Meta:Requests for permissions

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (10 August 2015 - 15 May 2016)
 * Archive 2 (15 May 2016 - 8 May 2017)
 * Archive 3 (8 May 2017 - 12 August 2018)
 * Archive 4 (12 August 2018 - 23 February 2020)
 * Archive 5 (23 February 2020 - 22 October 2020)
 * Archive 6 (22 October 2020 - present)

DarkMatterMan4500 (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. Dmehus (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User: DarkMatterMan4500 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: Considering that I was recommended this permission 6 months ago by a Steward in any other permissions I could choose from, I've been thinking about this for a while. Of course I would like to help Miraheze in a way that everyone is welcome, given the fact that I have been here for over a year, and made myself very well known, so I'm basically ready if necessary.

Additional comments: My only concern is that there are many requested wikis having problematic issues, and even people requesting problematic or substantiated hateful wikis, which is something I should take into consideration. (For clarification, there has been recent incidents about problematic wikis.)

What would you do in the following situations? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions
 * 1) A Public wiki that says: "Terrible Websites Wiki - a wiki that lists websites that we find horrible and explains why they're so awful"
 * 2) A private wiki that says: "Wiki for a personal project with me and my friends"?
 * 3) How about a request for a public wiki that says: "Fantasy World Wiki - We're moving away from Fandom because we prefer no ads, see our Fandom site here: x.fandom.com"?
 * 4) A public wiki that says: "Obnoxious Bloggers Wiki - a wiki that lists bloggers and explains why we think they're obnoxious and terrible people"
 * 5) A wiki that has the same topic as another wiki but says in the description "The administrators of the other wiki blocked me for no reason so I want to create my own version"

DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Answers
 * 1) Depends on which subject it's being talked about: However, since we're on the specifics, I would decline them and have them specify what their purposes of their wikis will be. Also, if a wiki was going to be problematic, then I'd decline it right away and tell them the reason why.
 * 2) Just like with my answer for number one, I would like to have them specify the reasons behind that to avoid problematic and/or Code of Conduct or Content policy violations.
 * 3) If the paragraph looks good enough, then I'd accept the request, but if it's not good enough, I'd have them go back and edit their request. (I have clarified what I meant below after Reception123 brought up an interesting point on both #3 and #5.)
 * 4) I'd decline that as that would be a problematic Code of Conduct/Content policy violation, as I wouldn't allow a wiki to create problems for our wiki farms.
 * 5) I'd obviously decline it as we don't need duplicate wikis, but on rare cases, I would want them to specify what their purposes of their wikis are.
 * Could you perhaps give us more details for the 3rd one, what would a paragraph that looks "good enough" and a paragraph that is "not good enough" look like to you? For the 5th one, it would rather be appropriate to check if the user has tried to mediate the situation on the main wiki. The CP says "a direct fork of another Miraheze wiki where little to no attempts have been made to mediate situations on the existing wiki or existing community" so that implies that a fork could be allowed if attempts have been made to mediate the situation and they have failed. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for bringing that up. I should've been more clear on #3 and #5. For number 5 (in no particular order), any forks to other wikis are indeed acceptable if all else fails, with a few exceptions along those lines. (You're right about that one.) And as for #3, I'm referring to the ones that should add 2-3 sentences in details, and by not good enough, I'm referring to people adding in very lazy writing or didn't put any thought into writing a wiki request. In other words, that wouldn't really be acceptable to accept as a wiki request. I hope that clarifies that for you, and is more clear. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. That prompts me to ask an additional question. What if someone requested a private wiki and the description was "This wiki will be for the purpose of organising my personal diary"? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that would be suspicious, but assuming good-faith, I'd ask them to provide specifics making sure they aren't going to breach the Code of Conduct and/or Content policies. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments
 * Why not? I wanted to suggest this to you today - crazy, --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, you were going to suggest this to me? I mean, a user did suggest this to me earlier in September 2020, so I've been thinking about this for a few weeks, boiling down to this moment now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we able to vote now?  Wiki JS  18:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can! Reception123 just asking questions before he vote on the request. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the user is trusted for this role, and the response on questions above is okay. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 19:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why thank you for the kind response. I'll honor that once there's more than enough votes via consensus. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He seems like he knows his stuff. He does have potential, and I will be hoping to see him with the role, and he is a well known member in the community, so I believe he's trusted. His answers are fairly well. I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be a wiki creator. Wiki JS  19:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and considering I've been using Miraheze since January 29th of last year, it proves my growth of knowledge is still continuing to grow, even with twists and turns at every corner. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


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

WikiJS (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * by requestor. Dmehus (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User: WikiJS ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I would like to be a Wiki creator, as I understand the code of conduct very well, and I am good at assuming good faith. I have not broken the Code of Conduct, Dormancy Policy, and Content Policies and I have good relations with this community. I will be active while I have the user right, and I believe this job can work well with me.

Additional comments: I'm fine with any results, and I will try my hardest with the user right if I get it.

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions

I have withdrawn this request, as I believe I should get a lot more edits done, and memorize all policies, and become well known in the community. The main reason why I have withdrawn is because I have considered all opposes, and believed that I should work more on the community and then redo the vote. Wiki JS 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Know the CoC is good, but as a Wiki creator, you should also know the Content Policy, and your activity on Meta is too recent for I can decide me, so I not really inclined to support this for now, but if you want, you can reach a other wiki creators for asking to a mentorship. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah 5/4 months on miraheze isn't too much, but still trying to give it a shot. Wiki JS  19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiJS I cancel my vote for now per a request of someone, I have maybe vote a little too fast and I have not tried to assume good-faith of this request, so I will wait (or if I have time, try to ask you some questions to you otherwise someone else will do it) and I will vote when questions was answered. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 19:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mention CoC which is not very related to WC permission, but do not mention knowledge of DP/CP is not cool, so oppose.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand Dormant Policy, and I have read the Content Policy (Linked with HeartsDo's post).  Wiki JS  20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I get what you're saying, like Wiki Creators should know the dormancy and content policies. Wiki JS  20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, this is not good, you should know it before request.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


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

SoyokoAnis (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Unsuccessful. The prevailing consensus view here is two-fold, that (1) the user has a low amount of edits, though it's unclear if the participants are referring to global edits or Meta edits, and (2) that the user may not have sufficiently demonstrated to the community they understand and can apply Content Policy correctly in decisioning wiki requests (based mainly on their own wiki requests). The first argument really has very little to do with being a prerequisite for the wiki creator, but the latter argument is of paramount importance. This really was a good-faith request to volunteer and the requestor is thanked for wanting to volunteer. The requestor is strongly encouraged to reach out to an existing wiki creator on Discord or IRC and have them ask them a series of situation-based questions regarding mainly Content Policy and Wiki creators guide that would help to ensure a successful permissions request next time. Dmehus (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User: SoyokoAnis ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: Hello! I am requesting this right to help clear out the Wiki requests. I'll make sure that the requests are fufilled. I have also read the Content and Dormancy Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:


 * Questions

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * 1)  Hi, have you read Wiki creators' guide?  10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yes, I have. SoyokoAnis  14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * 1)  This user has been part of the community for a month, and five days, so that's a quality, but the reason why I'm a Weak Supporter, is because of the low amount of edits by the user. Only about 70 as the time of voting. But assuming Good-faith, I think he might be a good wiki creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think you have too few edits in Meta. I recommend that you continue with the same pattern for a few more months and only then look at it again. --Anton (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) . Very low edit count. Yahya (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per above and the fact that your wiki requests do not seem good enough to me.  13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


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

Bmoser05 (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Snow closing. No chance in succeeding per User close policy. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User: Bmoser05 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I'm going to be a good wiki creator for the community. I'm going to be following the wiki creators guide, and I'll decline and accept according to it. and I'll be a good member of the community, thank you for reading this!

Additional comments: I've read the wiki creators' guide. and I'll do everything I said I'll do! I'll decline bad requests and I'll also accept good requests, but any request Against the rules for it I'll decline, with the reasoning 'Bad wiki request, please read The Rules for wiki requests.'

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)  Sorry, but your account was just created less than two hours ago, you have only made this request and one edit on your apparent wiki, so I have no indication you'd understand and apply Content Policy correctly. In addition, I would note that the wiki on which you'd made contributions and which was identified as your personal wiki was requested by 1066470lcps. Is that your alternate account? If so, please do review user accounts policy. This is either a too soon or not now case. Dmehus (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Not now. I think we can snowball this request as it feels more like hat-collecting from a new user. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I oppose, because of all of the reasons above. You should request again when your account is about 2-ish months old, and you have a reasonable edit count on Meta, and globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


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

Suwandikevin (Wiki creator)
User: Suwandikevin ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I need it for my college project

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1) Why do you need Wiki Creator for your college ?  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)   Hi, could you please explain what you mean by "I need it for my college project"? Assuming you want a wiki for your college project, you can request that using Special:RequestWiki. There is no need for any special right. :)  17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  the user has only two edits and the only ones are to apply for wiki creator rights. And it doesn't seem like spam at all..hoh. Where are these hatcollectors enough?--Anton (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Suwandikevin, did you mean to use Special:RequestWiki to request a wiki for your college project? Please advise, and then we can withdraw this request for you as cancelled and instead help to get you set up with a wiki for your project. Dmehus (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Dmehus - Revocation of Sysop Rights
User: Dmehus ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Sysop Reason: Dmehus has recently done questionable things as a Meta administrator and a Steward. He has violated the User close policy in this revision by closing an RfGR invoking the policy despite the policy clearly stating that it should only be invoked by "trusted but, non-privileged, users" (emphasis mine). It should also be noted that Dmehus closed the request before a question left on the request was answered. When I asked about this on his talk page, he said that he is also an Autoconfirmed user here on Meta. This shows that Dmehus does not care about or never bothered to properly read the policy which prohibits privileged users (in this case, Stewards) from closing RfPs or RfGRs invoking the policy. He also removed two comments from an RfP just yesterday (which I reverted). It appears that Dmehus has become very very arrogant and thinks his and his closest allies' (Why do I bring in allies? It is because he left RhinosF1's comment untouched and I was personally attacked by RhinosF1 on Dmehus's talk page) opinions are much more important than anyone else's. I think that it is now self-evident that there is no or very little compelling reason to let him continue to be a Meta admin (or even a Steward, if that wouldn't come with its own side-effects like slow responses on matters that can only be handled by Stewards). 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments: Reading what I wrote above, I do not believe I have been able to properly mention all the problems with Dmehus so I request anyone reading this to read this RfS. I also think it is worth mentioning that Dmehus globally blocked an IP address that meaningfully added to the discussion invoking the NOP while it is very obvious that there was a strong conflict of interest here. I could go on and on pointing out more about what Dmehus has done in the recent months. I believe this would had been better as an RfS but as I mentioned above, unfortunately, revoking Dmehus's Steward right would mean that there would be delay in responding to user requests that only Stewards can handle. Perhaps, I could make an RfC to deal with that in a better way, proposing limiting his actions but I currently do not have the time to do that and think that an interim solution would be revoking Dmehus's admin right here on Meta so that he cools down and hopefully gets back into editing and behaving in the way he was before getting elected as a Steward. The Dmehus present on-wiki and on other platforms is clearly not the Dmehus whom the community chose to trust with Sysop rights long ago and with Steward rights three months ago. I would be happy to see Dmehus back to editing and helping out users in the way he once used to. Having said all that, I wonder how I am going to be harassed after I save this edit, which has been happening a lot lately. 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)  as proposer.  16:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes,
 * He is editing user pages of other users -
 * He is editing archives after renames -
 * He often acts in cases where he is involved.
 * He referring to rules without thinking about other aspects.
 * He doing tasks while what he "just don't want to break anything" - for example
 * He editing posts of other users - for example
 * He doing oversight without request every time that some IP comment something, without request.
 * He doing CheckUser very often, see user rights log, sometimes leaving CU permissions for few days.
 * He doing revdels without need - see and those with perms
 * In revocation request about him he opposed this request about myself - bizzare and (globally) blocked IP that commented on this request, while there is NOP policy, this was unprecedented action, he really doesn't adress COI at all, see also support section in revocation request.
 * His bullying really isn't something that should be in this project - for example
 * and RfGR incident mentioned above is another bizzare thing...
 * and finally, he is very good in wikipedia:WP:LISTEN
 * For every one of those reasons I am voting for a full revocation of rights from Dmehus until he will adress all concerns.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For "you should engage with him" peoples - no no no, when you trying to point out some issue (doesn't matter where), the result will be some long comment, where he refers to some WP policy, AGF, or some excuses, etc but without any result or self-reflection. Waste of time. That's fact.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that, although I mentioned the RFGR incident in my comment, this does not mean that this is the only concern that exists and should be addressed. RFGR incident is, say, a mini-concern, unlike many others. I guess R4356th didn't mention more concerns because, for example, he didn't want his comment to be long or didn't want to sound biased. There are many other concerns that should be adressed,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MrJaroslavik Regarding the first point, that's long been accepted since I arrived, and indeed, many if not all of those users thanked me for those edits. Users appreciate my WikiGnoming. Regarding your second point, the idea here is that when the user is renamed, the wikilinks point to a non-existent user, which will add to confusion should another user register that username. It's a minor edit that does not meaningfully change the discussion; in fact, it improves it. Regarding your third point, hrm? Regarding, your fourth point, again, hrm? Regarding your fifth point, depending on the edit, I will just say that my Thanks log is validation for users appreciating my WikiGnoming. Your sixth point, that's simply not correct. Miraheze take users' privacy seriously where it's clear a user has likely edited while logged out, so convention is to oversight the revisions rather than revision delete. In the past, revision deletion is sub-optimal, and may actually be worse as it hides the revision that should be oversighted. It was done historically when Stewards were less active. Doing CheckUser too often? How so? Spam only accounts are a huge problem on Miraheze, and there's a lot of abuse. Regarding your other points, I don't even know what you're referring to, and the bullying reference is simply not accurate. Dmehus (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a good way forward from this point would be if you explained clearly for both R4356th and MrJaroslavik the reasoning behind why you wanted to clearly state the request was closed in accordance to User close policy, rather than simply closing the request in the rightful capacity as a Steward, and explaining why you closed it. Further, it would be interesting to gain an insight over why you didn't ask the user if they wished to withdraw the request? Seeing as your prior actions suggest this is usually something you do. From an administrative point, it would be useful for you to confirm that I have spoken to you previously around editing other users comments. I feel wider, there is a problem with discussing problems (on both sides of the argument) which need to be addressed - this is notably the 2nd revocation request raised for you in 2021. My strong recommendation would be to reach out to both users either in public or private to discuss the problem and listen to then - and not come back citing some Wikipedia policy (which I do note you have done with myself numerous times), but rather accept other view points unless there is a relevant policy or discussion on Miraheze which justifies the action as being 'established'. FYI in response to 'Users appreciate my WikiGnoming' can be contested seeing as at least 5 users (including myself) do not appreciate it - with the ongoing attitude to this problem being raised being 'other users disagree' is not helpful to resolving a disagreement and might just be why this is the second revocation request for you this year. John (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * John Thank you for the comments. Regarding User close policy, I would just note that I was preparing a further response to R4356th yesterday in discussion on my user talk page, which I've now ✅. Regarding being willing to engage with R4356th, MrJaroslavik, and any other community members, I am absolutely willing to do this. In particular, notably, I have direct messaged MrJaroslavik on Discord on January 28th, 2021, regarding a comment he made and a question he asked in a Discord channel of the Miraheze Discord server, and have yet to receive a response my reply and willingness to engage. I have also separately addressed concerns in the  general, but have not received further responses. I'm happy to engage further and address any outstanding concerns. Regarding editing other users' comments, I would just note that an equal if not greater number of users have, privately or publicly, appreciated my minor editing. Some edits, as admitted to you, have not mean what one would consider minor, and I think I've made improvement in this area, limiting edits mainly to minor punctuation, formatting, and wikilink target corrections. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that you've added this reply to your existing reply, after other responses from other users had already been added, which increases confusion in terms of what the other users were replying to. In any case, I don't see how engagement, private or public, is ever a "waste of time." You seem to have a personal animosity toward me, dating back to August or September, when I deleted some duplicate voting templates you had created following a request from Universal Omega, and I've been trying, for nearly as long, to find out what exactly your issue(s) with me as a person are. Dmehus (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I guess R4356th didn't mention more concerns because, for example, he didn't want his comment to be long or didn't want to sound biased." Yes, I just mentioned a few on-wiki issues for that reason. I excluded incidents on Discord. 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I understand that some people have issues with some things that Dmehus has done, and I will admit that it is true that his methods are different. However, I feel that the issues identified and the way in which this request was formulated (in quite bad faith and impulsively) is not enough to warrant revoking administrator. First of all the issue of the User close policy. The issue is one of interpretation, and the truth is that the policy is not very clear on the matter. I would disagree with the statement that the policy "prohibits" priviledged users from closing per the policy. Why would that be the case? What is the rationale for that? And, even if it did I do not feel that closing per that policy as opposed to closing as Steward would be such a serious transgression to require immediate removal. Second, there is the point regarding RhinosF1. I don't quite understand how this is being considered a personal attack. RhinosF1 simply stated that in order to change the policy there would need to be an RfC. I really don't see how that can be seen as a personal attack, and I'm completely confident that even if it may appear to you as one RhinosF1 did not mean it in that way at all. I also don't understand why people who agree with Dmehus' perspective are being called his "allies". People are allowed to have their own opinions and simply agreeing with another person on a matter (like the UCP) does not make one their "ally". Thirdly, in response to the point proposing to limit actions, I believe that limiting any Steward's action is incompatible with their role: either they are a Steward or they are not, there cannot be an in between. Finally, I honestly don't understand why there has to be so much drama and why it is not possible to conduct reasonable and sensible discussions rather than everything becoming so heated and personal. Maybe I'm wrong but I have yet to seen a sensible discussion about a specific matter that doesn't include people mentioning other past issues or making it very dramatic. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I believe a lot of the factors mentioned are subjective, especially the User close policy. And I personally don't understand how agreeing with Dmehus makes someone his ally (if I disagree with him, am I his rival now?). And I don't think RhinosF1 is making a personal attack, lol. Reminds me of how Amanda Catherine took issue with Rhinos for simply commenting something like "do something about it?".  &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 18:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) * "I believe a lot of the factors mentioned are subjective, especially the User close policy." Well, Dmehus violated the policy; I do not get what is "subjective" here. "And I personally don't understand how agreeing with Dmehus makes someone his ally" I admit that it was a bad choice of words and has led to confusion (cc ). I meant that there are people who apparently blindly support him and come off personally attacking anyone who oppose Dmehus. I do not like to think of them as my "rivals", rather I would like to be friends with them but it unfortunately does not appear that they are interested in it. 12:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I personally have not made up my mind yet. While the things laid out by both R4356th and MrJaroslavik are no doubt problematic, most of the diffs seem to be rather old. I have asked Dmehus to stop doing this stuff in the past, so if it is not actively continuing, then where is the problem? We have all made mistakes in the past. That said, this one and this one are startingly recently, and alarming in the content as well, which is somewhat stopping me from opposing at this time. I am curious if the nominator has any thoughts about it or anything that can convince me to change my mind from one way to the other. Naleksuh (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, he was asked many times to not make for example nonsencial edits in archives (is not mentioned in my comment because i forgot) or to not edit archives after user renames. Still doing this.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A fresh example - In my comment I somehow mentioned that it is not appropriate to vote in the request about myself. And what happened? Special:Diff/168666,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, I'm not really aware of there being a stipulation not to vote for yourself, and it has been done in the past (albeit as a support). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but by this logic it would lose its meaning about editing of others posts or for example edits after user renames, because it is not forbidden by the policies. But it's not just about the policies,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "(albeit as a support)" Support != Oppose. Regards. 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "most of the diffs seem to be rather old" - it would be helpful if you could please provide some examples. Thank you. 07:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) (edit conflict)  It looks like the problem in this case seems to be the User close policy which I proposed at the end of 2019 so I will explain my original reasoning. The reason behind the policy was that there were a large number of premature requests for functions such as Steward and the way that I understood it was that under the conventions only Stewards were 'allowed' to close any request. I thought that it would save people's time if sensible users were also able to close requests without Steward intervention if they were clearly not going to lead to a positive result as they were "NOTNOW" requests. I did not think that a Steward would ever apply this policy, since Stewards by their nature are allowed to close any requests as long as they follow the policies in place, or if they do not exist their common sense. My interpretation is therefore that there is no need for Stewards to use this policy to justify their closes. That being said however I think it is an innocent interpretation of the policy and this interpretation is no reason on its own to be revoked. On the point about the actions of RhinosF1 I agree with what was said above and am unable to see how it constitutes a personal attack towards the creator of this revocation proposal. I also wish simply to say that I do not think people's user pages should be edited without their explicit consent before the edit occurs or if there is a good reason (i.e. if they say they are administrator but no longer are). Finally, my general opinion is that some of the issues being raised are legitimate and some of the actions taken by Dmehus are unusual but this to me is not enough for a revocation and instead can be discussed with Dmehus. The reason for my oppose being weak is that I think it would be in everyone's interest if the issues that come up are seriously discussed and solutions are found, as was proposed above. I conclude by saying that I really do appreciate Dmehus' work and dedication here and my vote is in no way meant to be of any discouragement to him. DeeM28 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *DeeM28 I do agree that my editing other users' user pages is a bit bold, but they've all been done in good-faith and with constructive intentions in mind. To the best of my recollection, none of the edits have been reverted, though it wouldn't bother me if they reverted the change as that is absolutely their right to do so. While I think the edits have been helpful, I'm happy to cease editing others' user pages going forward, notwithstanding the usual exceptions (such as, for example, updating template transclusions on merged templates). I'm happy to address any other concerns you may have on either my user talk page, your user talk page, via e-mail, or through whichever channel you prefer. Dmehus (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Thank you for your response, I am satisfied that you will learn from this request and the concerns that have been said which in my view could have also worked equally well if it took the form of a note on your talk page instead of a hasty revocation request. DeeM28 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as premature and per the above comments from other users. Indeed, in that reply, I noted that User close policy does not specifically preclude other users who happen to be a Steward from closing the request early. Perhaps the policy could use some minor amendments to clarify whether the user groups are mutually exclusive or not, and that would be an appropriate way to handle this, in my view. With regard to this edit with requestor mentions, that was an edit conflict resulting from a loss of session data, and I was not advised of the edit conflict as I normally would have been, which I answered at the requestor's user talk page and which the requestor acknowledged. If the concern is regarding removing blank permissions requests, I would just note that I provided an edit summary to the requestor, and the requestor subsequently added a new request, filling in the fields correctly and around which the User close policy-based close argument is based. I would just add that the requestor also has removed blank or malformed permissions requests. Personally, I don't see that as particularly problematic, and other users have followed this practice as well. However, I do concede this may not be a universally shared view, so perhaps this seems like an argument for drafting a guideline or, perhaps, proposing a Meta policy for discussion that seeks to clarify when permissions should be removed and when they should be closed per User close policy, common sense, or other applicable policies. With regard to the requestor's perception of RhinosF1's response as a personal attack, I do agree it was a bit direct, but I personally didn't view it as either (a) a personal attack or (b) aggressive, so that's why I didn't intervene. Again, I feel like it would've been better for the requestor to have approached RhinosF1 on their user talk page or privately on Discord or IRC. Perhaps we could also do well to have a guideline, discussed on the companion talk page, that seeks to clarify when it is appropriate editing of others' comments, and I'd happily support that approach. To me, this feels quite premature, since the active discussion at my user talk page had yet to conclude. Dmehus (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is a steward non privileged? Based on my request earlier for you to justify the reasoning, my understanding is you chose not to be a steward in executing a steward duty and instead wanted to use a policy designed explicitly at non privileged users, of which a steward is not. The policy is poor, yes, but it does explicitly say ‘non privileged’. I did ask a rather explicit question earlier in regards to justification and my understanding from the reply seems to be ‘I closed it as a user and not as a steward because I didn’t want to close it as a steward’ which is weird - so to ask the question even more explicit now - why did you chose to close a permissions request as a community user when you fulfil the exact role which bears responsibility for closing that request? John (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * John, thanks for the question. I do agree that the User close policy could use a discussion to clarify certain aspects or refinement of the wording to make it more clear, but to provide some context into why I opted to close per User close policy, Reception123 and I had been discussing the permission request in question on IRC, and I asked about closing it in accordance with User close policy, as it was quite clear the request fit the bill for early closure. At the time, I didn't give much thought as to whether a Steward was permitted to close a request early on the same basis as User close policy, and had thought that it was generally preferred for early closures to be handled in accordance with User close policy (in my case, as an eligible community user). It seems no one objected to the early closure, but rather that it was closed by me per User close policy rather than as a Steward. Though I still believe that the policy is a bit ambiguously worded and could use clarification, I do concede that this was an oversight on my part in that I should've looked more closely again into User close policy and perhaps even asked for a third opinion. Going forward, when closing global permissions requests requiring a community election (i.e., wiki creator, interwiki administrator, Global Sysop, or Steward), whether early in the same spirit as Meta:UCP was written or in accordance with the applicable policy, I will ensure that I close such requests as a Steward, and not as a community user. Dmehus (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "It seems no one objected to the early closure,..." - No? And what is "It should also be noted that Dmehus closed the request before a question left on the request was answered."?,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Oppose" as mentioned above by MrJaroslavik, this is a weird comment as someone who is not willing to resign would obviously oppose this type of a proposal. If I were on your place and were not moved by the arguments, I would rather put it as a normal comment. "Perhaps the policy could use some minor amendments to clarify whether the user groups are mutually exclusive or not, and that would be an appropriate way to handle this" Why? It already mentions "but, non-privileged". "With regard to this edit with requestor mentions, that was an edit conflict resulting from a loss of session data... which I answered at the requestor's user talk page and which the requestor acknowledged." Why couldn't you revert the edit in that case? Also, you never mentioned that the removal of comments was due to an edit conflict. "If the concern is regarding removing blank permissions requests..." Where does this come from? "With regard to the requestor's perception of RhinosF1's response" That kind of behaviour is unacceptable from a member of the CoCC, IMHO. "To me, this feels quite premature, since the active discussion at my user talk page had yet to conclude." This proposal has not been created solely on the basis of that incident. 13:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Deja vu once again. Like I said in my previous statement regarding another user wanting revocation of Dmehus's permissions, I feel like you are being too bite-y towards this user all because of something that should've easily been resolved. I'm sorry, but I'm strongly opposing this unnecessary proposal, as this is just a waste of not only my time, but yours and the entire community. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous problems that can be solved easily, but perhaps the issue can be interpreted as not wanting to engage in a dead end process with the user in question? This isn’t a waste of people’s time, it shows a categorical attempt to resolve problems with little avail. I haven’t opened a revocation request but I can see why people might want to, to label other people’s concern as being a waste of time is the problem, not a solution. John (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but I've noticed some quarreling on the  channel on Discord between the requester and Doug in question. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done the same with Doug on numerous occasions, it doesn’t invalidate their opinions or wish to air frustration. John (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand why people would mostly be concerned about Doug, but I've seen a similar revocation attempt last month, making this very predictable. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is because concerns raised last time have still gone unaddressed. John (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not take into that the doug has not changed his behavior and works according to the same pattern, regardless of the concerns expressed (in RfS),--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MrJaroslavik Hrm, how is that? Since John spoke with me regarding not making material changes to users' comments, I've not done that. Moreover, despite my attempting to engage with you on how updating wikilinks point to the renamed user's user/user talk pages to find out how that is problematic in your view by inviting you to engage in a discussion on my user talk page or on Discord and IRC, you've not done that. Dmehus (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, watch me destroy every single point made in this pointless proposal. Now, let's start off with how Dmehus was only updating Zppix's status that he currently has. Now tell me, how does this relate to what he's been doing this month? I get that he said that he has autoconfirmed, but this is no different to how a battlefield was created between you and Doug, to the point where I had to intervene. Given your history of you and 's quarreling with him just takes away credibility, let alone even plausibility of having to have his rights revoked. And the fact this proposal was made over a user close policy sounds extremely silly to the point where it becomes disruptive. Seriously, if I had to write an essay of how boring and predictable this proposal is, I would've aced it with flying colors. That aside, this is another perfect example of a disruptive proposal against a Steward just for doing things differently. Not only do I find this to be extremely biased (more so than the wikis I've been going on a lot), but also downright moot at best, and malicious at its worst. Now to conclude this comment, the requester isn't any better than considering my point against him (the requester in question), to be valid, and rightfully so. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Now, let's start off with how Dmehus was only updating Zppix's status that he currently has." While I did not raise this concern above, let me express my views. I reported that revision using the Report tool as I found it inappropriate for Dmehus to edit Zppix's user page without any discussion. Why couldn't he just request Zppix to do that and give him some time? If Zppix did not respond within a reasonable amount of time, say a week, for whatever reason, sure, I wouldn't have any problem. I shall respond to your other points soon. 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he should've waited and asked for his permission here. But the problem rises when you keep entering conflicts with him, and not exercising the right approach on how to handle single-issued issues, while at the same time, inappropriately making it here. No offense here, but not everyone in this community will share the exact same views as you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Yeah, he should've waited and asked for his permission here." Guess than I "destroy[ed]" your "pointless" comment? (This is my response to your uncivil comment. Please be respectful towards everyone of every opinion.) 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True to form, I was being civil the whole time, expressing my concerns about this request with concerns about one's actions. The fact still remains that Dmehus has been very helpful in many instances before, and I really got nothing against expressing it freely. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that I will not make anymore further comments here as this chain has gone nowhere, and to avoid possible heated arguments in the process. In addition, this is pretty much a losing fight here, so let's refrain from commenting any further from this comment thread of mine. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I get that he said that he has autoconfirmed" Just for clarification and help of the closing bureaucrat, do you partially agree here? "this is no different to how a battlefield was created between you and Doug, to the point where I had to intervene" I do not get how you "had to intervene" as you replied half an hour after the conversation died. Also, I do not get what "how a battlefield was created between you and Doug" is supposed to mean. I immediately took my message back after sending that which Doug replied to from IRC despite being on Discord at the time and probably noticing me deleting the message. Furthermore, he lied about me messaging him in DMs, which I can prove with evidence, if deemed necessary. Just to clarify in short (and I repeat that I can provide evidence), I blocked Doug on Discord immediately after he sent a direct message to me that is unrelated to this discussion (but I knew that he was certainly going to change the topic very soon which is why I blocked him) which meant that I couldn't message him just as he couldn't message me. Thanks. 10:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I would just like to point out that when I replied in when I replied, from IRC, to your message, "Also, let me truly express my anger, don't you think it is a bad timing? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:", I was in IRC and hadn't even reviewed the   channel on Discord. I saw later in the day that you'd deleted the message on Discord. To your point about me "lying" about what you said in a direct message to me, for greater clarity, it would help to add what I said in the #cvt channel, which was, "I prefer to look past anything you may be upset with me about, even if that is still sometimes a difficult thing to do, but nevertheless, you've expressed your view above in reply to DarkMatterMan4500, so that should be all that's needed." I wasn't saying you expressed a view regarding that wiki to me in a DM; I said you've already nonetheless expressed a view...I was just looking for you to expand on that. For context, the view you expressed to DarkMatterMan4500 was, "dmehus and @DarkMatterMan4500, I think it's time to "take remedial actions by Stewards" for yf2kwiki. I did not expect this type of content when I approved the wiki in Special:RequestWikiQueue/17271." I am reviewing that wiki, once I finish reviewing another couple of wikis with even more serious Content Policy concerns, and will be discussing with existing Stewards my thoughts on those. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "And the fact this proposal was made over a user close policy sounds extremely silly to the point where it becomes disruptive." Have you actually read the entire proposal? The UCP is just one of the reasons behind making this proposal. "That aside, this is another perfect example of a disruptive proposal against a Steward just for doing things differently." This is by no means a case of IDHT disruptive editing; anyone in the community is allowed to make a proposal regarding anyone. "Now to conclude this comment, the requester isn't any better than Dmehus considering my point against him (the requester in question), to be valid, and rightfully so." I very strongly appreciate constructive criticism but this is not constructive. Please do feel free to formally raise your concerns in the form of an RfP, an RfC or whatever you think is appropriate. If you want, you may also reach out to me on my talk page or via Discord DM or email. I would really appreciate that.  10:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I feel like you are being too bite-y towards this user" - could you please elaborate? "this is just a waste of not only my time, but yours and the entire community" - I concur with John here. "That is because concerns raised last time have still gone unaddressed." "You do not take into that the doug has not changed his behavior and works according to the same pattern, regardless of the concerns expressed (in RfS)" Yes, exactly. 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While you aren't wrong that some of his actions are strange indeed, the thing is, what I've seen from both you and him feels like I'm watching little kids arguing on the playground instead of an actual discussion regarding your points. Now as for the argument you had with him, you said it on the   channel rather than to discuss it in private. Trust me, nobody wants to see an unnecessary fight between anyone. As for reaching out to you, perhaps I could express my concern on either of what you mentioned at any time. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Undeniably, the evidence and diffs of Dmehus operation (at least edit the archives, etc.) are strange, but Dmehus is still an extremely important Miraheze user in every sense! I haven’t read these discussions in more detail, but I want Dmehus to be the administrator here. He is skillful and helps in the best way possible, whether the habits are weird or not. --Anton (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur with the point above, he has helped the Miraheze community majorly.  Wiki JS   talk  12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I have worked with Dmehus a fair amount, and I have never seen him to anything that would necessitate the removal of rights. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Anton (sysop)
User: Anton ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: sysop Reason: I have considered the application of those rights for a few weeks, and I thought that now I ask these (though admittedly can still be the case too soon). I would like to be more involved in the maintenance of jobs in Meta, because Patroller adjustments will not be terribly not here (for example, today only one, I am therefore patroller). I think the administrator has more work to do here somehow. For example, this week and last week, three / four pages have come into my eyes that should have been deleted (accidentally created by Meta or for spam). I added the Delete template, but if I had sysop, I could have deleted it right away without the template. There have also been a few blocked users (who were blocked) at this point, but here's the same reason as just now: I could have done it quickly if I had sysop. It also feels like there are a lot of wiki Creator users, and the Request queue is mostly clean due to the fast operation of Miraheze wiki creators. With maintenance work, I too would have something meaningful to do and I could be more helpful to this wiki. I have been actively involved in community for a long time, and like to take part in all decision deeds and other discussions. I point out and also give hints, for example if something is missing a signature, I tell him it should be added (this is mostly patroller work, but why not sysop as well). I am also an active (and the bureaucrat and sysop) Public Test Wiki. I think rights could benefit me and so I could improve Miraheze Meta in the best possible way! Although I'm pretty sure that I ask this too early, I still wanted to try what kind of answers I get. I will be happy to wait for answers. Thank you.

Additional comments: I don't really have any additional comments on this, thanks :)

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * Sorry, I do not trust you. You have requested advanced rights (albeit informally) too many times. You are not active enough and had only 450 edits at the time of writing this. I also think that this request is premature and you still have a lot to learn. Maybe get at least a few thousand edits and re-request this after several months. 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't saw situation when you needed rights and no one else was around. Also permissions on PTW means nothing.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I cannot support this request at this time. Before even considering the qualifications of this candidate I will note that there are 9 administrators already on Meta and in my opinion I think considering the activity and the 'administratorial' tasks here there is not a specific need for a 10th administrator at this time. Now, if we ignore that fact I must agree with the views expressed above (though in less harsher terms) that while you have had meaningful and helpful contributions on Meta (and that is appreciated) it is not really sufficient for the role of administrator. I think final statement "Although I'm pretty sure that I ask this too early" was correct, and it is too early to think about administrator at this point in time. DeeM28 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)