Requests for Stewardship

John's Revocation of Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * User resigned all rights, including Steward. OrangeStar (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Reasoning for request
I have resigned from Miraheze due to recent actions and comments from John and the breach of trust that has effectively ruined the organization. Whether this pass or fail I really don't care anymore. John has betrayed my trust and the trust of other volunteers, and so I request the community revoke Stewardship from John as well. Universal Omega (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) He has disregarded the trust of the volunteers that could result in total collapse of Miraheze. Only if he is gone will I consider returning eventually. Universal Omega (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, so I exposed harassment in a private channel of our users and community and I'm the problem? This sounds like an attempt to silence a whistleblower so mistreatment of the community can effectively continue unchallenged. John (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) You 'inadvertently' created a hostile non-work environment, John.  I respect the miraheze project but I'm out too and will be filing my own resignation shortly.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Yurr! Uncool, dude. Handle it in private, no need to "expose" out of context messages that are jokes. If every joke was deemed of this nature was deemed harassment, the fun police would've taken me away years ago. Also, where is the mistreatment? I see that everything said was in private. Where's the direct mistreatment? Carhles (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I understood situation.John is one of leader of miraheze.Isn't it?I still don't know why John did like that. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 10:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Without a doubt in my mind. Leaking private messages is almost unambiguously unacceptable. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 11:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm putting this as weak support because this was a situation that needed addressing, but whistleblowing wasn't the solution, addressing the grievances (probably with a mediator, given what I know of the situation) was. I'm also not seeing other attempts to address this situation before deploying the nuclear option in the name of transparency, which is not a good way to resolve the issue, either, but I'd like to be corrected if there were previous attempts. --NeoQwerty (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I commented this over at #miraheze on IRC, but I also wanted to comment here as well. I believe that it was all a big misunderstanding of sorts. I personally believe those comments were just venting frustration, but, due to how text-only conversations work, which is that there's no context, I can just as easily see why those comments would be taken as the start of a targeted harassment campaign. As for what I mean with that there's no context: In face-to-face conversations, it is relatively easy to know when someone is just venting frustrations, via body language, tone, things like that, but such a thing doesn't exist in text-only chat, making it easy to misunderstand things. Personally, if John really thought that was an attempt at a harassment campaign, they should have started by, on said private IM channel, going straight to the point and asking directly to whoever was in that channel what they meant by these comments. Going straight to leaking is not necessarily the best option here (see above). I also understand Universal Omega and Reception123 feeling offended by the leak of those messages. The fact that whoever posted those messages felt it was okay to post it there is indicative to the trust they had with fellow SRE members, which obviously doesn't exist anymore (To whoever's reading this, I'm sure you have at least one vented about things with a friend IRL. I'm sure that you felt it was okay to do that because you trusted to the other person to not go around telling everyone your frustrations. I think a similar thing happened here). All in all, I'm going to assume good faith in that John just misunderstood things. OrangeStar (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your balanced view. But your "venting to friend about work" comparison is not the same thing, in my view. When you vent to a friend about work, you are venting to someone that is disconnected from the decisionmaking hierarchy. It's effectively isolated from consequences. But in this case, it was venting to the inner group of a larger organization where everyone has stake in the game, about someone who is lower in that hierarchy. I definitely agree with the general premise of assuming good faith ("harassment campaign" is very strong wording), but this remains at least a little worrying for me, as someone who has in other communities seen warning signs for this kind of thing and was the one to tell people off for talking behind people's backs too much (not by whistleblowing, though.) --ℓordpipe (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Disclaimer: I have little involvement with the broader Miraheze interwiki community, but I spent some time familiarizing myself with the discussions to try to post a thoughtful comment. Here is what I read: this, this, this, this, and the IRC logs  The rude comments need to be accounted for. I have plenty of experience in internet community moderation to know that you cannot let grudges against users be sustained in private bubbles. Even if User:Naleksuh annoyed the crap out of you (I read through the IRC logs of the past few months and yes, multiple things about their behavior would annoy the crap out of me) it is a much worse organizational problem for that to boil up privately instead of being addressed with an entire team.  Only weak oppose, because the comments are not particularly severe and don't deserve the shouting match that happened in the noticeboard. I also have a bit of an inclination to trust the judgement of the multiple SREs that spoke out against leaking those comments. If it caused that much of a stir then it could be something deeper and you should be reading the Support section above to find out what some of the people who are unmistakably pillars of the community have to say. --ℓordpipe (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) While I understand that leaking private messages is not necessarily the solution to a problem or even helpful to prevent drama (as this whole revocation shows clearly), and that John could've certainly handled the issue better by not posting such messages publicly and probably resolving the issue directly with the IRC group involved in private, I feel like this is unfair to John by asking for his revocation over one incident. If there were a pattern of incidents like this, it would be understandable, but this is only one isolated incident; people make mistakes. Tali64³ (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Could we get a clearminded on-wiki summary of what he's done to blow up some of the key contributors on the platform? What I'm gathering is that sensitive private discussion was leaked?  This all seems incredibly quick in not even a clear 6 hours from when I went to bed last night. --Raidarr (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too. I am very confused. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading the RC feed, John posted private messages from some unknown SRE-only IM group on the questions section of Reception123's request for IRC GC. Some SRE members very much didn't like that, with at least Universal Omega (SRE member and nominated director for the technical team) leaving and Reception123 (MediaWiki engineering manager) at least announcing their intention to leave. Both were vital members of SRE, both from their position in the "hierarchy" and the fact that they did a lot of the day-to-day work at phab, so this is kind of a big deal. OrangeStar (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, barring nothing short of a miracle, I don't think there's going to be a Miraheze after this. OrangeStar (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, John posted private messages publicly to try to resolve an issue in an IRC channel, causing events that led to several resignations and this request for revocation. Tali64³ (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not the time to be having a discussion about this.  The messages, now they have been leaked, should be discussed in good faith and with cool heads.  The outcome of that discussion must surely inform any discussion about John's stewardship.  As it is, John asked "Do these comments represent value and Miraheze in a good way?" and that question has yet to be addressed.  Until it is, it makes no sense to already be debating the choice to leak them. Mickulty (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This whole situation just makes me sad. The co-founder of a project should understand, more than anyone else, that leaking private messages is the worst thing you could do. People say bad things in private due to frustration, we can't expect volunteers to be on professional behavior all the time when they are not professionals (even though they do have professional-level pressures). John, if you thought these comments were a problem, leaking them was not the way to resolve them. The only reason I'm not voting in favor of removing John's steward permissions (as well as any other involvement with Miraheze he can be removed from) is that this is still very recent and it's not clear what has happened exactly. But leaking messages, no matter the reason or intent, was way out of line. --Ondo (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Reception123's Revocation of Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Issue involves several people, not just Reception123. In particular, the recent messages were written by Zppix (who is not an IRC op and also has previously lost permissions via an RfDX). I will start a discussion regarding the incident in a wider scope, such as at community noticeboard. Naleksuh (talk)

User: Reception123 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
If we are going to RfDS people betraying trust, let's start with the people betraying trust, rather than trying to remove people revealing these issues just to pile on into an even bigger cabal.

On March 16th, I sent an email to John reading this: Hello John,

There is currently an issue on IRC and moreover Miraheze as a whole that I am hoping you can look at and possibly solve.

[personal issue of mine not related to Miraheze redacted]

Onto Miraheze.

There has been a consistent issue over the past few months of "pile-on" attacks, targetted use of resources and general incivility. You might recognize this because it has been a continued issue. Previously, one specific person had blamed the failure of wiki creations onto me specifically, and had cited a specific instruction not to create wikis that had not actually happened. This was concerning because the CreateWiki software had malfunctioned but instead it was being used as an opportunity to blame me.

Prior to that, a good example of this was an RFC that was about how to archive threads on my talk page. Not how to archive threads on talk pages in general, the entire RFC was specifically about *my* talk page. You may remember this because you closed it and noted in that close that it bordered on harassment.

Sadly, these issues do not seem to have gone away, and have only gotten worse. Last night, a user reverted a close of an RFC on test.miraheze.org stating that only functionaries can close RfCs. I pointed out on-wiki that any uninvolved user may close them. This person then discussed this on IRC which I noticed and responded to, which also contained the definition of a functionary. One specific user-- a currently sitting global sysop-- claimed that this discussion was me randomly starting a discussion on who does and does not constitute a functionary, when this was not the case at all, and also referred to me as "the most willfully ornery user on the platform".

The VCP, applying to all Miraheze volunteers, especially including global sysops, reads "Our volunteers are held to higher standards of conduct. Thus, we never let escalate disagreement or frustration into personal attacks or harassment. We, of all people, work together to resolve conflicts, assume good faith, and do our best to act in an empathic fashion - we set the example of how to do this.". It is never a good show for global sysops to be openly name-calling others, especially stating that they are the most willfully ornery user on the platform. It does not feel good to have a world record for being a terrible person, at least according to them.

I posted on their talk page regarding the issue, expecting either some sort of clarification or apology. Instead, they decided to once again do this, publicly writing it once again on-wiki. Several other users also commented, completely ignoring the issues with personal attacks and instead focusing on inventions. This was a very hurtful experience and felt like the closure of an escape to Miraheze--because specific people can be authorized to act however they want without consequence, while others will have a tag-team watching them looking for anything that can be used against them--or even *invented*. This continues to be similar to the previous problem with a pile-on regarding the actiosn of one specific user.

The next morning I received a message that I had been banned from #miraheze, stating "We must treat all users fairly, and cannot show favoritism". I waited for a similar message to be added to the talk page of the other users involved, but it never was. It is very curious that a message that states that we cannot show favoritism proceeding to show favoritism by selectively allowing VCP violations and name-calling by anyone generally liked and choosing to only look for information on common targets; create problems that arguably were not present; and only use actions from those on the "social blacklist".

I have also been informed of a "zero-tolerance policy" that will only apply to me and no-one else, creating an environment in which anyone can say anything they want and I will not be able to respond. This continues to contribute to the atmosphere of being worried about being targetted by others either simply for being in unpopular minority viewpoints; or for fun in general. This was the same issue that led users to violate both the user talk policy and the edit-warring policy on my talk page, repeatedly reinstating messages that were removed, place a false block later unanimously disagreed with by all stewards, and start an RFC specifically about my talk page and only mine.

Regretfully, while I have ignored the issues the message last night and action this morning are becoming increasingly impossible. In a situation in which someone spends time volunteering assets only for this to intentionally be made as difficult as possible; unfortunately, I am not sure that I will be able to continue contributing to Miraheze if this remains a problem. As the arbiter of the previous time that this was a problem, and the only current group contact, I ask you to look into this situation and CosmicAlpha's actions (both the ban placed at 12:06 and the lack of action (either bans or even a message) against global sysops attacking others over IRC). While the ban is set to expire in a month, given that this nearly year-old issue is still a problem, combined with [redacted per above], this issue if continued is going to prevent me from being able to continue contributing to Miraheze if it continues.

Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

-- Naleksuh

The next morning, I woke up to find that John had investigated this issue and indeed found evidence of harassment, and not just the already obvious public harassment, even worse stuff in private, including these:

just run DROP NALE FROM *;

I’d gladly risk my rights to block him on ever wiki I have advanced rights on

He can’t appeal IRC bans if we globally ban him

I’d vote a policy that says the cabal can revoke any right, anytime we want 😂

Thats when we OS it and it never happened

Fwiw theres not a snowballs chance in hell any of us would support it

Now, the old-boys club has a tendency to selectively ignore any policy issues from people on the "whitelist", and freak out about anything from people on the "blacklist".

So, what was the reaction to learning about this issue? It was to vote against the op and ban, and sanction people both for continued attacks and acting even worse when they think they will not be seen? No, it was to RfDS the person who brought these attacks to light. Obviously.

What's worse, it was not just to RfDS them, but to do that and then take no action against the person actually doing it. Multiple people have resigned due to having lost the ability to freely harass others. So, let's start the discussion about what actually happens to the people doing the harassment? Naleksuh (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not only has Reception123 been very helpful around Miraheze, they have no apparent connection to the posting of such messages; Zppix was actually the poster of those messages by his own admission. Tali64³ (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you link to where Zppix said that? (That's not a challenge, if you have it I would like to see it). My understanding was that they weren't all from a single person and were from several people, and they were posted in Reception123's section. Naleksuh (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/324686 Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Reception is a very trustworthy person, and a vital resource for Miraheze, the comments that John leaked, were not made by anyone but myself. The decision to ban you from IRC and subject you to a Zero Tolerance Policy was a decision made by IRC Operators, not one person. This is a very misguided overreaction. I think the best thing to do right now, is give a few days to let us figure out how to deal with the recent events, and not jump to revoking everyone’s rights. John willingly resigned, nothing can change that, but let’s not dismantle the entire community just based on emotions. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the comments that John leaked, were not made by anyone but myself. Why were you even present during a discussion between #miraheze ops? You are not one. This continues to have the problem of the "private clique". Also if I remember correctly you lost global sysop permissions via an RfDGS so what private channels *do* you need?
 * This is a very misguided overreaction. So was RfDSing John.
 * let’s not dismantle the entire community just based on emotions It's a bit late for that. This request was filing a counter-proposal based on the idea of people flaming John for bringing up the issue if targetted harassment, but with nothing for the actual harassment itself. If you would like a seperate discussion about the issue that is not an RfDS, that would make sense and infact I may open one myself, but I don't see an excuse to only RfDS John, but only John. The reason why, is because John was the one stopping people from harassing me. Naleksuh (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Zppix posted those messages. If you want to start this at least choose the right target, then we'll consider what you have to say. OrangeStar (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Reception123 didn't write those messages, as OrangeStar said. Try to pay a bit more attention from now on before slandering volunteers. Collei (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you highlight where in this request I said that Reception123 wrote them? Nowhere. I was considering withdrawing the request but I certainly will not now that you claim I am "not paying attention' and "slandering volunteers" Naleksuh (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally assumed that the evidence quoted in a demotion proceeding is related to the person you are proposing to be demoted. Collei (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No I'm documenting the issue as a whole. But if nobody will read it then nothing I can do to stop it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


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

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

Reasoning for request
I am interested in a second Steward term. The circumstances are different, both for myself and the platform. For myself, the burnout that lead to my original resignation is simply not as likely given the backup of the current Steward crew, and the life circumstances I expected to claim me much longer are no longer in play. I can be around regularly for the foreseeable future, and I can operate more efficiently now than I was able to in my prior Stewardship. I've been thinking what my future in this platform could be, and I think this would be a place to start. It would be alongside attempts to develop the structure of the platform for the better, and the initiatives started by current Stewards to get more participation and awareness on Meta by wikis we host.

For the platform, the need for a reinforcing Steward is not as urgent as before. However, I believe my experience as a former Steward in good standing, background in dealing with communities on the platform (both previously and continued now as Global Sysop) and non-involvement with SRE would allow me to 'take the edge off' in the current team. Current Stewards are all also members of SRE which has been in a difficult spot lately. I will do what I can even if this does not succeed, but I believe these rights would make me more effective and help global functions run more smoothly. Specifically, addressing routine requests (on the SN and on dedicated pages/other venues like email), more effectively supporting CVT (a majority of the work, investigating sockpuppetry, is in the hands of Stewards exclusively) and investigating/handling Content Policy issues, all of which I believe I've proven myself capable in doing. Where I'm not confident handling an issue myself, I intend to solicit the advice of my colleagues or as needed bring the matter to community input.

I defer to the community from here, and am available for any questions and inquiries. --Raidarr (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)

 * See Archive 3 on this page, second entry for the previous request if you're interested.
 * NDA, 2FA all in order.

Questions for candidate
--NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC) (On a personal note, glad to see you stepping up again following your return.)
 * 1) What steps do you plan to take (or what actions will you avoid) to limit your risk of a return to burnout during this term as Steward, if approved?
 * 2) What areas do you see as underserved in the current Steward remit, and how do you plan to contribute in those areas?
 * 3) How do you view impartiality and need for recusal when it comes to matters for steward review? Who is empowered to ask for recusal and when?
 * One factor to burnout last time was wanting to be or do a little too much at one time, which didn't mix well with being the only day-to-day steward for an extended period. It contributed to a loss of energy that persisted even after being reinforced by Agent and Reception. Aside from avoiding that, working within my means and striving for a workload balance between stewards, I can't say I have a lot of ideas. But those if followed properly should do the trick. I'm open to finding other ways because burnout is a real concern for me, even if it's better than it used to be.
 * Volunteer documentation, cohesion and structure is very informal and suffers from being quite compartmentalized or undeveloped. I'd like to see more interplay between Stewards and other roles like T&S and SRE especially in responding to emergencies, such as (but hopefully, never again) the db141 issue. I like to keep tabs on access control and procedural consistency. These priorities along with 'detail work' are my niche, which I don't think most people quite see the same way including the current team. Detail work includes frequent triage of the SN, checking out areas outside the SN as often as they come to mind, and trying to minimize cases that drag on because they're complicated, or there's a point but they just aren't priority to deal with, or it's a request that's just plain involved and takes a bit more time.
 * With impartiality, I play by ear; if for example I'm significantly involved a discussion (aside from just providing an input pointing out related facts or policy), then it would be inappropriate for me to be its assessor especially if I've staked a strong opinion. In matters of conduct I should never be a prosecutor and a judge. Overall I would want to consider the image of my involvement. The Caesar's Wife principle applies; I am a user on Miraheze and I am entitled to post my 2c, but it should not compromise the integrity of the Steward office that is trusted to provide 'objective' assessments. For recusal: anyone would be at liberty to ask another Steward to preside as general practice. The only time I'd dig in is an extreme case of wp:DUCK ie, clear-cut LTA trying to bend the system.
 * I hope this is of use, feel free to drop further questions if the above is incomplete or you'd like me to expand on something. --Raidarr (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Adding direct link to archived original request for interested parties. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I've only had good interactions with Raidarr and I don't doubt that him being on the team will be a solid net positive. He has ample experience with global tools and is a friendly face on our Discord along with being very knowledgeable. I liked his outreach efforts in the past and I strongly support his new outreach effort to get more wiki administrators in the know of global things such as how our global rights holders work, what Meta is for, etc. With the loss of John on the team, another Steward wouldn't hurt and I'm very pleased to see that Raidarr has stepped up to the batting plate to help out the project more. Active users in Steward positions is something very much needed and with Raidarr on the team, we will have a very active Steward team which is a big net positive on the entire project.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Raidarr is a kind and helpful user, not to mention his current work as a Global Sysop. Tali64³ (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above, welcome back! AlPaD (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Answers given to questions were well-reasoned, and their departure from stewardship took place in good standing.  Given their track record during rockier periods of Miraheze history, I have full confidence that they will act as a solid addition to our steward ranks if re-elected as such by the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAracham (User talk:NotAracham • Special:Contributions/NotAracham) 23:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) I have known Raidarr for years, and have only experienced the best in my interactions with him. He is kind and courteous most of the time, but is not above being blunt and direct when necessary, something that is always needed in a functionary. He is well-versed in Miraheze policies, having served previously as a Steward. Another Steward would definitely be useful for CVT matters, especially one that doesn't have an SRE or Board hat to attend to in addition to Steward. More users as Steward never hurts as there is a backlog generally for wiki reopening and global lock requests. He is also regularly involved in wiki outreach. Strongest support from me. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 02:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Raidarr showed us his best acitivity as steward.Recently John resigned from CVT.I welcome this request. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) apologies if my wording will sound off, but Raidarr is one of the most thoughtful volunteers on Miraheze who gives very reasonable analysis/comments on many different occasions, be it simple support thing for newcomers or more complicated community stuff, and on top of that is very cool to interact w/, so by all means I support his candidature and welcome him back. KatozzKita (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)           I'm a firm believer in experience.  Esp from someone such as Raidarr who knew how to leave properly when it was time.  I don't think I have ever been good at knowing when to exit so I have left a bunch of wreckage by disappearing.  More so, I trust the senior officers here, that Raidarr is a good fit for the team.  I know that there are some objections about statements / comments that Raidarr may have made (and I wasn't there for those moments).           I personally prefer constructive criticism over silence so much that I regard an awkwardly uttered statement better than no statement at all.  I may react poorly but that's how it goes.  If someone wants me to keep an open mind, then I would hope that they keep an open mind whenever I stick my foot in my mouth.  So thats why I support Raidarr with all my heart.  To any opposers, know that I have considered all comments to the best of my ability. --Imamy (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)  Raidarr has been Steward in the past and his resignation was voluntary. If he was capable of assuming the role in the past and as far as I am aware there were not any serious complaints during his last tenure I do not see any reason why he should not be given the opportunity again. I am unconvinced by the opposing comment which attempts to take things said out of context and whose author refuses to look into their own conduct and behavior which is itself not in conformity with the VCP that is cited. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's the responsibility of the recipient of attacks to look into how they might "deserve" it. Regardless, even if the author is "itself not in confirmity with the VCP", it sounds like you are trying to use that to justify Raidarr's behavior. The oppose is based on Raidarr's problematic behavior, which you have not addressed. Naleksuh (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to use that as "justification". The point that I was attempting to get across is that the accusations were made in a way which implies that the comments were made out of spite and were not justified. While not wanting to get into the particular issue in this venue I do not accept the characterization that using an adjective to describe someone is to be considered "name calling". As for the personal grudges comment I am unable to find that particular incident. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) - I appreciate Raidarr's thoughtfulness in approach, which it seems would serve well the role of Steward. Having been a Steward previously, and on good terms, shows he has the necessary experience. He's more than qualified, and puts a good foot forward in doing so. No reason to object here, can only recommend from my observations of him. |  -- FrozenPlum   10:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Trusted user who resigned on their own. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  I give the strongest support directly, No need to explain. Everyone knows what a beautiful identity and profile Raidarr has. Good luck!  Hey Türkiye  Message? 16:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Since Raidarr became Steward last time and Global Sysop I have had many positive interactions with him. Raidarr is very thoughtful and is always thinking about how to get the community more involved in the decision making process which is very important given a Steward's role. Raidarr has previously been involved in quite a few mediations with local communities and has handled those in a well thought and professional manner. I think it's also important to mention that Raidarr is capable of admitting when he makes mistakes which is important for users with advanced permissions to be able to do. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Of course not, especially not now. Raidarr still has not addressed the issue of VCP violations, name calling other users, doubling down on name calling and doing so again on-wiki, and the justification of using advanced permissions for personal grudges which is still an open T&S case, which I will need to ask updates on soon. Though I do think it takes a lot of confidence to request stewardship while actively the subject of a T&S case. Expect a request for removal of permissions soon. Naleksuh (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why he should respond to the entire thread and should respond for the errors of others. Your thread frames everything as being connected and coordinated by some sort of group. That's far from the case and any individual skirmishes anyone has had with you (it seems almost all active Meta users have had a disagreement with you at some point) are not endorsed or planned out by anyone. He responded to your talk page message so you cannot claim he didn't address it, you haven't replied to his reply. As far as I know, Raidarr isn't subject to any T&S investigation and if he is, I'm sure he would've disclosed this already. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, repeating the VCP violation for a second time is not addressing it. I did not respond to Raidarr's message because it was disrespectful and doubled down on the issues that the original message was about, making further discussion pointless. Nor did anyone have any time to process that before the next targetted harassment issue happened just hours later. It does however make this RfS innapropriate but instead cause people to question why they are still a global sysop while personally attacking users. Naleksuh (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Raidarr said you were ornery—a person who is combative. I don't think many will disagree. I would suggest you hold a discussion on whether these comments are unwarranted to not. I fear it'll snowball against you. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they did not just state that I was ornery and nothing else- they stated that I was "the most willfully ornery user on the platform"- basically stating that I held a world record for being a bad person. It concerns me that you've left this part out, possibly to portray Raidarr as good and me bad. And intentionally using thinly veiled threats of bad things to psyche me into not starting a discussion. In other words, I should not speak out about the way I feel I have been mistreated and should simply "take" these attacks instead. Meanwhile, this does not apply the other way around. Naleksuh (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very interesting use of semantics here! I'm not trying to influence or dissuade you to not start a request (or else I wouldn't have mentioned it), I'm just saying that I strongly believe it won't succeed and on top of that, I know that whatever I say won't affect you in your decision making process, you won't take it into account. Now, the central part of Raidarr's statement was calling you ornery, that word is what sets the tone of the quote. Whether you're the most or not is just extra stuff that's whatever. He could've left out the most part and just said "you're a willfully ornery user" and I'm sure you would've claimed "he basically stated that I'm a bad person", whether you have a record or not is extra so no, I wasn't trying to portray Raidarr as someone good or better than you think they are, I'm just focusing on the central part of his statement. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see Raidarr justifying 'use of advanced permissions for personal grudges' anywhere in the linked thread. Could you please clarify (or update) where this occurred or strike this element of opposition?  Thanks. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Disregard, issue was with my misread of wording on the sentence that mixes lack of response on comment threads with behavioral accusations. Retracted. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the case for removal at your convenience. I have little to add except that perhaps I could have worded my response to you with more gloss, and that your behavior has been left unaddressed for an incredibly long time for which I apologize to the wider community. Though, given most people who interact with you become involved parties, it is difficult to imagine a lot of people who could deal with it in an uninvolved way. To contextualize my comment and address yet another attempt to put words in people's mouths, I do not imply you hold a world record for being a bad person as that line is incredibly long. You simply hold the record for consistently causing the most drama on Miraheze without having been held accountable for doing so. Anyone interested in this bit of drama may read the last discussion on my talk page. I stand by my words and voters should absolutely take them into consideration and decide for themselves. I do not take your T&S case seriously. "Using advanced permissions for personal grudges" is a hyperbolic and obviously untrue claim. --Raidarr (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above.
 * Yes, I'm aware it says "don't ping me", so apologies in advance about it. My question is this. Do you agree with Nale's assessment of the situation? It's been rebutted by many volunteers and you haven't really said anything other than "per above". It would be nice if you could clarify. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Evidently they agree with me over Agent Isai. Besides, when does the reverse ever happen? What about when I have rebutted an oppose and people still "oppose per that" without addressing my rebuttal? Why does this rule only go one way? Naleksuh (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also feel bad for not even having mentioned that you called me Nale. I've asked at least a dozen times for people not to do that yet you all just do it anyway because you don't care. So "Bran", why did you have to apologize for pinging someone who explicitly asked not to be when you could have just honored that request? Naleksuh (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually. Nobody abbreviates anyone else's name. Only mine. It's a pretty sad realization because the obvious conclusion is that you call me that because I have asked you not to. Naleksuh (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, "Nale" sounds good and catchy. That's why we use it. It's a habit. You don't want us to call you it? Fine, we won't. I think it sounds good personally, but that's just me. Whereas, "Bran" sounds like I'm the cousin of a raisin cereal. And as for your first comment, sometimes we do respond to your rebuttal. It's not all or nothing. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, we won't. OK, let's see if it sticks. IIRC both Agent Isai and Collei have promised not to call me that, then later done so anyway. But maybe I am confusing with someone else. And yes, voting culture on Miraheze is a problem because often even if I proved the entirety of someone's !vote wrong people will still cite that. Yet when someone agrees with me because I was more convincing than someone else they have to add other stuff? Naleksuh (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  I can not support this request. I think Naleksuh has a valid point regarding the VCP, we can not pick and choose who we want to say violates it. Actions by you have indeed violated that in my mind. I don't even exclude myself from that, I might have just to be involved in some recent events, made some mistake. But unfortunately if we will ever be able to move past these events we need volunteers in positions such as this that can do so calmly, and not give Miraheze a bad reputation. The tone and wording you've used does not fall under this, and for this reason I can not support this or any other future request for such a position again. We need people uninvolved in recent events for these positions, while that will be hard, it is necessary to open a new chapter in Miraheze. I hold nothing against you personally, but regardless I must oppose this request. Also note, I am not just agreeing with Naleksuh, since I also agree there have been issues there as of late, but I think that a violation of the VCP in response to someone else whom is claiming to be violating it seems hypocritical, and it isn't the desired behavior of a Steward, and this would only make us repeat some past issues. Universal Omega (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I invite you to explain exactly what I said was either wrong, in direct violation or in poor tone. I generally disagree with the rest but policy violations should be backed up quite explicitly. I will add this though: given the "recent events" have painted a brush of allegations across almost the entire SRE, 2/3rds (previously 3/4ths) of Stewards and a handful of retired and other volunteers, trying to push out people uninvolved would essentially remove the entire experienced apparatus of Miraheze and is no more realistic a suggestion than Nale's insinuation of mass removing the same people from positions in a prior discussion. The incident and its direct causes is what we need to move on from, and frankly I believe your vote is a step towards ensuring the incident will linger rather than be moved past. --Raidarr (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raidarr I reviewed the VCP and although I seldom interpret things the way it is intended to be interpretted. However, Naleksuh has stated that he wishes to be addressed not as Nale.  No matter how warmly intentioned, being from different backgrounds, a trespass is a trespass, especially if it is brought up by the person who possesses the name.  Out of respect, we should take a moment longer to spell out the full name, and yes, we can accidentally mispell it.  However, it makes a difference to the person it belongs to. Not to mention if there is another person by a similar name, that one is not forced to read the whole portion to know whether that portion applies to Naleksuh, or to someone else with Nale in their name.  In an official setting such as this Request for Stewardship, precision is preferred over casual reference.  It can be quite stressful to a reader to have to doublecheck to be sure that the portion is applicable before providing a response.