Requests for Stewardship

Void's Request for Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * No recent acitivity, has passed the minimum 7 day period. The threshold of 20 users commenting has not been passed therefore this request is unsuccessful. John (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Reasoning for request
I'm requesting steward as a way to help out the community in a larger scale than I am currently able. My primary interest/area of expertise is in the general administration/management of wikis (which is rather impossible without some sort of global permission).

On meta, I currently am a wikicreator, and have created more than a dozen wikis. On [//publictestwiki.com our testwiki], I am the only user with the [//publictestwiki.com/wiki/TestWiki:Consuls consul] permission ("highest" local permission) that is not a sysadmin. There I have worked with abuse filters and permission management. I also seem to be NDKilla's go to guy for cleanup there :).

On other (non-WMF) wikis, I have held/currently hold checkuser, oversight, and rename. I am familiar with all of the MediaWiki interface, and have mastered most things. However, of which I may not be familiar with, I am confident in my ability to quickly master. Even so, I can easily recognise when I am out of my depth, and am not afraid to contact the other stewards with questions (and I promise I won't nag).

Questions for candidate
Additional question from Amanda: I'm kinda hesitant to support this, mainly because I believe SPF and others have said that Miraheze doesn't currently need new Stewards. Also, I believe that Stewards are expected to help out with technical stuff in addition to the housekeeping work. Can you show your ability to send PR's to GitHub and have 90%-95% of them approved? Amanda (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stewards are not expected to help out at all and if they do, being a steward means nothing :). Stewards are here as a community-only role and 0% technical experience or knowledge is really needed. John (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So if no knowledge is needed, does that mean that in theory, any Miraheze user in good standing could apply for Stewardship? Amanda (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. As long as the requirements for appointment are met. Any successful request under those conditions will be appointed. Similarly stewards will remain in the position until they're inactive or the requirements for revocation are met. John (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I have two accepted requests on mw-config, and one bug fix on CreateWiki. It's not all that much, but I've only become semi-active on phab in the last few weeks. -- Void  Whispers 22:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * like John said there is NO REQUIREMENT for stewards to contribute at all in technical ways. On the contrary, one of the biggest reasons I'm going to support this is because there is a distinction between stewards and sysadmins. Although I think the current stewards do a great job, and I'm not sure we need another, I do want a steward that isn't a system administrator, and I believe Void is the best candidate (and not just because (s)he's the only one requesting it right now). -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I think makes an interesting and very worthy point regarding having a steward that is not a system administrator. With the recent database incident that took a few days and a great deal of effort to get things running smoothly again, it would be helpful to have someone that doesn't necessarily deal with those situations but is able to help out in a steward role dealing with other issues. Obviously, the database incident was an extreme case and I use that only as an example but having a steward available to deal with other requests would ease the pressure on the current stewards, who, in more extreme cases, would be dealing exclusively with other issues. Borderman  talk 12:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
Well, if Stewards need no technical experience, and there is no prerequisite restriction on who can be nominated, then in theory everyone could be Stewards, and we would all do our part to help run Miraheze together - instead of 3 to 6 people doing all the work. Like that'll ever happen. Amanda (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. The logic is so bad here that I can't even begin.  So I guess I won't.  The above comment is wrong is every way.  Labster (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice that I did say "In theory" and "Like that'll ever happen". Both of these imply that the logic/point above would be the ideal situation, but that the chances of it actually happening are next to zero. Amanda (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Like said above, there is no requirement for Stewards to do any 'technical' work. On the contrary, when the database server crashed last night and restarted, I totally forgot to create any status updates or notices on facebook etc. Outreach and notifying users of service issues could definitely be part of what Stewards do, as opposed to sysadmins directly. Also, Void is the only non-system administrator that is a Consul on the test wiki, so he is one of three users with the ability to remove bureaucrat from another user on that wiki. Long story short, I think that Void is like the best candidate that isn't a purely technical person. Although me, SPF, and John (the three Stewards) do handle Steward requests in a timely manner for the most part, I think all of us have (some) issues communicating and handling other community issues. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Because I don't know users in the Miraheze and other wiki-based communities I thought I wouldn't really have a worthy opinion here because I have no grounds for backing any claims of approval. However, that said, I did quickly check Void's wiki background and, in particular, the extensive Wikipedia activity that is clearly evident there (this was purely to educate myself of any potential abilities). It seems to me that someone who spends a substantial amount of time and commitment to a series of on-going projects in preventing unconstructive and/or potentially damaging contributions could perchance be seen as an asset to Miraheze's community. In addition, the recent spate of creating wikis shows a keenness to help out and, given half a chance, fulfil a role with broader scope and challenges. I definitely agree with NDKilla's point above regarding a candidate that isn't mainly a technical person. Borderman  talk 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Abstain
I'm going to abstain from offically voting on this per the recent comments by and. I think a handful of you know where I stand on the whole "partially founder managed wiki farm" and "Stewards have the technical ability to override founders" concepts, so I'm not going to discuss it again, and I ask that no one else mentions it in a reply to this comment (feel free to email me if you don't know what I'm talking about). I'm going to be brief and to the point here. I do think that more Stewards are needed - there are unanswered requests on SN from over a week ago. I personally don't have an opinion on the non-sysadmin appointment. My personal feelings are that Stewards should merely be trusted community members in order to have a successful request - perhaps wiki creator/other local rights may help too. There should be no other conditions - as long as you are trusted, have not been blocked in the past month or so, and have shown a good record of cooperation, you should be appointed. Others may disagree with me, but that's where I stand right now. No offense to the candidate here, but personally I would chose if it was up to me. Amanda (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose
Sorry Void, but I feel that we already have enough stewards (3). Everything is already handled fast and well. MacFan4000 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How many active wikis does it take before a fourth steward can be appointed? It seems pointless to me to have a Request for Stewardship page if, at least for the unforeseeable future, every request is going to be opposed because we already have enough stewards. The current stewards do an amazing job already but I believe more stewards (maybe one or two) would be useful, especially if there are serious technical issues that the other stewards/system administrators would be dealing with. Borderman   talk 18:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Borderman and am curious as to your response. Also, not to be dismissive as everyone, even anonymous users, can support/oppose these requests with reasoning, I think you've made it clear you want notthing to do with this community so why should we let you decide the future of the community? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

sorry for my abrupt return to Miraheze, but I saw this and thought: Wait... didn't I request this months back and get declined for the exact reason of "More stewards aren't needed at this time?" I'm starting to think there's an issue here. Likewise, this is nothing against you personally, but if I'm to be declined stewardship when it was not needed just as much as it was now, I can't really justify a reason to support this.. so this is more of a "There's absolutely no need for a new steward at this time, especially if I had the same reasoning back then, and got declined for the exact same position with little to no influx of activity." Sammy (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't for the life of me understand why you would oppose this request just because your request was denied. That way of thinking seems a little redundant but I do understand your frustration, especially if you can contribute to the community. However, it shouldn't mean someone else can't be granted stewardship just because you didn't. Miraheze is constantly changing and I have noticed over the last few days Void has been busy creating lots of wikis! We all know it's more than just about creating wikis. Yes, the stewards' role and responsibilities are important and request should not be taken lightly. I would be interested to see how the current stewards cast their options. Borderman   talk 18:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above comment on MacFan's comment, I find it rather amusing that you more or less come back just to oppose this request. Why should users who leave here because they don't get Stewardship or sysadmin rights be allowed to decide the future of the rest of the community? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think. We enough three steward and I can't see you at phab or github anytime. Sorry H1 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Void is right here on Phabricator. Amanda (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Amanda has sock for Void ? o_O H1 (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are trying to say here.... That is my phabricator account, and the only accounts I have on wiki are this one (User:Void) and User:Void-test. -- Void  Whispers 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Extensive CheckUsers were performed on User:DeltaQuad (Amanda) and all related accounts. I assure you that User:Void is not a sockpuppet of any of the other accounts. Additionally I find this a rediculous accusation since you yourself edit from an open proxy used by other globally banned/blocked/locked users. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I use open proxy for priavacy my address or locate. If you know I can use 1000 open proxy provider. :-D H1 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

MT7's Request for Stewardship
User: MT7 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
Offering to help and I want to be cooperative. I want to offering help here. I promise I can't abuse the tools. And I can handle the troll or vandalisme. I also handle mediawiki interface and I translator at translatewiki.net, I hope I can be approve with community. Feel free to ask more questions. Thanks for read my request.

Hi guys. I would like to ask the right steward. I like to miraheze. I want to be bound by this community. May I be the steward for help. I already know about checkuser and oversight. I will also keep the public's privacy or the privacy policy. I know the duties of a steward. So I volunteeredto be a steward. My shortcomings are not very proficient in English. I know that all here are very proficient english. I had never been a steward before. Thanks for the read myre

Comments by other users
Hmmm... I don't know whether I can support this or not, because I can barely understand what is being said! Very poor grammar/spelling on behalf of the requester here. Amanda (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)~
 * I do note that the user account "MT7" does not exist on Wikimedia Meta, and CentralAuth shows that the only linked account is an account at en wikipedia with 7 total edits and no permissions. I'm going to assume good faith and believe that they are under a different username, but per below, these statements need to be confirmed. Amanda (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please confirm your user account on the WMF project so that we confirm that you are the same person and have the user rights that you claim you do. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 12:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the effect of my confirmation? What can I instantly became steward? If not, I will not waste time and show all to them that I worked in miraheze.

You cant just delete your RfS and re-create it to get rid of people's comments. Just update your original statement or post new comments. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I only want to explain for supper explain. MT7 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
I somewhat agree with my sister on this one, but also disagree slightly. In my personal opinion, local/global experience on this project shouldn't matter. As long as the requester knows what they are doing enough to properly manage steward tools, they should be granted. Unfortunately, with this case, it is difficult to know how much MT7 actually knows because of the language barrier. However, I am totally willing to give them a chance. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 15:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain
I no longer directly oppose this as it is clear from RFC that MT7 has a view for stewardship that is more ideal for personal/local communities - a topic that I strongly support. However, because of the lack of knowledge of English, and especially since the latest description says that he has never been a steward before, I'm not sure if I can completely support this (whereas I probably could if the original fact about being a WMF steward was true). Amanda (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Merely because of the awful grammar/spelling in the initial request. Stewards need to be able to communicate clearly with other stewards at the least, and ideally the entire Miraheze community when/if needed. Amanda (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I from non en language I heavy to learn it. I'm sorry for that. MT7 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If your level of English is not fluent, you may want to consider not requesting advanced permissions as this farm is primarily in English. In any regards, I still cannot support this request because your statements about being a WMF Steward have not been confirmed and I don't feel that you have enough experience here to be trusted with steward tools. Amanda (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

DeltaQuad's Request for Stewardship
User: DeltaQuad ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
If MT7 can request stewardship at such an early stage, then so can I. This will definitely not is unlikely to succeed, but I'm doing this merely as a statement anyway as I would love to help the Miraheze community. I have a lot of experience working with the MediaWiki interface, and I feel that I could easily manage the Miraheze project from a technical point of view. However, I do tell you do not grant me sysadmin/shell access, as I am not good with servers and would probably break things! However, I am becoming more and more of an expert using the tools of MediaWiki, both basic and advanced, and therefore I think I would make a good Steward - even though I know doubt that no one else will agree with me.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Again, this request is merely filed as a statement that I and probably lots of others know what we are doing when it comes to MediaWiki and therefore all established users should either have default access to or be able to request access successfully to any part of the technical interface. I also note that with the recent spambot attacks on my wiki, having access to checkuser and oversight could be helpful.

Comments by other users
"I feel that I could easily manage the Miraheze project from a technical point of view." Do you realize that Stewards are a completely community-driven role and not technical in nature? Stewardship never implies shell access, GitHub commit access, or anything remotely similar? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When I say technical, I mean using the different interfaces of the MediaWiki software, ranging from simple blocking to complex global account management and everything in between. I'm good at it. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The struck claims above are no longer valid. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 00:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"If MT7 can request stewardship at such an early stage, then so can I.". Anyone can make a request to become Steward, it doesn't mean they necessarily should. I could make a request if I wanted to. I just wouldn't recommend throwing a hat in on the basis of a "me too" proposition of one that didn't even pass. LulzKiller (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
I do not intend to have any bias here, but I strongly think that my sister is totally up for the job. Amanda (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember you asking why I don't like sharing accounts - here's why. One account have only one vote, and I do not think nominee themselves is eligible for vote. &mdash; revi  06:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain
I think Amanda have a fluent english to respon community. But I can be fact she not to hat collecting. MT7 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
for two reasons. Personally I think you sound extremely pessimistic in this request for rights and I don't think that's what somebody in a community-support / community-lead role should be like. Additionally, you shouldn't be requesting any rights "merely as a statement" as that really sounds like hat collecting. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In the statement she says, "This will definitely not succeed, but I'm doing this merely as a statement." If she doesn't intend to be a steward, there's no reason to approve. Rights are given to people who want them, not people making statements by requesting rights. Labster (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said that I didn't want the rights. In fact, I really do want the rights more now with the recent spambot attacks on my wiki. However, that statement meant that the chances of me actually getting them are next to zero unless people are out of their minds. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 22:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Like me and Labster have both said this is our reasoning. You're really not helping your case now as based on what you just said it sounds like people would have to be out of their minds to support you. Why would we want that? -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 22:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am requesting stewardship because I want the rights. However, my initial assumption (and I could be wrong on that one) was that practically no one would support me. That said, the feeling of having no support was not and is not enough to prevent me from voicing for what I want. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From merely: (focus) Without any other reason etc.; only, just, and nothing more. You just said your only purpose for filing this request was to make a statement.  This precludes you actually wanting to use the rights, or doing it for the good of Miraheze, or any other reason. Labster (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my initial thought process because I doubted that anyone would support me besides my sister. However, given the recent spambot attack on my wiki, and given my high level of knowledge with advanced MediaWiki interfaces now, I do have a valid reason for requesting the rights and would be happy to help out the Miraheze community, as long as there is no server-related work involved (which NDKilla confirmed above that there was not). --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 00:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sharing account with somebody else means unauthorized personnel ('Amanda' in this case) can access the toolset without community scrutiny. Also, we can't distinguish 'who did the action' based on just logs. &mdash; revi  06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

DeltaQuad's Request for Stewardship
User: DeltaQuad ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I am requesting steward because I would like to help out with the Miraheze community. I have a lot of experience working with the different interfaces of the MediaWiki software, from ultra-basic editing to common sysop tasks like blocking, protecting to advanced and highly-technical global account management. Because I have this high level of experience, I think that being a steward could really benifit the community globally as well as the chances of my wiki developing into a local community. If people come across my wiki and see that the founder is also a global steward, I'm hoping that they will think "Oh, this person must be really knowledgeable. This is probably a good website". Of course, that may or may not happen, but I'm hoping that it will. Overlooking my personal benefits, I think that my experience could really be put to use, especially because there are some SN topics that have remained unanswered for days and some Phabricator tasks that have remained commentless for weeks. I hope that you all feel the same way, and that I will be given a chance to help out Miraheze. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 20:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
This is a re-do of the previous request above. Please do not consider the previous request when commenting/voting on this one, as it is invalid and has nothing whatsoever to do with this one. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 20:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
This user thinks that closing a request after meeting some opposition, then opening another request for the exact same thing immediately, is an appropriate form of interacting with a community. This user also thinks that it's okay to direct people to disregard all past opposition in order to get what they want. We need global stewards to demonstrate maturity, not immaturity. Labster (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I closed the first request and have asked people to leave it alone because much of the opposition were based on claims that are now false. Do you honestly think that it is fair to judge a request based on untrue claims? --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 22:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Based upon Labster's point on a weird closing and re-opening. Also per Revi on the fact that two people share one account, this would make me opposed regardless of who it is, this could mean judgements could vary wildly depending on which of you was online at that moment on a particular wiki. LulzKiller (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If my sister's original account hadn't been globally locked for no good reason, we wouldn't even be here. However, it was, and they refused to unlock it, so here we are. Blame the stewards, not me. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

for the following reasons: I would be uncomfortable granting the applicant additional rights, especially rights that affect either of the wikis where I am an admin. --Robkelk (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The applicant's request that we "Please do not consider the previous request when commenting/voting on this one" shows questionable judgment and a fundamental misunderstanding of the application process. People who do not know the applicant at all (including myself) will naturally research the applicant, and that includes previous submissions. Also, the applicant has stated that comments made in the previous application are false, but has not actually refuted the statements.
 * The applicant's request does not show where she is currently using rights above those granted by Confirmed/Autoconfirmed; I have no easy way short of a Google search throughout all of Miraheze to learn whether the applicant can be trusted to refrain from abusing enhanced rights.
 * While sharing a user account between two or more people is not discussed in the Terms of Use, it is something that in my opinion should not be done by somebody who wants rights and responsibilities above and beyond those granted by Confirmed/Autoconfirmed. The applicant shows what I consider to be poor judgment in requesting elevated rights for a shared account.
 * The page history of Requests for Comment/Stewards shows that the applicant removed another person's comments without giving a reason why in the edit history. While the topic is marked as being closed, in my opinion a reverter should mention that in the reason for reverting edits after the topic closure, rather than forcing people to look through the page. The applicant did not do that.
 * The applicant allowed someone whose account has been globally locked to use the applicant's account, thus bypassing a security mechanism that is in place to protect Miraheze as a whole. This is not an action that a responsible steward would allow.
 * For the reason, neither DQ nor Amanda 'let a globally locked user' use their account to 'bypass a security mechanism' the only reason the accounts are locked is because it is the opinion of the Steward body that they are all one person (or close enough with CheckUser data and behavioral evidence) to possibly be considered abuse of multiple accounts. Thus 'they' were told to use one account, and as awkward as it is, it makes things simpler I guess. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 01:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. That is also something that a responsible Steward would not do. Either way, the objection is still a valid one. --Robkelk (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? Do you mean that a responsible steward would not allow her sister to continue editing just because they were told to share one account? --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 12:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The applicant's handling of herself and the discussion in both applications do not leave me feeling comfortable with the prospect of steward privileges in her hands. --Looney Toons (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rsterbal (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sharing account with somebody else means unauthorized personnel ('Amanda' in this case) can access the toolset without community scrutiny. Also, we can't distinguish 'who did the action' based on just logs. (Pasting again.) &mdash; revi  06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The others have covered my objections, but I'd like to add something as well. I believe absolutely in transparency, which means taking absolute responsibility for one's actions and showing the community you are worthy of trust in all cases, especially by accepting blame when fault lies with you for poor judgement. By that standard, I believe this party is a poor choice for steward because they allowed unauthorized access to tools meant to have global power over the community and have not been as forthright as I would be comfortable in accepting responsibility for such a breech of trust, and their hopes such actions as noted in the previous request for rights would not be considered as marks against them in this request for power only tells me I have less reason to believe their integrity is firm enough to consider them for this position. GethN7 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me try for a better summary. The applicant made a two requests in 24 hours, withdrawing them both.  The first one was withdrawn in and attempt to cover up their own stupidity.  The applicant instructed others to ignore the applicant's own history on the same page.  The second attempt was withdrawn in the face of universal opposition.  In a final act, the applicant showed supreme childishness and extreme cowardice by summaring the discussion and putting up a template that locks further discussion.  In this the applicant made several patently false statements in an attempt to undermine Miraheze including, "In my opinion, being extremely knowledgeable in all interfaces of MediaWiki should be enough to be granted Stewardship."  The applicant proceeded to compare Miraheze unfavorably with its competitors in an act of disloyalty.  Finally, the applicant requested once again rights that every single officer of Miraheze personnel has told applicant will never be possible, and because of this blamed their own bad behavior on the officers of Miraheze.
 * In short, applicant acted in such a way that if Miraheze was a military instead of a wiki farm, applicant would be court-martialed. --Labster (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

H1's Request for Stewardship
User: H1 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I want to make miraheze grow. And I want to help to some of the work going on here. I'm friends with Host Provider MT7 and have the same, but different houses.I mastered the mediawiki code like PHP and others, I'm glad I could help here, I want to contribute more. However, if this request fails I want to help by making a wiki. Hopefully this is Done :)

Questions for candidate
What experience do you have as a wiki admin? Where can we go to read already-existing compliments and complaints about your admin style? --Robkelk (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your account has been active on Meta for only two weeks. Why do you think you should be trusted with enhanced rights? --Robkelk (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * One, language skills seem to be poor, and given the official logs and other statements from authority on anything regarding your position will have to be made in English, this does not bode well. Second, this request is essentially "MT7 trying again under a different name", and if you didn't get it once, you shouldn't try to get it again by simply changing your name and changing nothing that got you rejected the first time round. In fact, given this, I have strong doubt whether you could even be trusted with a wiki of your own. GethN7 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please I'm friends for MT7. I'm not use myfriend account. And I doubt you is sock for DeltaQuad. I think :)H1 (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He's a known guy from ATT, and is obviously not a sock. ;) &mdash; revi  11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay.I think it was because he was directly opposed. H1 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For thinking GethN7 is a sock for DQ alone. Seriously. I don't even need to get into the other reasons thanks to that. Having such utter ignorance and lack of foresight to even suggest that is an immediate reason to oppose any attempts of hat-collecting.

I would also like this to be an opportunity if you will, for a request of CU to prove that MT7 and H1 are in fact sockpuppets. There is now enough evidence to suggest that their actually is. LulzKiller (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I requested a CU between those two users a little while ago, but it was declined. --- DeltaQuad  (talk contribs email), 15:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Was this before they both applied for stewardship, the chance and rationale for doing a CU has now tremendously improved. It is now crucial in the knowledge that this would affect an appointment of a steward. LulzKiller (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)