Requests for Stewardship

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (December 2016 - Current)

Void's Request for Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful request. Having met 18 supports with two opposes it exceeds the 80% boundary with 20 unique comments. John (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Reasoning for request
Void has, in my opinion, gone above and beyond showing his dedication to this project. He is an active wiki creator, member of Miraheze's global Counter Vandalism Team and, for what it's worth, one of three Consuls on Miraheze's TestWiki and an active GitHub contributor.

I believe being a wiki creator shows that Void has already been trusted with some technical (and in a way, global) permissions since he has had the ability to close and reopen wikis, and create new wikis (databases). The fact that Void has handled the third most wiki requests (358 as of the creation of this RfS) out of all wiki creators, and the second most requests out of current wiki creators, really shows his dedication to this project.

Additionally, Void is probably the leading member of the recently created Counter Vandalism Team, which gives them access to more global tools. Currently Void has already helped clean up spam created by multiple cross-wiki spambots and vandals which were later locked/globally blocked by Stewards. Although Void proposed changes to the CVT permissions I personally think this RfS and that proposal should both pass as they aren't mutually exclusive. Void could do a better job helping with cross-wiki abuse with access to more tools, but I think they also support the communities he's assisting behind the scenes and can help much more as a Steward.

Request made by third party (User:NDKilla). Please give the nominated user time to accept the nomination and fill in the "Additional comments given by user (if any)" section below before commenting.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
It would be a good idea to say that I accept this nomination. I will be available later today to answer the question(s) below. Cheers -- Void  Whispers 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * Although I gave my personal beliefs above, how do you feel you could benefit Miraheze users everywhere by becoming a Steward? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First and foremost is in activity. I am available for a minimum of two to three hours daily, and I already spend that time lurking in public communication channels waiting for someone who needs help. Second is in scope of access. Currently I can help with technical requests (wiki config) and non-controversial blocking/cleanup as it appears in the #miraheze-feed channel. If this request is successful, I will be able to handle community aspects as well. Some examples that I've seen include situations where a bureaucrat has systematically blocked the other bureaucrats to take over a wiki, making public wikis private (and vice-versa), assigning new rights, and handling CU/OS requests. This will also make things easier on the system administrators, as currently all such requests go through them. If I had access to handle these requests, all that would absolutely have to go through them is wiki config changes though phab or git. -- Void  Whispers 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the point with crat wiki takeovers, there is a Phabricator ticket open to review the StaffPowers extension which prevents other admins and crats from blocking the founder(s) of the wiki. ShoutWiki uses it globally to prevent their sysadmins from being blocked, and it seems to work well. -- Amanda   (talk)  21:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just restating what was said in chat earlier, but there are more ways a rouge bureaucrat could disrupt a project than just blocking other bureaucrats. On top of that, the other bureaucrats would no longer be able to deal with a situation, provided that they could have otherwise managed to block quickly. Not to mention, there are few wikis which have a singular founder in an 'elevated' group. Most have only bureaucrats. All in all, that extension really doesn't stop abusive bureaucrats as a threat. -- Void  Whispers 01:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To Void in particular, but also to the rest of the CVT and the Stewards: This isn't a Gish Gallop, but only because it's in writing, where you can answer one question at a time.
 * 1) How do you respond to any awkward or inconvenient questions there may or or may not be about your style?
 * 2) How do you react to those who discuss, debate, or critique your decisions, including when they ignore rank and explicit instructions to move the discussion, debate or critique to another venue?
 * 3) What happens when someone says something that comes off as questioning your authority or the authority of someone or something you support?
 * 4) What do ex-members of the community say about you?
 * 5) How do you treat ex-members of the community?
 * 6) How do you respond to someone saying that you should add information to, or remove information from, any credentials you may have, at this time or in the future, on your userpage?
 * 7) Do you now, or will you ever, have any personal information on your userpage, such as your real name, or your accomplishments in the physical world, such as an academic degree?
 * 8) How do you respond to difficult, dysfunctional, or odd situations?
 * 9) How do you respond to unclear communication and to propaganda techniques?
 * 10) Do you use information about aspects of workplaces to understand people and situations on the Internet?
 * 11) What is your relationship with barnstars awarded for extensive, painstaking or tireless contribution?
 * 12) Do you have any sort of policing mission, no matter how metaphorically this term may apply, and if so, in what way?
 * 13) What, if anything, is your relationship with the arts and humanities, and with that which is supported by qualitative methods?
 * 14) Does your team have a higher turnover rate than rival or competing teams?
 * 15) The last time you switched to a wiki, how many of your peers kept in touch with you?
 * 16) In disputes in which you were able to win, but not easily, did you always win, or have you ever folded um'?
 * 17) Are you now, or have you ever been, banned, however temporarily, from editing any wiki where you now have, or ever had, the ability to ban even one person?
 * 18) What have you ever stopped or imposed, or now stop or impose because a vote of the community has not yet been taken on it?
 * 19) How do you treat disputes between editors with only IP addresses for identifiers, and those with accounts, and disputes between admins and non-admin account holders?
 * 20) How do you treat disputes between editors with different degrees of hard work and establishment than each other, especially when one party loses interest for approximately 72 hours during a long, complex content dispute?
 * 21) What happens when someone claims that you're using propaganda techniques?


 * Saline (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This is one thing I found on the CVT log in my research into Void's contributions:

 deleted User:134.249.51.166 on grottocenterwiki; spam

I tried looking on grottocenter.miraheze.org, and I can't find any evidence that 134.249.51.166 ever existed. I'm not really proficient in using the wiki interface, nor all of the technical details in being part of a CVT. Can someone please show me where this evidence is? Saline (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I also found this. Saline (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * For reference, https://grottocenter.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=User%3A46.118.114.60&type=delete and https://grottocenter.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=User%3A134.249.51.166&type=delete show the log of the page deletions. I mean to answer the rest of the questions when I have more time. -- Void  Whispers 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Answering the above questions in order.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "style". If you are referring to questions about what I do and how I do it, then I have never found those questions uncomfortable, and do my best to answer them fully.
 * I welcome questions about decisions that I have made, especially when I may provide minimal context or reasoning behind my decision. I also don't really suppose that it makes much of a difference where this discussion takes place, as long as all parties behave properly. Users who request further information, or are put in a position where the have to make choices based off incomplete information should be provided the information they require, provided that global and local policies regarding the information are followed.
 * I do my best to explain to them why that which they question is in a position of authority. As long as any questioning and critiquing is done in a civil manner, the response will also be civil and will aim to respond to the question to the best I can.
 * I don't really have any contact with ex-community members, however, I am a system administrator on the wiki of a user who left the project.
 * With the respect that they deserve from my interactions with them.
 * If the addition/removal of such credentials is required legally or by policy, then I will do so, otherwise it all depends on how strong the argument is made that I should add/remove something.
 * I try to keep any personally identifying information to a minimum.
 * In a thought out methodological manner as rooted in policy and common sense as can be applied to the situation. An external comment is always welcome in confusing situations.
 * See above. I always attempt to resolve unclear communication before making a decision on that information whenever possible.
 * I use all knowledge available to me when making decisions. Whether or not I consciously use information from a particular source is unknown.
 * Hard work and dedication should always be recognised when recognition is deserved and welcomed.
 * Does the deletion of spam and vandalism count?
 * I'm not sure I understand the question or how it may be answered.
 * I do not think I am the best person to answer this question.
 * I am still active in all wiki communities in which I have taken part in. (Or at least I believe I am.)
 * I can't really think of a situation where this would apply.
 * In terms of blocks, I can block users on any wiki on this project, however, I may only do so in cases of clear spam/vandalism. I am currently subject to multiple blocks, although none on any wiki I mean to contribute to, and none mean anything.
 * I don't believe I ever have in relation to miraheze. On en.wikipedia I have reverted to maintain a status-quo, but it would probably take longer to find it than it has taken me to answer these questions from when I first saw them.
 * It's hard to write a single generalizing statement to answer this question. It all depends on the interaction of these users as viewed by global and local policy. Another factor is respect. Is one party treating the other in a civil fashion? The other thing to consider is if I should even be mediating the dispute. A personal policy is that as a global user, I should be handling local disputes as little as possible, and only in situations where local administration is already involved, or completely unavailable for comment. Either way, should a dispute that I have to resolve come my way, the resolution will depend entirely on the behaviour and strength of the arguments of those involved.
 * This situation should be handled as stated above, and time will be given for all users to state their position fully. That is, of course, provided that there is not a pressing situation that needs to be resolved by immediate action.
 * I will do my best to explain the situation as clearly and fully as possible. It should be easily possible to resolve such a situation with civil discussion.
 * -- Void  Whispers 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers :) General thought: if you have open questions for candidates, limit them to a single short question.  Otherwise the questions section can be easily become a hazing ritual & purity test, dominated by people w/ agendas and long lists of grievances, and many good candidates don't stand in the first place.  Sj (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * as nominator. In addition to what I wrote above, I realize that being a GH contributor and wiki creator are more technical roles not really related to the Steward responsibilities, but I mentioned them because I think they just demonstrate commitment to this project, which should be important. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I too support Void's candidacy. They have proven to be reponsible with the power they have at present and would be trustworthy with the level they would have as a steward. GethN7 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * : Don't see any reason why not to allow, tbh was surprised he wasn't already one. LulzKiller (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I know the user only a few months, I gave myself the time to review his global activity and is quite remarkable, I see that he has done a good job here and surely steward will continue to do and better. Good luck! —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User is familiar with all Miraheze policies and is already very active as CVT so having steward and the extra rights would help. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 04:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The opposing reason is not convincing for me, and I trust him/her enough. &mdash; revi  12:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been here since summer of last year and Void among other staff members has been an exceptional worker. He is constantly working on wikis and answering questions. He also helps on Phabricator and ending vandalism across the wiki. I think Stewardship for Void would be a great achievement and a very well deserved one! CnocBride (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having been reminded that I may place my own name here, I shall. Per my answer to NDKilla's question above and as nominee. -- Void  Whispers 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's time to add another steward, and Void is a great candidate. 👍 --Labster (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. No hat collecting, no blocks on other wikis that make me distrust you, and a valid answer to the questions. Southparkfan (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Void has already demonstrated the ability and willingness to put in the time, and isn't a polarizing influence on discussions. --Robkelk (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Void as steward will be beneficial for this wiki. --SelfCloak (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is fairly obvious Void has done a great deal to keep Meta, including my own wiki, from unsavoury material and the people/bots that plague our pages with pointless rubbish. This user has knowledge of the Mediawiki software and has clearly shown capability in dealing with wiki requests, general user requests and simply spending time on the project. I believe Void to be a worthy candidate for stewardship. Borderman   talk 21:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , solid work and interest. Sj (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , per all above. --Brynda1231 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * yes please Samuel (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - As I've seen his contribution on managing Wiki, I support him to be a Steward. Also, he answers the question properly. Since Miraheze needs volunteers' help, I believe that he will help a lot. --Utolee90 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * John (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Off-miraheze actions should not be taken into account in my opinion. If this harassment does take place on the site then it should be handled accordingly. CnocBride (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (struck comment that was directly related to a previous comment of mine that has now been removed)


 * for now.


 * Opening or attention getter - To everyone here:
 * State your concern - My growing concern is that the adequacy of this decision-making process for all three measures crucially depends on having more time to discuss the three measures.
 * State the problem as you see it - "[measure one] A proposal for a Code of Conduct has been made. [measure two] There is also currently an open Request for Stewardship and [measure three] proposal for changes to the Counter Vandalism Team's global permissions." Each of these three measures are quite something to research and discuss, and measure two suggests that these three measures and other measures could be overworking the community, especially the Stewards, which apparently could be attempting to handle the increased workload by making sure that there are more Stewards.
 * State a solution - My opinion is that the promotion and the changes to the Counter Vandalism Team's global permissions must be delayed until the entire community has enough time to discuss all three measures fully. My opinion is also that such discussions about measures two and three can only begin to happen after measure one has been discussed and decided.
 * Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - How does that sound to the community? Saline (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that I would like to see Void become a Meta Administrator before supporting a stewardship request. This user was granted CVT rights off the cuff in response to spam/vandalism and has never actually successfully requested any advanced userrights. Therefore, I cannot support this request at this time. -- Amanda   (talk)  12:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What? First of all, the CVT thing was only proposed because void asked me how to go about getting something implemented. I said it should be an RfC. Secondly, the user didn't request Steward access. I nominated them based on their behavior, which several people above noted. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 16:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (struck comment that was directly related to a previous comment of mine that has now been removed)


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


 * I know it won't go anywhere, but I have to say that I am highly against this decision and do not support or approve of the the promotion of the user. -- Amanda   (talk)  23:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your oppose above in the discussion shows that. John (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)