of the vote.) Meta has a page listing similar policies/rules: Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are clearly active in the areas where are able to be. Alberto is pretty active in Wikisource groups, on his own wiki and GS related work (and apparently in internal communications for stews). I don't see him being inactive, but rather active in the areas he previously had experience in. Raw log numbers should not be the end-all-be-all of steward reconfirmations. Sohom (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove low activity --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite low activity I decide to give you another chance. --Antoine.b (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Stinger. AramilFeraxa (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are people that I trust that have vouched for the activity. The more stewards we have, the less tasks each steward will have to do unless they're chronically refreshing the requests pages or VRT queues, and if people highly involved in training new stewards are saying that it was a dogshit year to learn unless you want to throw people into high complexity situations, then I trust them fundamentally and I trust Albertoleoncio to find his niche in his second year. We have a similar situation on English Wikipedia with how there's rarely any easy deletions because of very deletion-heavy admins snatching them all quickly. Sennecaster (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valuable editor and pledged to increase his activity in the next year. Érico (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite his low activity (judging by numbers) this year, I agree with WhitePhosphorus' comments. As Dan Polansky said, inactivity does not cause harm, bad activity does, and Alberto activity was good. Eduardo Gottert (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan Polansky --Harlock81 (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing gives me cause for concern here. Elli (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reported causes for concern except that some people have expressed some concerns about activity. I find the arguments made by Vermont and Sdrqaz to be convincing, and the fact that log numbers don't mean everything, particularly in cases where tasks are complex and take more time. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eta Carinae. Vanthorn (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhitePhosphorus hit the nail. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep log numbers don't necessarily translate directly to activity, as mentioned above especially where cases are complex, and if queues are emptied quickly, that's not really their fault if they're not monitoring queues constantly. Zippybonzo (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unless they provide they will be active in future. Lemonaka (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better something than nothing. --Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9002Jack (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 79a (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vermont and XXBlackburnXx. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 22:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --M/ (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BraunOBruno (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, their responses here show exactly the right attitude I would expect of a Steward. Toadspike (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove SkullyWasHere (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A.WagnerC (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --Aca (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would lean towards keep, especially considering the arguments for giving Albertoleoncio another chance despite lower activity. There’s also no significant issue with trust or misconduct. --ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sintegrity (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eta Carinae. Sturm (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep logged activity isn't the best but the arguments of Vermont et al convince me that this isn't as big an issue. Java Hurricane 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WhitePhosphorus and others --Arcticocean ■ 19:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Teles, Vermont and Ajraddatz. I trust their judgement as they are highly experienced Wikimedians. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --Daniuu (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comments above have persuaded me that removal would be shortsighted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per EPIC and WhitePhosphorus. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reduced but correct activity is preferable to no activity at all. --——d—n—f (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vermont. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vermont and WhitePhosphorus. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stats don't tell us everything and it's evident that they've shown great collaboration and problem solving skills and solved some large problems and requests which don't give them large numbers but still benefit the community, per Vermont and WhitePhosphorus. MolecularPilot (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They also made 95 locks which is still beneficial - that's an average of 1 every 4 days which is a decent contribution. I checked and they are all compliant with policy. MolecularPilot (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Teles, Vermont and Ajraddatz. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ammarpad (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need to give a another chance to prove themselves. Even I haven’t been able to keep up with many requests this year. --❄️Mykola❄️ 23:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inactivity from a volunteer position need not be problematic. Quality over quantity regardness extent of perms.--Babegriev (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next year I will oppose, if nothing changes. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his rapid response to private requests (at least I've experienced that). Still, we need a steward from Portuguese community, especially after Teles has pitifully resigned. U.T. 04:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rust him: do we really need few steward running evefrywhere and risking to skip something important? I prefer havign one or two les active stewards and every needed action covered. I see that a portuguese speaking steward is a valuable asset anytime. - εΔ ω 11:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
KeepKavitha Ganesh (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --20041027 𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓼𝓾（talk） 14:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EPIC. Daask (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vermont and Ajraddatz --Sakretsu (炸裂) 20:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 20:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, an action a day is not useless and there were no issues with these actions — NickK (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Titore (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep masti <talk> 10:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DerHexer (Talk) 10:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Leo^talk 11:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]