Requests for Stewardship

Void's Request for Stewardship
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)

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) 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."