Talk:Stewards/elections 2011-2/votes/Bennylin

Siska.Doviana

the same as previous voting. This user is a disaster as a wikipedian contributors both in his writing ability and in policy. He seem nice and helpful until he had his own agenda, if that happens, he just gonna throw everyone under the bus. In Cina vs Tiongkok dispute he CHANGE every term to Tiongkok until overruled by community voting, won't stop even after warning and warning that discussion is on going. After discussion where his action is over ruled, Indonesian language Wikipedia left with a HUGE homework of reverting his unstoppable edit. He put Indonesian language Wikipedia in this really difficult situation where he implemented FLAGREV to all articles in ID WP the minute he became sysop from an unfinished dead discussion whether it's a good thing or not and then when community voted that we would like to remove flagrev since it makes it difficult to new users to contribute he QUIT as sysop. LoL. I shit you not, he quit, exactly a year later when he is eligible for a steward and apply to become a steward. Aww the damage you guys are going to face later if he became a steward... Well if there's room for one more: he unlock all the protected most vandal article from the previous MOST ACTIVE SYSOP/ user in ID WP Borgx, and then he quit as a sysop and now apply for steward. God help us all. He's gonna screw up, he always will, he sounded sweet though <-- if this helps at all. Siska.Doviana 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (I don't want to use this user name but my previous one was over ruled because I can not obtain global SUL)

In accordance to the guideline, I put my response to Siska Doviana/Serenity/Serenity.id (afterward Serenity) here.

(for English reader, Google Translate did an okay job to translate the links below)

Re: Tiongkok: Thank you for showing the example of my actions from seven years ago which resulted in the consensus of 27 October 2007. It only showed that I followed the consensus even though that matter really personal to me and I'm really feeling against the consensus. But I honor the consensus and I commit myself not to touch any article related to that topic since the consensus, ever. So unless you can give a solid proof that I didn't follow the consensus deliberately, I'm going to say that I never break that consensus. Your timeline and description is too exaggerating and in some parts are blatantly wrong though. First I couldn't have changed "all" of the term. Second, I changed roughly half of them to "Tionghoa". Third, it all happened before the consensus. Fourth, giving "warning" has never been the culture of id.wp, only done by you and Borgx (the semi-robotic admin that quit the very same day that I was elected. I wonder why). Also, please give links (i.e. "after warning and warning") or do your research correctly first.

Re: Huge Homework: Here is your formal complaint. Apparently you're pretty much alone. (also note on the comment section)

Re: Flagged Revs: Let's start from the most important aspect, timeline. June 2008 this feature is announced at id.wp and immediately went into voting in which I and Serenity both voted yes. (She later retracted her vote, but never changed the page). I submitted the long due result (80% agree, and by all means already finished, no comments for two years) to bugzilla on 17 June 2010, 236 days after I became sysop. It was just another sunny day where another editor accidentally stumbled upon that page and it came to my attention, very far from what she described. And since then I've been offering enormous help for the Flagged Revs to work, while she gave zero help, even negative influence with her comments and to some degree sabotaging (i.e. discouraging) editors.

Re: Disabling Flagged Revs: She saw the link that she gave in a totally skewed point of view. I didn't participate in what I saw would be a CoI, while she was very bitter with the result. The voting was failed on 17 January 2011, 85 days after I didn't became sysop anymore (compare to: "...when community voted that we would like to remove flagrev ... he QUIT as sysop. LoL. I shit you not,..."; see the pattern?)

Re: Stepped down to become a steward: Preposterous, but utterly make sense given the pattern that we have observed above (make a scenario in her mind -- i.e. an editor bent to destroy the whole Indonesian Wikipedia -- then make the timing works). In October 2010 I haven't had the slightest intention (nor information, like the minimum requirement) to run for February 2011 election. If I would, wouldn't it make more sense to _keep_ my adminship? Also, notice the change in the requirement from 2010 to 2011. Prior to 2011, steward applicants _didn't_ have to became an admin first. Your scenario really doesn't add up. ("I shit you not, he quit, exactly a year later when he is eligible for a steward and apply to become a steward.") Uh... no. Sorry Ser, but your version is really far from the truth. While some other editors suspected that I didn't became admin anymore because of you being the Executive Director of WMID, but in reality I have to choose between being burned out from overheating doing bottomless backlogs and mess that Borgx has left us, stopped editing Wikipedia and became just another hibernating admin, or paving way for further generation of admins, even if I have to became an ordinary editor first to avoid burnout and focusing on improving policies for user retaining and admin regeneration.

Re: Unlocks: what Borgx did was deterring a lot of anon editors and making id.wp less editable (therefore less wiki) and at one time was proposing that all anon should be forbidden for editing, even though as an admin he should know by heart what Wikipedia is all about. I heavily opposed since I saw that it would really hamper our growth. He full-protected hundreds of articles without expiration nor discussion, and what I did was setting limit (expiration) or changed them to semi-protects for non-controversial articles. Afaik, I never received complain for my unprotects. On the other side, I heavily protect important pages that are most prone to vandalism (i.e. appears in Main Pages). In total I made about 417 protection, 89 page protection modification, and 103 page unprotection (most of them from the temp protects on Main Page). (Trivia: what did Borgx do after submitting submit bug for disabling anon edits in id.wp? Precisely. 40 days later he vanished from all projects, not even saying goodbye to the local community. I wonder why)

A little bit about the voters: Serenity is the executive director of WMID. And she have organized some local writing events. And she is regarded by people that I've met as a good organizer. And she hates everyone (including the oft-quoted Borgx), not just me (whew.. that's a relieve). The reason that she was not eligible of using her editor persona and was forced to use her WMID persona was because she's no longer active in the community. Using her WMID persona make me wonder: did she vote as a contributor or a chapter member? Is that her view of me as an editor or as the executive director of WMID and thus the WMID's unwritten 'policy' about me^[a]. I wonder if other WMID members can shed some light on this. 22Kartika is her secretary general, and 06Ivonne her vice secretary general, (addendum) Tjmoel her treasury, and D'SpecialOne/Hendra.Prastiawan and Nico.Marko/21Nico are WMID's trainers. Do the two four of you have any opinion?

PS: Thank you for the compliment. I highly appreciate it, honest. Here I thought you didn't have a shred of nice thing to say about me at all. Bennylin 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. ^{^} A hypotetical question. What would exactly happen if I decided to join WMID, something that I've postponed till now? Would I get accepted? Would you try to block me? Or would you just walk away, leaving only another memento?