Requests for Stewardship

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (December 2016 - May 2019)

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Nomination of Dmehus as Steward
User: Dmehus ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for nomination
In my opinion, Dmehus is an outstanding Miraheze contributor. He is one of the most active users at Miraheze. He has gone above and beyond with [ wiki requests], reviewing approximately 90% of all wiki requests through mid October 2020, and has created more than 630 wikis (as of 7 November 2020). He is a community-elected member of the Code of Conduct Commission, an administrator on Meta, a global interwiki administrator, and the only Consul on TestWiki besides Miraheze system administrators or existing stewards. He has made nearly 5,000 editing contributions on Meta alone and over 7,000 editing contributions globally. He is always eager to help, is very active on Discord and IRC, is extremely active in answering all questions to the best of his ability on all noticeboards. I believe he would make an ideal steward, primarily because of his activity, eagerness to help, and willingness to seek advice from others when it is either necessary or he is uncertain of something. Based on conversations I have personally had with Dmehus, it's abundantly clear that he understands all global policies, and is capable of upholding, such policies, and will investigate without making brash or rushed decisions. He understands the myriad functions a steward performs, and should he accept this nomination, I have faith he will successfully make the Miraheze community significantly better with him as Steward. Thank you for considering Dmehus as Steward.


 * Nominated by:
 * 05:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * As a reminder, please give the nominated candidate time to accept the nomination and add their candidate's acceptance statement. Thank you.


 * Candidate's indication of acceptance:
 * Dmehus (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Universal Omega, both for the kind, thoughtful, and eloquent words in your nomination statement and for nominating me for steward, which I am pleased to accept. The primary reason for my requesting stewardship, by my accepting this nomination, is essentially the same reason that I joined the global Miraheze community in that I am passionate about its raison d'être, which is to provide ad free wiki hosting in a community volunteer-run, entirely open source, and free environment, and so, central to that reason is that as Miraheze continues to grow over the long term, it becomes of paramount importance to ensure our resources scale commensurately with the growth of both our hosted wikis and total users. Resources, in this context, certainly means funding and server resources, which the board will manage and plan, as applicable, together with the advice of system administrators, but its resources also means growing our people resources in order provide service to our customers that is both exceptional and excellent, as our customers are central to Miraheze's very existence. Customers run and collaborate in building the wikis which they request from us, but they are also our sources of financial capital, which pays our server hosting expenses, and human capital, for editing or translating content pages on our central community-run wikis, answering technical support questions on the noticeboards, writing or adapting code, and the like. As we continue to grow and because we run entirely by community volunteers, all of whom have other real life obligations, we need to ensure we continue to scale up our global community volunteers and managers, in order to fulfill customer requests that cannot be actioned by local wiki bureaucrats for myriad reasons which include technical, security, and legal. At the same time as there is a need to scale up our people resources, Miraheze has seen its steward complement actually decrease by 40% over the previous twelve months thereby making the need for an additional steward that much greater. Of the remaining three stewards, two of them are also Site Reliability Engineers, one of whom is both the cofounder of Miraheze and the primary developer of the CreateWiki, ManageWiki, and other extensions central to Miraheze, so they have incredible competing demands and pressures on and for their time. While I am indeed only one person, I feel that both my level of Miraheze global community activity and volunteerism combined with the fact I am not also a system administrator should not only fill the gap created by the steward resignations in the past year, but also actually significantly increase our capacity for handling customer requests more quickly and efficiently, which, in turn, would maintain and help to increase total customer/user satisfaction levels.
 * Candidate's acceptance statement:

While the steward user group does add extra technical bits, the reality is that, as one of English Wikipedia's co-founders somewhat famously remarked on requesting advanced permissions, it's really not a big deal, and the principle reasons behind this are two-fold. For one thing, stewards are both grounded and guided by a combination of our community-adopted global policies and non-codified steward conventions and customs that have normalized over time. Secondarily, they already have an established history that clearly demonstrates that they are both responsible and trustworthy, In this way, a steward is not that different, really, from the trusted public servant in the department of motor vehicles or even a bank teller that helps to facilitate customer requests in line with government or company policies and practices. As Universal Omega has also articulated in his nomination statement, I believe that I have so clearly demonstrated that in myriad ways, some of which include, but which are by no means limited to, my clerking work on Meta's noticeboards, responding to requests whether I am able to complete them or refer to other colleagues and volunteers as necessary, answering customer/user questions on community noticeboard and Discord, handling wiki requests, handling local interwiki table requests on community noticeboard, Discord, and my own user talk page, and responding to and handling requests and counter vandalism work on Miraheze Commons and Miraheze Template Wiki. Perhaps equally importantly, too, since stewards are often called upon to mediate disputes between users or between two wikis, has been my dispute resolution work, whether officially as part of the Code of Conduct Commission or, even more importantly, as just a community member, engaging with local wiki community members when users have come to me with assistance resolving local blocks on wikis to which they'd never previously contributed, as just one type example. So with that, I look forward to being able to help handle customer/user requests more efficiently and engage with local wiki members to help them get the most of both their wikis and their Miraheze experience, and thank you all in advance for your consideration of my request for stewardship, and am always happy to answer any questions, whether as part of this request or following this request, at my user talk page, which remains one of the more active pages on Meta Wiki.

Prerequisite

 * Non-disclosure agreement signed and on file with Miraheze. ✅ (verify)

Support

 * 1)  As nominator.  05:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 2)  for the same reasons. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) In my short time here he's been super helpful and friendly! Verne (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Very active, very helpful, I don't see why I should not support this request! There tools will be benefic for him and the community! HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 05:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I have had the opportunity to have numerous discussions with Dmehus regarding various wiki related topics, and I have also seen his vast contributions to Miraheze. For the past few months, Dmehus has been very active on Miraheze's several platforms: on-wiki (especially Meta), on Discord and on IRC. He has been very kind and helpful to all users and has responded to a large number of requests and questions on Meta's several noticeboards. In addition, he has also participated in various community discussions and has also mediated a few incidents between users, not to mention that he's a member of the Code of Conduct Commission. All these different factors (including my various discussions with him) demonstrate to me that he understands Miraheze's global policies well and also has a great dynamic with users, which would in my view make for a good Steward. Since two thirds of our current Stewards are also sysadmins, I also think it will be nice to be able to have a non-sysadmin Steward, and Dmehus would be especially helpful since, as I mentioned before he's been very active ever since he joined Miraheze. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I think you'll be a credit to the Steward team.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  08:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) He is extremely active on Meta and its sister wikis and very well-mannered. There is no way I am not supporting this. R4356th (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Zppix (Meta &#124; Sysadmin &#124; talk to me) 15:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  Always willing to help everyone, even trying when not sure to guide you to the right direction!  SkarletWitch (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 10)  Yes I agree with everyone. Dmehus has done an excellent job on both here and on Discord. He is always helpful when it comes to advice and especially since he's been helping not only me, but other users along the way. In other words, I'd be honored if he becomes a steward. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 11)  I agree with the above points, Dmehus has been extremely helpful in a lot of areas. It would be a major benefit to have him as a Steward.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 12)  He is pretty reliable.--Waki285 (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 13)  Waldo (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 14)  I cannot think of a better candidate for stewardship. They're a Meta Administrator, a Consul on TestWiki, and a Wiki Creator. They also have all of the qualities needed to be a good steward, and are active on Requests for Adoption. Justarandomliberal (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 15)  I have said already months ago that I believed that Miraheze needed more active Stewards because the current ones were not enough for all the wikis. After that, unfortunately another Steward, The Pioneer resigned and we have been left with even less Stewards, and even the ones that we have are not very active because I am sure they have other things to do to keep Miraheze functional. The task of Steward is surely not an easy one and I it is reserved to a small group of very experienced and trusted people. Even though five months is not a lot to have been on Miraheze and that fact would usually make me very hesitant to cast a supporting vote to a candidate for such an important post, I think that Dmehus' activity (7000+ global edits) is enough to overcome that issue. While there are of course some areas of improvement, looking at Dmehus' contributions, I think that he would make a adept Steward because he is a very courteous person who tries his best to help users. Of course, a Steward also has to know when and how to be more firm in some situations, but it is always important to begin by assuming good faith and trying to help users, which Dmehus does very well in my opinion, and his actions could be used as an example for some other users. Finally, I hope that Dmehus will continue to stay this active and help out the community which he has done very well so far from my observations. DeeM28 (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 16)  He is a good faith user and i think He is worthy of Steward, he is very helpful  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 17)  Very helpful on the Miraheze server and website, I definitely have support for this Paramount1106 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 18)  He has Integrity, he is passionate and I think he will do right by the community. He will go above and beyond. He's also very active. Paladox (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 19)  What I would say, was already said by my colleagues. In short, he is always willing to help in any way he can. Good luck! Hispano76 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 20) I was no doubt surprised when I found out that Dmehus had only joined a little under six months ago. From the edits he makes, you would definitely get the idea that he has been here for several years. While granting steward to such a new user may be risky, I believe that my impression shows that Dmehus has overpowering standard and ability to act as steward well. Naleksuh (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 21) GrahamSH (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Revocation of Dmehus' Steward rights
Since Doug has became steward his behaviour on and off wiki has been consisting of "I don't hear that", changing/adding/etc things on off wiki venues (I.E. IRC/Discord) without discussion or proper reasoning [1 ]. He constantly brings up CoC in conversation, which can be interpreted as threatening. He also expresses behaviour that can be interpreted as him believing he is always right, and when challenged, he just "can't understand why [the user] can't DROPTHESTICK." I believe the steward has just given him too much power and its sadly turn his behaviour for the worse. Looking elsewhere, he did have a previous block on the English Wikipedia for behaviour similar to this. Since he became steward, it is of my belief drama has much more increased within the community. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) as nom. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, this is the reason for my inactivity.  Total demotivation anything to do.  I will provide some diffs etc.  later today. Also there is always only one true, his. Also, if a steward does what he wants (for example Report extension), he should not be a steward. There are few stewards, we need them, but I believe there will be someone else who will run.  Being active cannot be the main argument for keeping of rights.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with everything Zppix has here written. BenPlenty (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I personally believe a steward shouldn't negatively assume as much as he does. He also appears to have the mindset of "I'm right, you're wrong"; I think a steward should have an open mind, which he does at times but not enough to my liking. I find him very argumentative and I really think he should be more empathetic so that he can have an understanding to how others feel or perceive instead of falsely assuming something or misunderstanding people. I don't doubt that he's done some useful things, but his behavior for the most part just doesn't sit well with me. Danner (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) *I have to say I really don't see where this argument is coming from, and I know Dmehus always talks about and insists that good-faith is assumed (#miraheze-cvt is proof of that), and I've not seen any lack of empathy. Again, as I said in my oppose statement I think we would all benefit if links and evidence were provided rather than claims just being thrown around with nothing to back them up.  Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) **Hi, I know you're talking to Danner but I found this: https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThomasTheTrainFan2&diff=prev&oldid=163180&diffmode=source He appears to be disrespecting a user's opinion all the while not understanding the user's view. 192.145.116.133 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Just for the record, this IP got blocked by Doug after he made this comment, I realize this is a potiental proxy/vpn, but blocking someone that is providing evidence is very wrong... should of been left for someone else, as it now looks as if the intent could of been to silence users with evidence against him. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) ****Not at all, no open proxies policy states that open proxies are to be globally soft blocked from editing on sight across the Miraheze wiki farm. Assuming the anonymous user already has an account, they're most welcome to login and add further comments. Additionally, they can also create an account without using the given NordVPN range, then login, and comment. Dmehus (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) *****I’m aware of what NOP says, I also know its usually in bad taste to block people whom comment on a request involving you. No where on NOP does it say it has the person whom discovered it to be the blocking person. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) ******I see your point, and get what you're saying, and if this were blocking a user's account, yes, that would be inappropriate. However, in this case, it is not a block of the user; rather, it is just a block of a known open proxy/VPN (NordVPN), which are prohibited from editing anonymously across the Miraheze wiki farm. The comment was not struck. The user themselves was not blocked; they are most welcome to login or to create an account and login to add to their comment. It would arguably be derelict in my responsibilities as a Steward to not globally soft block a known open proxy/VPN that I observed being used on Miraheze, as one of the responsibilities of Stewards and Global Sysops is to ensure the community's established global policies, which include no open proxies policy, are carried out. Dmehus (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) ******* this a quote from yourself on my revocation of GS, you seem to fail to follow your own advice. You clearly blocked the IP giving no thought to COI, and you refuse to accept the fact you should of let another steward or GS handle it. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) ********Hrm? I'm not sure I see your point here. The quotation around which you're deriving your comment has been taken out of context. You didn't dispute that the soft block per no open proxies policy was incorrect; your issue seems to be with me as the global functionary that enacted said block. No open proxies policy works in harmony with user accounts policy, both of which are global policies, and so the former is to be globally soft blocked on sight mainly to prevent abuse of the latter. It would be derelict of me not to block an open proxy/VPN that I noticed in . If another global functionary wants to unblock and reblock, or suggests it be unblocked, I would have no issues with doing that or having them do that, after having considered the rationale provided. So, I'm not sure I see your point about me not being willing to take criticism. I would also add that I'm still waiting for you to identify to me specific issues which I haven't resolved or course corrected to your satisfaction. Instead, you've proceeded directly to this request without having made sufficient attempts to resolve issues with me directly or with other Stewards. Dmehus (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 13) *********I can’t really make it more clear, you, the person this request is about, globally blocked an IP addreess, that commented on said request, which would be a COI, as your the user involved in the request, therefore another person should of handled the blocking, not yourself. It would be like if I were to block someone that voted oppose right now, it would be wrong, regardless if policy supports it, as I am involved. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 00:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 14) **********I get that, as I said above, but we do not permit anonymous users from voting in permissions requests or RfCs. They can make comments, certainly, and I've done nothing to the anonymous user's account (if the anonymous user has an account), nor have I restricted them from further commenting on this request at all. I've just globally soft rangeblocked the NordVPN IP per policy. The user is most welcome to make further comments, logged in or logged out, but just not logged out using that VPN. So, I'm not sure how this would be a conflict of interest, as I said above. Part of being a Steward is weighing whether enforcing our global policies outweighs any perceived potential conflict of interest. As a hypothetical example, the Code of Conduct Commission policy stipulates that Commission members are supposed to recuse themselves in cases where they work closely in non-Commission capacities with either the subject(s) of the complaint or the complainant(s). In practical terms, this isn't always possible if there were a case that was either brought to the Commission by or was about a member of either the Steward or system administrator team. As I said, it would be derelict of me to neglect my responsibilities to enforce no open proxies policy, together with other policies, but I would be most happy for another Steward or Global Sysop, whether Void, John, Reception123, MrJaroslavik, or some other person to review the block and either (a) reblock or (b) unblock. Dmehus (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 15) ***********CoC doesnt not enforce NOP... nor is this request about CoCC, you say you get the point, but yet you continue to spout irrelevant policies and processes that arent related to the situation. This is why I have difficulty bringing this up to you privately, clearly you either refuse or are incapable of actually understanding how COI works, regardless I do believe that theres a severe lack of policy understanding which for a steward isn’t acceptable. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 00:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  First of all, I'd like to start with the main issue with this request, not even regarding the claims being made. The main issue I have is that there have not, in my view, been sufficient attempts to discuss your concerns with Dmehus. I concede that there have been some but for the most part at least they were not very civil and were heated arguments rather than sensible discussions which could have occurred on a talk page (as to be visible to any interested user). After that, if that didn't work I feel the next step would've been to speak with another Steward and ask them what they think and if they could have a word with Dmehus if they agree that he has done something wrong. Second of all, revoking a Steward is a major and serious step (and has never been done before) so I would have expected more proof and links to be provided rather than just one IRC log from yesterday, at least for users who do not actively monitor everything and cannot be expected to know what Dmehus does on a daily/regular basis. That's why I feel that regardless of the accusations, revocation is really the final option and alternatives should be explored before going to this extreme. Thirdly, I agree that there have been some mistakes, everyone makes mistakes but that these missteps are not enough to amount to a revocation and in my opinion the benefits of Dmehus being Steward and the good things he has done still far outweigh the few things that he has done wrong. I also can't really agree with the fact that the drama started after Dmehus was steward, the drama that is being referred to was alive before. Finally, the main premise seems to be the fact that you believe that Dmehus doesn't listen to your concerns and thinks that he's always right. If you believe that is the case I must go back to my original point which is: contact other Stewards and ask for a second opinion. Maybe attempts have been made privately, I don't know, but I'm not aware of any attempts made to discuss with other Stewards and get their opinion on any specific actions taken by Dmehus. I'd also like to point out that a lot of the issues with Dmehus seem to be centered around IRC and Discord, perhaps the proposals made in User:Void/Discord will alleviate some of those concerns. P.S.: As a minor note, this revocation request should've been done at either RfS or SN, as Community noticeboard isn't really meant for these type of requests. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have somewhat BOLDly moved this here, in RfS. 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  my main concerns are based off-wiki, on platform moderation (IRC and Discord). I talked to dmehus, and addressed these concerns, which we came to a reasonable understanding, which in the long-term will hopefully resolve any and all concerns from the community. I would also like to add, off-wiki conduct should not result in on-wiki revocation. To expand on the off wiki concerns I also have, Dmehus does often pre-communicate platform changes to myself, Reception123, or other platform moderators, often pending a formal community discussion, however I still have the concerns mainly because we are not solely the community at large. There should not be changes, which I now realize, to platforms without a community discussion first. All-in-all Dmehus is not solely at fault here and is kind of taking the full blast of community displeasure in the undiscussed moderation actions.. Finally, I feel Zppix should have privately talked with Dmehus beforehand and attempted to resolve these issues. It's ironic that Zppix mentions drama on Miraheze, yet this very act is itself continuing the drama of which he complains about, and I personally don't like that one bit.
 * P.S. Dmehus' on-wiki steward work has been outstanding, and it'd be a loss to see him loose stewardship over a little bit of off-wiki conduct and drama. 08:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 1)  It saddens me greatly that Zppix would propose such a request to revoke someone's Steward rights, despite having made no attempt to resolve any concerns with me privately. As I've demonstrated, my Discord, IRC, and user talk page remain open. Platform moderation responsibilities that come with the Steward or even the Site Reliability Engineering by convention have been a main area of focus for me, and I will just reiterate what I have said before, multiple times, on Discord and in  on IRC, which is that I've always favoured some sort of community-appointed or -elected platform moderation role, not inherited by past conventions based on one's wiki groups. Any changes to platform moderation I've proposed with a limited number of platform moderators have always been designed to be interim measures pending a formal, full community discussion, which User:Void/Discord aims to do (it's still not ready to go live as there's still some additional amendments needed, but I do very much look forward to that discussion). Nevertheless, since the Discord and IRC platform moderation roles have never been key to me, and to be honest, I'm usually so busy on-wiki that others end up having to deal with "Music Troll" and the like, I'm actually going to request that John remove my   flags in  tomorrow, and once the Discord RfC goes live, I will not continue as a platform moderator. Dmehus (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  While Doug does have his faults, everyone does and he's learning. I'm not going to repeat what's being said too much by my colleagues above but I don't think revoking Steward is appropiate as I don't see any serious issues. My advice to Doug is to ensure he listens to feedback people give and not be too eager to put things in place if it might be appropiate to ask for feedback. Overall, I think Doug is doing fairly well though at a challenging role with a lot of responsibility.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  09:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I have carefully read the three support comments as well as the introduction proposed by the nominator and have come to the conclusion that I cannot support this effort. My first argument against removal must unfortunately be an argument ad hominem. I do appreciate what Zppix has done for Miraheze as a volunteer but it is impossible for anyone to ignore that four months ago in November Zppix got his Global Sysop rights revoked. Looking at the reasons expressed there and the comments I have to say there is an ironic tone for this very request which seems to accuse Dmehus of doing things not dissimilar from what Zppix was accused of and which were the reason for him being removed. For example, Zppix in his opening statement states that "I believe the steward has just given him too much power and its sadly turn his behaviour for the worse." In my view that can be perfectly applied to the revocation of Zppix as well since two of the reasons exposed were "Feeling as though he is not limited by the policy to which he is bound by; and, Feeling like he is not accountable to stewards". In these cirumsctances the saying the pot calls the kettle black comes to my mind. I do not mean any offense or harm to Zppix but by beginning this process it could very likely be expected by Zppix that his own behavior might be evaluated and if it was not expected there may be a lack of self reflection involved. Next I will turn to the actual accusations made against Dmehus. Many good points have been made by the other users who opposed already, one which Zppix has rebutted (the argument that no evidence has been given to us for review). I understand that many issues have been taking place on external platforms such as IRC and Discord. I believe that it is not fair for someone to say this evidence exists but that it cannot be shared, this would lead to hearsay and the community cannot be expected to simply believe somebody and vote for a revocation based on this. I do not also see why pinging users on IRC or Discord is consequential to the position of Steward and I am confused about the reasoning of the resignation of Zppix but it is difficult to think that it is only because of Dmehus, one person. In conclusion I have myself done some research and observed over time and while there were some actions by Dmehus that I cannot say I agreed with (the report extension issue that is cited, other more minor issues) I do not think that these things are enough to revoke a Steward (who was elected by the community). Without evidence I can unfortunately not take the other accusations into account as it would not be just. If there is a problem with Dmehus I think that it should be raised on his talk page, publicly so that it is not done in secrecy and everyone in the community can participate in the debate if they wish to do this. Moreover, if such a discussion should fail I believe it would be more appropriate to either discuss privately with another Steward (as it was mentioned above) or begin a discussion on the Community Noticeboard before taking the final step of removal. DeeM28 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that my resignation was purely because of him... yes it was part of, but theres more to it then that. The reason I brought up the pinging was to give an example more of IDHT. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 12:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Sorry, but I am opposing this, simply because not only do I find this extremely unnecessary, but I don't agree with this reason at all. While  has done some questionable stuff, he's always trying his best to make sure everyone is helping each other out. I really don't think it would even be necessary to revoke his Steward rights, considering how this request feels like it was made on impulse (considering how I have acted on impulse before, and not just here either). Besides that, is it really worth to try and demote him of those rights over small minor mistakes? Case in point, it's a rather foolish decision in spite of a revocation on behalf of Dmehus. In conclusion, I really can't support this and rightfully so, as it would feel more of a waste of not only my time, but yours as well. I rest my case. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we wrap this up as unsuccessful? I don't really see the point of keeping this up here any longer. I am going to request this request to be closed since this is pointless now. I feel as though this request isn't going to be fulfilled. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Not everyone checking Meta every day. For example one week is fine in my opinion.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be "wrapped up" after less than a day. There is no reason why it should not run for the standard time of 1 week. Naleksuh (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mostly because everyone else here except for 3 people agreed that this proposal isn't really worth it. Not to mention this request was made on impulse. I mean, what's the point of requesting it here, when the issues could've been resolved elsewhere? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to comment on this, but you do not know what caused me to create this.... you ASSUME its impluse, I created this because I am apart of the community and thus able to create a request as I feel theres a need to do so. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 20:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that you have been a part of this community for nearly 4 years, according to your global account information here, but my main concern about this proposal was how little evidence was shown, judging by the links you gave. The logs I looked at on GitHub barely shows what you said. Case closed. (And keep in mind that I will not make anymore further replies on this thread, especially since this is the weirdest proposal I've ever read on here.) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm perfectly fine if people want this up for a week, so let's just keep it just how it is for now, and let everyone else take their pick. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I have had plenty on interaction with Dmehus on IRC, but never any negative interactions. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I have been thinking about this for a while. First of all, one thing that I do want to say is that I do have some problems/concerns with Dmehus, primarily with handling stuff off-wiki that should be on-wiki, involved violations, and privilege escalation in general. I have been trying to bring this issues up with him and work with him instead of against him. If it got really bad then I could be convinced to support. However, if you have a concern with something the user is doing off-wiki then you can propose off-wiki action. Both because the user is still clearly a net positive onwiki and due to the rather low volume/strength of what the nominator has shown, I don't see a need to remove the steward permissions at this time. As always there are no final decisions on anything. Naleksuh (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  In my eyes, you seem to have made a reason because you want to take away Doug's authority. And Doug helped me a lot. What's more, he hasn't voted against the stewardship above. Also, I feel that the restrictions below are a mess when this request is not passed.-- 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I don't really see much point on this here. Most of the things mentioned could be resolved privately, IMHO. Everyone has their faults, but everything can be resolved without drama.  &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 01:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I believe that instead of trying to demote him you should be trying to help be a guide. I know stewardship is a big deal and all, but we are all human at the end of the day. Stewardship from my understanding also takes quite a bit of knowledge and experience...which I believe he indeed possesses. While I see there were some things that were quite controversial...I don't believe demotion is always the answer. If he gets mentored by another user I believe he should pull through these issues.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Commments

 * 1) It has been mentioned a lack of evidence, part of the reasoning behind that is that the evidence I would have are from private channels that are covered by NDA or some other non-public understanding between its members. I would like to address the claims of me not trying to talk to Doug first, this is simply false, I have on numerous occasions have had to ask Doug, to make sure he discusses when he makes a change to something (I.E when he reverts an administrative action on wiki), then he continues to later make changes once again without discussing it. While he may discuss somethings, he fails to discuss things, sometimes major things, such as enabling the Report ext on Meta without community consensus. I would like to also make it clear that this request is not sole-ly based on the reason for my resignation from Sysadmin, this is based on my observations from his appointment to current time. To further add evidence, he excessively pings users on IRC/discord because his refusal to use pastes, after being asked to please do so. (Evidence will be posted ASAP). When determining consensus, he seems to also assume silence means support, which on the first piece of evidence will demonstrate 1 instance of such. Don’t get me wrong, Doug is helpful, but I just think steward may of been too soon. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 10:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) May I please ask why some diffs related to this request were suppressed? Thanks. 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) *It looks like someone edited logged out or had an inappropriate username. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) **I see. Thank you. 12:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Another somewhat controversial question (this one is for Zppix) before I share my thoughts: where did you get the IRC logs? # miraheze-ops is an NDA-protected IRC channel. You should not have access to this since your resignation. And even if you have access, you should not share them somewhere public like GitHub Gist. I believe this is illegal. 12:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) *It's not +i or NDA protected but the fair point is you shouldn't be publishing logs without consent of all parties involved which I'm gonna assume wasn't given. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  13:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) ** Its a public channel, anyone could of seen those messages themselves. Theres nothing in the topic saying I cannot public log. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) **Oh, okay. Zppix also just mentioned that on Discord. 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) ***For transparency and to erase all doubt, the channel will also be publicly logged in the future. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Abstain. Dmehus annoys me.  He edits my posts, he interposes himself into virtually every conversation here, and on one occasion when I created an RfC that seemed to be where the decision was heading, he deleted it in favor of more conversation.  I have mostly stayed on the rfobasic wiki and off Meta for the four months since then, and indeed was unaware that he had made Steward.  His tendency to manage conversations reminds me of Amanda trying to dictate the rules for her own disciplinary proceeding so as to favor herself.  However, I know nothing about the issues raised in this section, would be shocked if Stewardship led to such a drastic personality transformation and if group sentiment changed so quickly since his elevation, and sympathize with the lack of attempts to resolve problems informally.   23:25 21-Feb-2021 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)  All I can say here is that I have been noticing an argument between Zppix and, and 1 thing I must say here (and no, I'm not replying to that thread between him or Doug here) is that I feel like I'm watching little kids arguing on the playground. Seriously, the arguments started from this thread, and has only gotten worse from there. Not only do I find Zppix's constant response to Doug's reply a little over unnecessary, but is also another form of disruption from both sides equally. I don't see the reason to even continue this pointless fight. Both of them have already made their arguments loud and clear, and both of them couldn't be anymore clearer than how they have described their case. At this rate, I'm more than tempted to prevent this from escalating. Now, both of you have already reached the end of your ropes, and already made your points, and all I can see from here is bitter rivalry between you 2. I see no reason to continue this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Revocation requests are not an appropriate place to initiate secondary requests conditional on a revocation request failing. Such proposals are better placed to be started after a revocation request closes and in a more broad location. John (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Activity restrictions
In the event revocation does not pass, I propose we restrict Doug from the following: These restrictions would last at least 30 calendar days, but can be extended by community, or other stewards if needed. Appeal can be done after 10 calendar days, which the community could vote on. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing any wiki's extensions without clear community consensus (unless required for security/legal purposes)
 * Changing any permissions/layouts of official off-wiki communication platforms without clear public consensus (except where doing so would violate an NDA)


 * There's no pattern of incidents relating to point 1. It's one incident and I doubt Doug will be making such a big change again any time soon. The second one wasn't actually carried out by Doug, he just requested it to my knowledge. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided in my statement above when creating this IRC logs with evidence that would state otherwise. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your logs don't say otherwise though. He didn't force the change. He made a suggestion and asked someone to carry it out who did. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, this feels like an out of process request. For one thing, instead of raising concerns with Stewards, as others have both articulated and suggested above, you've continued to propose restrictions and other alternate proposals. For another matter, some extensions are enabled by Stewards without discussion; this is mainly due to a lack of clarity and codification in the guidelines related to what does and does not require a discussion. A better strategy would be to assist in codifying said guidelines. Finally, for another matter, that is moot, since I've resigned as an  in  on IRC and on Discord following the RfC. Dmehus (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are called guidelines for a reason, just because its not there, doesn't mean it should happen. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is? My point is that there is a lack of clarity in terms of what extensions require a discussion and what do not. One thought Reception123 had in a related discussion at Administrators' noticeboard is that if it proposes to change the workflow of Meta user groups, then it should have a discussion. Similarly, I've likewise suggested that if it proposes to add or otherwise change either the user rights or user groups of local Meta user groups, then it should have a discussion. These are the sort of things everyone could assist in codifying, which is all I'm saying. Dmehus (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) This is silly. Either an editor can be trusted with Steward permissions or they cannot. Partial restrictions like this with a permission like Steward are not a good idea. Naleksuh (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I hate to say this, but this is pretty much a losing battle at this point. Even if this was to pass, it wouldn't make a difference, no matter how much you look at it. While Zppix has done some good things around here, this 2nd proposal really takes away credibility from both parties, and at what cost? This makes no sense to me, and I don't really get the point of this 2nd proposal. Wouldn't that pose a problem on both sides? Sorry to say, but I strongly oppose this decision no matter how many times we all look at it. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

YellowFrogger's Request for Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * per this diff. Non-Steward closure 04:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User: YellowFrogger ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
See the tool and check for a suspicious user

Additional comments given by user (if any)
HI

You could put me as  'CheckUser'  on, I have more than 5,000 editions and 30 days of activity there, here on META too, so I don't edit here.

✔️I declare that I do this in good faith. And I know the policies and terms of use for wikis - YellowFrogger ( talk) 01:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section