Requests for Stewardship

Nomination of John for Stewardship

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * There is clear consensus here that John is both trusted and competent for the  bit. The main concern expressed has been John's lack of recent on-wiki activity, which even the nominator and the nominee acknowledge. That being said, we must remember that we're all volunteers here, and it is not necessarily reasonable that all requests requiring Steward attention be actioned within hours of the request being placed. As well, even though it's expected John's work as the Engineering Manager (Infrastructure) will likely comprise a majority of his available Miraheze users, there are other members of the Steward team, so it won't fall on John to action all Steward requests nor will he feel obliged to reduce his SRE volunteer hours significantly at the expense of Steward volunteerism. In short, the relative inactivity concern is a valid one, but a significantly valid one. Each Steward contributes to the extent they are able to, some more than others, and that's okay. There was one abstaining comment raised, but no argument was specified for not wanting to bring up past drama, which was good but also interesting in that if one doesn't want to bring up past drama, why even mention it? Two other users mentioned concerns that John fails to assume good faith, but didn't provide details when challenged by other users. Overall, clear consensus for promotion. Welcome back! Dmehus (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User: John ( contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I believe there is a strongly demonstrated need for an additional Steward. Firstly and prominently, the Requests for adoption process has fallen behind, and is only irregularly maintained by one Steward who, while very good when he is there, is unable to keep up to the extent wikis have been known to be deleted before requests are addressed. CVT finds itself behind as the collective Stewards and GS must chug through a backlog of activities on an increasingly busy platform; current Stewards and one GS also juggle with many engagements that split their already limited time, and the other GS is simply not active enough to be a regular figure for this task. I've heard that the turnaround time for inquiries to Stewards by mail and other methods can reach weeks. The Stewards noticeboard turnaround for Steward response needs to be improved. Aside from that I believe Miraheze deserves an additional set of eyes and judgement at a community management level so issues can be resolved in a timely manner by multiple engaged and trusted Stewards, and offer the chance for consensus among Stewards with multiple active at one time instead of the recent condition where they hardly overlap at all and have hardly any collegues to turn to in their field.

John requires little introduction as the co-founder of Miraheze itself and an incredibly helpful sysadmin who has also held the title of Steward multiple times and done well in each instance; he has gracefully retired in the previous instances and was not removed for ill behavior that I know of. He has expressed an interest in resuming this position (and perhaps others) via IRC if someone nominated him, and so I give him the chance by doing just that. I believe he'd accept soon after seeing this along with whatever he wishes to add. His meta activity is admittedly weak at a community participation level as of late, but it seems to me he has kept a close eye from a sysadmin perspective (also seen in the contributions) and his other advantages justify him as a necessary and competent set of hands. In his sysadmin capacity that I've watched through Meta and Discord I think he is more than qualified in temperment and familiarity with policy as of now (I doubt the downtime from this role has made him rusty). I let the Meta community decide if it agrees. --Raidarr (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, I believe the above suitably summarises need and my history. I will be following this request up shortly with a request to regain my sysop and bureaucrat permissions on this wiki as well. Therefore, I accept this nomination. John (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to the inactivity concern being raised - I will admit my editing activity isn't the best on Meta or globally - it has not been for the duration of Miraheze as a whole, averaging only 700 edits a year, or 60 edits a month. However, my activity as a Steward has consistently been high, my activity in resolving requests via noticeboard and emails has always been high, my handling of renames and RfCs have always been consistent. I have always made tough decisions and showed leadership when the community has needed - I have preserved, protected and fought for the communities independence since day one. None of this is being considered by the community at large - just my editing activity. There is a severe lack of Stewards currently, with a lot of requests going unactioned for weeks, or even months. One such example would be the Community Directors RfC I started which, even though it was a clear cut consensus - took five months to close. The existing RfCs also show this rather well in that one is currently approaching 5 months without any Steward activity on it. SN shows this as well in recent times with some requests taking weeks for a response - emails I doubt are doing much better on average as well. The point of this request was to support the community by stepping back up to provide my 6 years experience to ensure things come back to running smoothly and quickly. Since the number of opposes is approaching the 80% mark, I simply ask before opposing per activity that you to consider one thing - is my current level of activity different from when I was actively resolving steward matters and supporting the community? Is my currently editing level really a hinderance to my ability to effectively be a Steward? If yes, I will withdraw this if asked. John (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no. You still have what it takes. I believe there's more than enough coverage here, as there are a lot of supportive votes (including mine of course), saying how confident you are here. Withdrawing it would likely cause an issue with everybody supporting your Stewardship "re-election". DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * 1)  About keeping him as a bureaucrat I don't know, but if these CentralNotices are annoying it's pure fact. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 00:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of the CentralNotices to keeping him as bureaucrat? The way notices work could certainly improve though, both in writing and technical function. --Raidarr (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could find one particular improvement in proposal 6 of this RfC, as in making use of campaign types. Then this section of user preferences could have some use. K599 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Another improvement could be this proposal for giving a link to translate central notices, because I'd prefer if people had an easy way of finding where to translate central notices. There's also this proposal for ensuring that central notices last as long as the discussion is open, because I'd find it strange to stop showing a notice for a discussion that's still open for participation. K599 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, I believe we have a clear winner here., you're winner! (In other words, I am seeing a lot more supports than opposes.) What do we do from here now? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling the vote is the discretion of an existing Steward, following a review of the rationale involved, if all parties are valid and when it's determined any potential issues are resolved. For my part I doubt anything new will come up and between Discord and here I have not seen the unexplained issues become explained. --Raidarr (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like it's necessary for non-Steward users to "proclaim" someone to be a "winner" and give their opinion of consensus, rather it should just be left for Stewards to close the request and decide. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)   as proposer. --Raidarr (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support extended because to be frank, I took a shot making the nomination in part out of a desire to just give him a shot without too much familiarity with the user. I knew he had extensive background but was less familiar with his operations and activity. Discussion has been held on Discord regarding the opposition points, which boil down to two things; issues with his approach and issues with his activity. The approach issues I consider more severe, yet found nothing to justify them; one oppose raises them without background, the second admitted to just following along and otherwise I have little to go on. If vagueness is the argument against him, then given the mirror of clear support from many established users (including various SRE and long term administratively involved users) and from members of various influential communities on Miraheze I think we have the answer. Secondly, while I'd like to see a more community involved Steward in time, the activity argument does falter when a) it matches or outright beats other global operatives who in good standing and b) it's not required at a noticeboard or informal conversation level so long as he is responsive and accountable for his actions and is able to perform his duties to lighten the load on other Stewards (ie, responding to Steward-required noticeboard inquiries, adoptions, RfC closures...) which I believe he would. Appointing John does not harm the chance of reaching the goal I mentioned and in the meantime seems like it can only help. --Raidarr (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Raidarr has given a great introduction. I'm glad to see John back and have no doubt that he'll continue picking up where he left up and doing the great things he's brought to the community over the last 6 years.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Yes, we definitely need him back on the team. Nearly 5 months have gone by, and it just doesn't feel the same without him being a Steward. From June 14 and onwards, the Steward head count has dropped to 3 so drastically, mainly from him resigning as a Steward. Some of you may have been shocked that he would make such a significant change and see him resign from his position. Overall, my strongest support for him to regain his Steward powers again will still hold up. And, I really hope you regain that right again. :) --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  John has always fought for the community's role and during his previous times as Steward he has been active and responsive to requests. I have no doubt that if elected John will do a great job again and help with the current backlog of requests. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Sounds good to me! TigerBlazer (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  While I agree his Meta activity levels are not very high, I also agree that as a sysadmin, he's very active and regularly around at #miraheze-sre. With his long background and lengthy experience, I have no problem voting in favor of him becoming a Steward.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I think Miraheze needs more Stewards and John knows the intricacies of the steward role.--Avengium (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  Same as Avengium.--アンジェロ先輩 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Isn't it obvious? --Hispano76 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  Sounds fantastic for my part! King Dice (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  for all reasons mentioned previously.  &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 22:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)  I can totally see him as a steward for the aforementioned reasoning. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  Going back to my ability to vote, I don't understand how one of the project's founders loses his bureaucratic rights, if he created it all. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 06:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was actually who founded Miraheze, not just John. John co-founded it, but isn't the founder like southparkfan is, however. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Southparkfan is also a co-founder, he didn’t ‘found’ Miraheze by himself. John (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No wonder I got confused there. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, idk, but, sounds intresting so, ok
 * 2)  --MdsShakil (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't follow meta too often, but come on, he's literally the cofounder of Miraheze! The7Guy (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  John has always been upfront in his dealings with us at All The Tropes. My only concern is whether he can handle backend support and being a Steward at the same time, but that's his call to make. --Robkelk (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  He was a great and active enough steward when he was one. Plus we really need another Steward. John has always been a community-first advocate, and was the main reason (or at least in my mind) that SRE got better at community engagement. Since his return, SRE even has Agent as Community Engagement Specialist, which at least as far as I know was John's idea to even establish the position, of course it had to be discussed amongst others but it was John's idea behind the position. This does show that he is enough of a trusted member of the community and active enough on Miraheze as a whole, for Stewardship. I've had my issues with him before, mainly after his most recent resignation from SRE, but have learned even then, everything he did was for the good of the community. I am glad he's back now. This request has my full support. I'd also like to note some of the oppositions below, claiming John to be "inactive" are hardly active themselves and are likely just voting based on other's point of view. Anyone's vote should be their own not just what you see that others think. In fact, John's activity and availability is better than most of the current Stewards.  20:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * You're not the only one who's excited for John's return. In fact, I believe brought this up on the  channel less than a week ago, in terms of Stewardships go. I'll bet you  might just be as happy as a lot of us here are. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  A new Steward is definitely necessary, and John is trustworthy enough to hold the task. VFDan (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  First I will address the more substantive part of the request. During his previous time as a Miraheze Steward John has in my opinion demonstrated that he has the skills required to hold the position. His closures of Requests for Comments and other interventions on Meta demonstrate that he is able to exercise judgement and make impartial (and difficult) decisions. There have as was pointed out also been some issues but as it was mentioned above I believe that everyone involved has learned from past mistakes and that everyone was doing what they thought was in the best interests of the community. Therefore as for qualifications I do not have any doubt that John has them. Secondly there is the question of activity which is what most of the opposes are based on. I believe that activity is certainly an extremely important issue for a Steward because the job does require them to be active. In this case I tend to agree that more could be done on the side of activity but at the same time it has to be admitted that there is not that much going on on Meta to allow for someone to be extremely active. Therefore because of John's previous record I am willing to make an exception and support this request regardless of the lesser activity and to trust that John will be active and responsive to requests as he was in the past when he was Steward. Especially with current Stewards being busy outside of Miraheze as well we cannot afford to turn down a new qualified Steward at this time. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  John is a fine human being. --Labster (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Owen (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Absolutely. — Arcversin (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Pppery (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)   Anpang   Talk  07:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  John has proven many times he can be a good steward. I'm glad to see John back. --Avengium (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) leaning oppose per personal reasons I rather not bring up. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Insufficient information on his conflicts with other SREs, wouldn't want to generate factional struggle in the highest levels of Miraheze. --NimoStar (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I feel like he (somewhat) fails at Assuming Good Faith, which is important for stewards. Bongo Cat (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What circumstances make you think so? --Raidarr (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it is an important aspect of a vote to give details when making such accusations. I do not think it is fair to the candidate to accuse them of something and not provide proof of that unless of course the conduct is obvious or well known to the other members of the community. In this case I have looked at John's recent contributions and was not able to find any evidence of him not assuming good faith so it would be of assistance if you would provide a link to where this assuming bad faith has taken place; maybe I have missed something. DeeM28 (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  – While I agree, John has been helpful when he was a steward before, but I don't feel comfortable enough to support his candidacy now, given his lesser activity on meta and involvement in the community. --Magogre (talk)  02:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 1)  I Don't feel he is active enough, i want to see him interact with the community more before a considering a vote --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's been more active on as of late, so what's that about him not interacting with the community more again? I'm rather confused here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a valid concern regarding his community activity on Meta (before and after this request began) and participation in channels outside of a purely SRE context (though I note he has made useful inputs in the general IRC relay). It's something he may wish to address to relieve the concerns. Pure activity in the SRE relay by your rationale is a) good for an SRE context but less so for the general community scope that a Steward applies to, and b) has difficulty standing up if it's only applicable to IRC as the scope of Stewardship and their general support to wikis should be much, much broader than the chat platforms that are ancillary to the purpose of Miraheze. It's not enough to flip my position, but a valid complaint I believe. Not everything can rely on what he has done previously, or just after/around the beginning of this request. --Raidarr (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How active he is on the miraheze platform concerns me, i have nothing wrong with john at all but may i also mention i have seen some lack of assuming good faith mentioned above which also concerns me, and his active on meta is what i am referring to @DarkMatterMan4500 Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. A reasonable concern. A reasonable concern that is absolutely valid. You're not wrong there at all, . DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Concern of activity and interaction with the community on miraheze (meta). I don’t feel he is active enough for being a steward. —-Matttest (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're definitely not wrong there either. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You ping my name wrongly..., and I am not going to be a steward, so please don't compare the candidate and me. Matttest (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comments in the support section as well as John's own statement, there are cases where being an active participant on meta and being trusted to get Steward duties done/correctly are not the same thing. I put emphasis on it down here, but at this point I think the concern's been reasonably addressed .--Raidarr (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? And by the way, I never mentioned anything about YOU being a Steward, but I somehow get your point. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) He's not really active enough. - Master Shake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master Shake (talk • contribs)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * 21 users have provided a comment on this request, which meets the appointment threshold taking into account an 83% support ratio. Therefore, this request is successful. John (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User: Raidarr ( contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log )

Reasoning for request
Hello Miraheze. I am making this request because there is a severe shortage of time and availability in the Steward capacity, and I am employing boldness to ask the community if I may help with it. I am aware that I possess rough edges, and I believe they can be smoothed by practical experience as I believe they have already partially been smoothed since I began my Global Sysop capacity. Likewise I lack experience in using CheckUser, performing large-scale RfC closures and range blocking/abusefilter management. I believe I have the necessary integrity, competence and discretion to abstain and defer to colleagues and community advice when needed on these matters until I'm confident enough to tackle them properly outright. In the meantime I think the platform will be well served by a regular eye that can handle more obvious and routine cases. Where it is urgent and where my confidence grows I intend to try and tackle more intricate matters, and all the while I hope to be advised by my peers as well as experienced members of the community.

While I think I've somewhat helped reduce Steward and routine CVT workload in my current role, per above I believe I can be more helpful as a Steward who admits inexperience, but is recognized for a necessary blend of traits and track record and an ability to help out better in the meantime. If the community believes I am too rough, should put in more time, or simply lack the competence needed, I am more than willing to continue my efforts as a Global Sysop and as a user who is interested in the Miraheze wider community, exploring what the platform has to offer, lurking, and at times commenting or lending a hand as needed. If this is not successful I believe I can still be of service to users and at least keep Steward-level responsibilities looked after as a community elected helper to them. But in light of significant delays including the recent formal resignation of a Steward, the increased stress of SRE, the growth of the platform and the worn shoulders of the remaining three Stewards - two of whom are very much occupied in SRE and one of whom has a huge volume of tasks to contend with and consequential delays many are all too familiar with - I believe it is better to put myself forward now, rather than wait for perfection until we are potentially in a worse situation.

I will be of service one way or another, Steward or not, and this request would simply help me do what I do, better, and help me directly grow to support even more. Thank you for your consideration, regardless if it is for or against me, and I'm of course open to specific questions as you see fit.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
With John's nomination right above at the time of posting, I should make note of it. Since coming on board, John has been very helpful taking the edge off. However, it's my belief Stewards require at least 1-2 more hands on deck (aside from this request) to be stable, both in general and if a current member or two go out temporarily or permanently. As well, John has been very occupied with SRE tasks since before getting rights, and so we are still left with an untenable position where Doug is the sole proactive force in Stewardship, and at best we currently see Doug able to be active once a week for some time now as well as intermittent on the whole. I believe fresh blood at this point is necessary in users with advanced global rights. Aside from all this I strongly respect the current Stewards for the work they do, and reiterate that my objective is to take the edge off their work better than I can as Global Sysop.

I also have the necessary NDA and plan to fully and properly integrate 2FA into my account shortly, sooner still should the request have a probable chance.

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Considering you are nearly the only active global sysop, what happens to global sysops if this request passes? Naleksuh (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Global sysop is a division of Steward reach in a CVT and occasionally community capacity; what I do as a GS would still be my responsibility. In context of your question, Steward is a much more advanced global sysop allowing me to address more situations, not leave them unaddressed. I do not believe the additional Steward reach/responsibility will compromise the actions I already perform, especially the ones requiring urgency which I should do as GS or Steward. --Raidarr (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Although I have read, (and understood) everything you said, I would like to know the areas where you will work best in a nutshell. Also, how do you demonstrate knowledge of the policies (content policy, terms of use, code of conduct, multiple accounts, everything). And, how active will you be as a steward? (CVT, SN, RfA, Special:GlobalRenameRequest, etc.) --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 23:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From your list I intend to continue in CVT, maintain same activity on SN + consider things like the ongoing exemption request, address RfAs as they appear (and rename the process itself if I am granted rights and it is not already done), and take a glance at global rename requests alongside the form I check to process account creation requests. Other things would be included of course; I intend to take glances at the wiki request queue, continue to browse wikis (mostly just out of interest, not scouring for violations) and maintain the initiatives I have or would like to take on Meta itself, as well as consider the roles of our 'ancillary' wikis as an interested user. At this time I can achieve daily or near daily consistency on basic review of the platform and the requests I currently manage, but there will necessarily be more delay for things that require greater thought, especially investigations pertaining to users or whole wikis. I won't rule out the occasional week for a break or real world vacation, though I don't intend to leave the platform hanging for that time. As for policies, I believe I have a very strong grasp of Miraheze policies themselves, necessarily from the start as a Wiki Creator and even more so in global matters as a GS. Policies for Wikipedia and Wikimedia I have a fair understanding of especially as they are used 'translated' to Miraheze through back reading here initially and ongoing reading on Wikipedia, though they are not all essential to me and I recognize a form of discretion that is required for when Wikipedia or even Wikimedia convention is not necessarily in the best interests of Miraheze since what is binding is strictly a matter of what is agreed on this platform. --Raidarr (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * 1) I have no doubt that this will be closed as likely successful, but we will see what the other voters would say, with or without a shadow of a doubt. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hasn't even reached halfway I'm afraid, but it does seem substantive enough that a CN may be appropriate based on its precedence of use. --Raidarr (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Wow, just 2 months in, after you were awarded the Global Sysop flag, I've never seen you with that much determination. To be fair, you are the second person (with  being in first place in that attempt) as a global sysop to request the permissions. I mean, I can still rely on  as a fellow Steward to talk to, but this might simplify things. In other words, I would definitely support this. No doubt about it. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I wait for the questions to be answered I shall still cast my vote. You come along professional and helpful on Discord (not really rough), so why would I vote against an upgrade? As long as this doesn't just move the vacancy elsewhere, you have my vote. |Soukupmi (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm gonna keep this short. Raidarr's determination and dedication to Miraheze is extraordinary. Raidarr has proven that he has knowledge of all policies. -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) need for stewards, his dedication and I think he knows all the policies. Thanks for volunteering! --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 00:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I strongly support for Raidarr to be stewards. They always help all of us and they are very active on Miraheze too. --Small Pig reporter 10:22am 10 February 2022 UTC.
 * 6)  Miraheze's future is yours!
 * 7)  I appreciate your dedication and knowledge and certainly support! |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 23:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Thanks for volunteering. — Arcversin (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  I think Raidarr is very capable and knows the policies and the technical requirements for the role. --Avengium (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Miraheze needs you :) --Fan Formuły 1 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Per above, I think that Raidarr can be trust with these tools and help to unstuck the load of requests/discussions when others stewards is not arround HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Quite honestly, I was shocked when I saw this request but even more so delighted. Indeed, I will acknowledge that this request did come rather quickly after Raidarr's previously successful Request for Global Sysop but I do not worry as Raidarr has shown a genuine need for the tools and has shown the community he is trustworthy and capable of handling the newly found access. I would like to remind the community that one of our current Stewards was able to win a Request for Stewardship 6 months after they first registered on Miraheze and ever since then has been constant and has helped Miraheze greatly. I don't doubt that Raidarr will also be like that, constant and helpful to the community. I completely dismiss all votes which state that it's too soon for Raidarr to apply for Stewardship. The reason we don't grant these tools to newer users isn't necessarily their account age but instead, because we have no trust in them and because these users generally don't understand what the access entails. What else can we learn about Raidarr in, say, 3–4 months that we haven't learned in the preceding 8 months that could cause our trust in him to teeter? Raidarr has shown the community that he understands what the bit entails and that he is deserving of our full trust; I have no doubt that he will serve as a great Steward. Additionally, it's not like he can't learn more and become better at his role. Everyone at some point was a beginner and eventually got much better at whatever their focus topic was, whether it's Stewardship on an online wiki community named after two stars or Calculous. Raidarr has always shown an attitude of true desire to help the community and has always shown that he is ready to learn and improve (two quite necessary qualities to possess, especially for the requested position). I've never seen him hold a grudge and he is generally very friendly and courteous to everyone. His sound reasonings and good judgement also instill deep trust in me towards him and he has my full support and backing. The need for Stewards is great and I would definitely like to see more qualified users step up in order to assist the community completely and to prevent the historic backlogs in Stewardic actions that we've seen in the past months. Raidarr has always been bold and I thank him for stepping up to the Stewardic batting plate to assist the community better. For the reasons above, he has my strongest support.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  Raidarr has shown himself to be a capable, competent, active, and talented user. He has contributed a lot to Miraheze, especially in fighting against vandalism on CVT. Despite being a new face in the Miraheze community, his hard-working, efforts and sheer determination is admirable. He has shown that he deserves the Steward position. Helpful, active, friendly, he has all the necessary qualities that we need for a Steward. Raidarr being a Steward will greatly help Miraheze to advance further. My support for him is undeniable and always. -- SchizoACC ( Talk • All Contribs ) SchizoACC (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  From what I've seen I believe this is one of the better candidates for Stewardship in quite a while. Raidarr has been extremely helpful to the global community and kind to everyone and I believe he will go far as a Steward.  Hypercane  <font color="#8152C6">(  talk <font color="#8152C6">) 23:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  we definitely need another Steward. All my reasoning for supporting this is already said above.  10:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC) ］ |

Abstain

 * 1)  This user only recently became a global sysop. Ideally I would prefer to seem global sysops be global sysops for longer before requesting stewardship. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Global Sysop, actively fighting vandalism and a good knowledge of policies and a very high vocabulary. I see you have period and period edits (and you are a WMF user) and I bet the story is not very clear. I also agree that Raidarr could have waited a few more months, anyway, we can take the example of Dmehus (and the need for stewards which speaks louder). --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 00:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable concern and if we were in ideal circumstances I would agree. I found the need sufficient to bypass traditional waiting and attempt to spark improvement sooner than later, but I don't see a way to remediate the principle of time short of this RfS not succeeding, at which point I will indeed spend more time in my current capacity. --Raidarr (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  A bit too early. A few weeks would do <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨  06:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What difference would a few weeks do? I would understand if you said a few months but a few weeks? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. I meant like 10 weeks :P<span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 02:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah alright, that makes sense. I interpreted as if you were saying something around the lines of reapplying in about 2 weeks or so. Thank you for the clarification. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's weird because if he reopens in a few weeks he'd be collecting hats. It's better to say you have to wait months. Also, you had voted support, but quickly changed. I would like to know the reason, "per above?". --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 02:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The hat mention, the comment is that I meant if this proposal didn't exist. For the change reason...come on! Just go to some english dictionary and search up "per" already! <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 05:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No thank you. I didn't see you saying "per" either. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 17:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) No strong opinion. But I don't feel comfortable to support because of the tenure and it feels like they are running into things early. --Magogre (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I don't think we should treat users younger than one year too lovingly. -- 小美粉粉 (talk - contribs - logs - uploads - email - global contribs) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Now supporting, not opposing.
 * That's not so appropriate - your account is barely a month old. Everyone here who is now meta admins, global sysops, stewards, etc. are once less than one year. <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 12:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know that some of the Stewards were once normal editors, but became stewards several months later (i.e. ). --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC#)
 * As the user said above. Also, a lot of the time, amount of time doesn't matter when the user has a good understanding of the policies. Doug became a steward in just 3/5 months (if I'm not mistaken) and today he is one of the best stewards. Raidarr has a knowledge of politics and his speech is very good (appropriate for a steward). Although I could understand but not understand the style of speech, why can't new users be "lovingly"? Every volunteer user is welcome on Miraheze. Otherwise, this can be bad and avoid new volunteer editors in the future. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 13:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1)   still feel its too early --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand completely that it feels too early in your opinion, but that shouldn't really affect the outcome. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I sat on my thoughts regarding this one for quite some time now. To begin, I have always been somewhat soured by requests for stewardship specifically being self nominations. The faith of a user being such that a user is willing to place their integrity as a community participant behind a nomination tells volumes about the positive way the nominated user interfaces with the community overall. Additionally, as I always indicate, community trust is often a facet of taking on empowered roles and projects, though it is often not necessary. Raidarr has indicated that he would work to create systems for improvement and work to improve the community regardless of the outcome of this RfS. I believe that would probably be best at this time. I would also indicate that I hold the highest praise for the work raidarr has done within the wider community to date, and highly appreciate this user in the community. Wonderful BOLDness, and I have full faith that raidarr would discharge the duties of a steward in a way that upholds community trust and maintains integrity should this request be successful. I am not, however, drawn to support.  dross  (t • c • g) 21:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  First of all I will add that I think Raidarr has done a good job and should keep up the good work. The reason why I am opposing this request is more in terms of precedent. I do not think it is a good idea to create a precedent where if a user is helpful for a month or two they are immediately promoted to Steward as a sort of 'reward'. It seems as can be seen in this request that users on Miraheze are very quick to jump at supporting people simply based on a perception that they have been very helpful, kind, active and useful. These attributes are clearly very desirable in a Steward but they are not enough, experience, trust and a good discretion are necessary and for that in my opinion a longer time is necessary to determine whether that is the case. In terms of activity many (if not all) Stewards were active when they requested initially but months after getting elected the general trend seems to be that their activity drops which is a shame. Therefore while I do acknowledge that the current Stewards are not active enough and a new Steward would be a good thing I am not convinced that it is a good idea in terms of precedent to elect someone so early after just becoming Global Sysop and would ideally wait another month or so as to be sure whether Raidarr has the experience and understanding of how Miraheze works required for the role. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


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

Revocation of Dmehus' Steward rights
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * With regarding to the concerns raised regarding my improper closure of a TestWiki community ban discussion, as a TestWiki Consul, as I already clarified, that was due to a misunderstanding on my part that because there was no global policy on global bans (and, indeed, no local TestWiki community ban policy), that the proposed community ban was therefore procedurally invalid. At the same time, it's worth pointing out that RhinosF1, as another TestWiki Consul, made no attempt to consider ApexAgunomu's counter-proposal in that discussion and, similarly, had not made any attempts to modify the local guidance abuse filter that Chrs had set up on TestWiki with my support and the support of another TestWiki Consul and several other active TestWiki users. My subsequent closure of this global ban discussion for Matttest was also based on that misunderstanding. It's worth noting, too, that several other users, including Reception123 and Agent Isai, agreed that the procedural issues around global bans, where no policy existed, was also far from clear. That being said, it was a mistake on my part to have closed that discussion without having first seen the thread on my user talk page, which I acknowledged. I even went further and stated that I would not overturn a community ban discussion, or, indeed, close any RfC related to global bans...period. As to the point about supervotes, a supervote is, as it sounds, by casting an opinion to effect consensus where there is not consensus. There has been no suggestion that I have ever done that. My closes have always reflected the consensus. I will note, though, that my RfC closes have been long-winded and often included explanatory comments. I do this to assess the arguments made, to illustrate to the community my thought processes that go into assessing consensus, as many have rightly noted that different Stewards will have different assessment processes for assessing consensus of RfCs and, certainly, global permissions requests, too. That being said, while the closes have always reflected the consensus, at times, some of my explanations or administrative points as to how the new or revised policy may relate to existing conventions or policies may have veered into the territory of editorializing. On that point, which many users may have missed it, but I went further when I said I intended to refocus my Steward activities to my CVT work, to which there's been no issues. It was, perhaps, too buried and too subtle, and I should have articulated that response more clearly and in a more prominent location (community noticeboard would've also worked, too). I would've thought that my enforcement of ApexAgunomu's community ban, which I may have disapproved of and would not have been opposed to a Steward relocking the user per the terms of their conditional unlock. Finally, I will just note that in everything I do, the community's wishes have always been at the top of my mind, and I am always looking out for the community, most notably when it comes to SRE's plans to implement significant global MediaWiki configuration changes. I have always advocated for community discussions or RfCs, initiated by SRE and assessed & closed by an uninvolved Steward, and that view resolve has not changed. That being said, while I view this revocation request as an overly blunt instrument by a proponent who has made no attempt to engage with me on my user talk page in an attempt to resolve any outstanding questions or propose a solution (such as a temporary restriction on closing RfCs, if they felt that was needed), as the ultimate demonstration of my commitment to putting the community first, even though this may add to the workload of the other active Steward, I'm ✅ my Steward permission, though I will not be leaving Miraheze, and will seek the community consensus to re-run for Steward a later date. I will, however, instead be focused on co-drafting and co-sponsoring an array of policy or policy amendment proposals, and focusing on my other roles (both community, as a TestWiki Consul, interwiki administrator, etc., and with Miraheze Limited as a member of the Trust and Safety team). On that point, my real life commitments, particularly my real life occupation, have kept me pretty busy and precluded some Stewards activities as I would've otherwise liked, which is another reason for the improper editorializing and, thus, recent bad RfC closures, so that caused me to be "stretched too thin," essentially. This should alleviate those extra pressures, and, in due course, I expect to be a better position with respect to committing more time to Steward duties and having learned from this experience. Dmehus (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, again, after more than a year, I am opening a discussion on revocation of Dmehus's steward permissions. Firstly, Steward is permission that should allow the user to help the community, which is clearly not the case, exactly opposite. Let me remind you de-steward request from February 2021 and de-sysop request from April 2021. I will not repeat previous issues, please refer to discussions linked above. - I dare say that some issues continue, perhaps on a larger scale. I recently found with horror that his mannerisms against the community continue and there are more and more users who have doubts about his behavior, at that time we were 3-4, I think... In addition, he now ignores questions on his talk page, please see his user talk about Closures of Community Discussions - As before, he will write a long message, but you will not receive answers to your questions. Unfortunately, I have to say that many users, who supported him, now sit on the fence. I certainly did not mention everything that is needed, but the comment section is open. As I said last time (I think): Just because someone is helpful doesn't mean he can afford anything. Thanks,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC) EDIT 27.6.2022 - Added my comment from previous de-sysop request, lot of evidence from before, lot of things are unchanged: (Simply, I strongly recommend everyone, who blindly support him and oppose this request because "he is helpful", "i don't see issues", to read the archives linked above.)


 * 1) 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)
 * (Update 1.4.2021) So before this will be closed as unsuccesfull, i would like mention few things. There really isn't a personal problem with User:Dmehus. I do not know him as person, only as wiki user. This transfer of the problem to the personal level with sentence "You seem to have a personal animosity toward me.." is embarrassing and undignified. Whenever I tried to reach him via DM or something similar, also on discord server about my concerns, he replied to me with an excuse or a some Wikipedia Policy. So don't be surprised that some users (me included) don't want to reach him in DMs or get DMs by him, because it's unnecessary and demotivating. Another problem is its creation of its own policies, which it pretends to be official policies or established processes. He doesn't adress COI and similar things. He doesn't listen concerns of other users, or better, ignores them. But those who do not want to see these absolutely objective issues will not see them.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (Update 9.4.2021) I forgot mention this incident - One from active users created page Users, about 10 minutes after, Dmehus deleted that page, with reason "I'm working on a draft of this page, so redeleting until that's finished" (log)- i don't think this behavior is fair. Also when i tried "engage with him", he ignored my message, so what you everyone want?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And again, Being active and "helpful" cannot be the main argument for keeping of rights, if doing unacceptable things.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Also we shouldn't forgot his Wikipedia issues: Discussion, Block log,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If we removed Steward from everyone who’s blocked on Wikipedia, John wouldn’t be here. Hell, he’s ToU banned. The WNF’s actions have no affect on us. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 15:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the only thing to think about. It only completes the image of the user.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What did John do? -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that type of information cannot be revealed, as that is between the Wikimedia Foundation and John himself. Please do read this article, as that could be proven helpful. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright then. -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  A steward making supervotes, and acting without due regard of community opinions, and other opinions from other functionaries should be stopped. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t disagree that some of his actions have been questionable but consider his contributions to the community. He’s one of two active stewards and has been incredibly helpful in PTW consul roles, Meta admin, Steward, T/S team, and more. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 23:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They can continue their role as consul, Meta sysop, and T&S. As for Steward, I haven't really seen them being "incredibly helpful"; I've just seen Dmehus act in their own interests. If you were involved in an AN case, one in which an administrator made an innapropriate block which, in combination with a bunch of other incidents, earned them an interaction ban with me. In this specific case, three Stewards agreed that they had behaved innapropriately. Who was the fourth? Dmehus. See below as well. The messages, and actions, go against Miraheze, and they created a lot of conventions that need undoing. Naleksuh (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The supervotes are out of control. Another problematic example is deciding whether or not to cite Wikipedia based on whether or not the policy agrees with their own beliefs. For example they will cite Wikipedia guidelines or essays in warnings or blocks yet in Requests_for_Comment/Endorsement_of_Meta_conventions their own ideas which directly contradict full policies over a decade old are "common sense". In the testwiki ApexAgunomu incident, they closed a ban vote 8-0 as unsuccessful because "technically there's no policy about bans", yet made several other proposals, one of which was a block for 30 days (I saw through this as an attempt to protect the user, and immediately added another vote to block indefinitely. Also, they claim that they can't implement any ban because technically there is no policy by the letter, yet one of the proposals was an interaction ban (to try to make it partly another user's fault). I regret having supported an account only 6 months old as a Steward, and certainly won't do any such thing in the future. I believe Dmehus is acting in good faith but there have been far too many examples over the past few months and arguably entire year of going against the community, self-contradictions, acting in own interests, and others. I could list even more examples if I really felt like going down the rabbithole of Dmehus's contributions, but the point is made. Naleksuh (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just read the original RfdS, and it's like a message from the future. when challenged, he just "can't understand why [the user] can't DROPTHESTICK." This is scarily correct, and reminds me of the Reception123 edit warring issue. It also looks like most of the opposes are just "oh maybe he'll improve" or "I haven't had any issues myself so noone else has". Evidently, it appears Dmehus has not improved. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  This is the third time the community asking Dmehus’ steward rights to be removed concerning his behaviors, but the fact still appears that Dmehus has not improved. However, I would also like to point out although I support the removal of his rights, I do it reluctantly. Dmehus is active at SN, typically by helping users request for steward action, although they are being a little bit inactive recently. I am afraid that there will be not enough steward to handle the increasing amount of request, if Dmehus left. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I would like to start by saying that this is one of the hardest things I have ever had to vote on here at Miraheze. As I was also the original nominator of Dmehus as Steward, I never ever thought I would be making a supporting vote in the same user's revocation of rights. But the sad truth is, it has to come down to this.


 * For over a year, I have noticed little bits of things that Dmehus has done, which is unbecoming of a Steward. Most recently, the super-votes as already mentioned numerous times here, and has been brought up by John on his talk page, as well as in a reverted closure on Public Test Wiki. I no longer see that he has a full understanding of a Steward's duties. There has been numerous instances I can name, but I would rather not get into it at the moment. John also pointed some of the things Dmehus seemed to lack understanding of on both the reverted closure notice on Public Test Wiki, and in Dmehus' talk page here on Meta. There has been other instances of where I myself have been unhappy with the way Dmehus' has handled his Steward duties. There was even an instance that was brought upon by numerous factors, that got to the point that I myself considered permanently leaving Miraheze, due to my position in SRE, and the actions he has taken that continually clashed with SRE. However he has improved with that, there is one thing every now and than that ends up happening.


 * I had considered not even voting in this request to begin with, but as I thought it over, I figured I had to express my own vote here, or my own opinion has no legitimacy if I saw these come up now, and more issues arise later own, which seeing as how it has for over a year, seemed inevitable. He seems unable to take constructive criticism, and always must be right about his action. Always has a way to defend his actions rather than admitting his fault in the matter, and let it move on. There has been rare circumstances where he can admit his fault, and move on, but it is rare. Also, I initially considered opposing for the sole reason of we would loose one of the only active Stewards, but that fact I could not find another reason to oppose, made me rethink that position. I would also like to mention, that I do support Dmehus, and hope that he can simply learn from past mistakes should this request fail, and to finally be able to take the concerns of the community under advisement. But should it succeed, I do hope he remains as a Meta administrator, and public test wiki consul, but as far as Steward goes, I regrettable give my support for this revocation request due to all that I have mentioned above. Finally, I would like to make final note, that this revocation request is poorly structured to begin with, partly because the user making the request, has made it no secret that he hold his own issues against Dmehus, while I don't really hold anything against MrJaroslavik at the moment either, I thought it prudent to mention that, because I would have much more been willing to at least express the concerns, and vote in this if it were by a completely uninvolved user, but seeing as how that is not happening, I must still give my support to this request and hope the best of the future any way it goes. Universal Omega (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think it's quite sad to see this opened but it's also been something I've seen since the ApexAgumonu RfC as inevitable. Doug has had his trouble throughout his time as Steward that have been summed up by Universal Omega, Zppix in last year's request to desteward and in other comments here. The previous request to remove was too early and Doug did need a second chance and could have been fine as long as he listened. The issues here have been too much and without a satisfactory response to my letter on his talk page and with his diminishing activity and few actions resulting in controversy then I am without an option other than to state that I no longer have confidence in Doug as Steward and therefore removal of his Steward rights.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per
 * 3)  Regretfully, I feel like it is needed that I support. Now don’t get me wrong, he has helped me a lot during my “downfall” era of Miraheze, and gives people second chances, and overall helps Miraheze a bunch, but he has repeated patterns of “I didn’t hear that” and giving vague and unsatisfactory responses to issues. His supervotes, ignoring what the community has wished for, and only giving what he wishes to happen. From the previous revocation requests, it appears that he has barely changed. His failure to take accountability is also something, and as  has stated, users have been blocked, or even  banned for this, however,  has been doing this with little to no repercussions. He also seems to act like a Steward can do whatever they want regardless of the community, which on the landing page, it says “Miraheze is a not-for-profit, with a mission to provide a free community-centric wiki farm.” not a steward-centric wiki farm. I hope that Doug can resolve the issues, and address the mentioned situations. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 14:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  This was not taken lightly, but unfortunately the various questionable actions that have been taken recently do add up, and Steward may no longer be a good role for them. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  – Regretfully, I agree with most of the users above and I think this is unbecoming. --Startus (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I deeply regret that this situation has deteriorated this far, but Dmehus's actions have destroyed my ability to trust his judgement. Sario528 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) This is likely the hardest thing I’ve ever done on Miraheze. Dmehus has been there for me at every twist and turn, and to do this breaks my heart. However, I feel Dmehus’ pattern of behavior, as newly pointed out to me by other users, is hard to ignore. It is with great sorrow that I  this request. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 17:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I have no issue with Doug. He's helpful to be honest, He's active too (although, not recently). But the thing is there's been many issues just most recently with the way he handles steward duties. I am sincerely not being judgemental but No one knows what he's going through IRL, I mean, he could just be facing issues IRL, but yet, if I was Doug, and I know I am facing issues IRL, I'd just ask for a removal of my right or at the very least, take a wiki break. In my opinion, I would vote in favour of his rights being restored when he returns. Aside from the way he manages stewards chores, I'm sad to add that he feels too powerful. His comments in chats, talk page messages, and conversations that I have read come off as being too "I am the boss"-like. I am not supporting this request because of all these that I have said or anything that anyone has said, instead, I am supporting it because I want Doug to be even better, although it bothers me that it has to be this way. Last but not least, I believe that some users/people fail to grasp that Miraheze isn't Wikimedia. The former is very much community-centric, nobody receives a paycheck at the end of each week or month, nobody pays each other in money, and no one is a staff member per se, but for the latter, it is not exactly the same. If everyone starts being a boss and feeling big and people starts leaving Miraheze then imagine a brand without an audience, a platform without users, or Content without readers. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   22:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  This has long been under my personal consideration, and from my perspective, I would even be comfortable as a co-initiator of this process had the opportunity presented and my activity supported it. It is clear that there is substantial history of inappropriate or conflicting interests in the actions pursued by this steward in the steward capacity. Dmehus is quite proficient with complex tools and the MediaWiki interface; unfortunately, technical competence is only a small part of the capacity of the steward. The several examples of failure to abide by or encourage consensus are well cited in the collapsible above, with some examples even supporting the notion of willful obstruction in matters which are personally inconvenient to Dmehus. While off-network examples are weak for the purposes of discussions affecting the Miraheze community, Dmehus has a history of unwillingness to maintain civility and a lawyering attitude toward process and policy reflected on Wikipedia. These actions have triggered responses which have gone so far as to outright ban Dmehus's participation in Wikipedia discussions not significantly related to the user. It appears to me that there was, in fact, a period during this user's stewardship in which special care was taken not to repeat such actions. It seems to have waned over time. I feel it important to again note the technical competence of Dmehus, and would willingly support an appointment to Global Sysop under the careful advisement of our stewards. The shortcomings of Dmehus do not make it impossible for the user to be a positive volunteer contributor to the global Miraheze community. The user is primarily a poor participant in procedure and policy who requires oversight and mentorship.  dross  (t • c • g) 02:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * , make no mistake. Here’s what I’ll say. This has been going through my mind since the RfS was created a few hours ago. I have been thinking hard about what to do, and in the end, the decision was easy. Dmehus may not be perfect, but no human is. Once we know what our mistakes are, we work to learn from them. I have, I know others have on Miraheze. Dmehus has room for improvement, and we’ve pointed that out. He’ll improve. He’s been an amazing friend to me from when I first started on Miraheze in September 2020. He’s been there for me through all my ups and downs, and those of you that remember, there were a lot. He’s given his heart to the Miraheze community in hopes of growing it and helping everyone out. In the end, I do not at all feel comfortable removing a member of the community that has done so much, especially with our current drought of stewards. Dmehus has made mistakes, but like all humans, he can and will change and evolve for the better. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 00:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the second time the community has been asked to evaluate Doug’s rights. To what end do we allow this behavior to continue? Should we just “hand him the keys” and just let people do whatever they want without consequence? Enough is enough, it’s only gone downhill since I opened the original request for revocation over a year ago. Stewards should be held to an extremely higher standard then any user, as they are a huge representation of Miraheze, every action they take can and will affect how Miraheze is seen from the public’s eye. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 00:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If not for anything else, think of it this way. If Doug was to leave, we’d have one active steward . Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 00:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And? If that means we have one active steward that follows legitimate written policy and zero that don’t, I am perfectly okay with that. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the number of active stewards is not a reason to allow someone to blatantly violate the community's trust. Do we need them? Also, we would have two active stewards, John and Raidarr. Naleksuh (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John’s intermittent. He’s not regularly active for regular steward activities. And yes, we do need him. He’s violated the community’s trust, but he can earn it back, I’m confident in that. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe it will be earned back when this problem has been going on for over a year and they have not expressed any intent to change? Through what means will it be earned back? Naleksuh (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Look, as much as I find it annoying that Doug has ignored a few concerns here and there, but what makes you think the third time will change anything? My point about this being a losing battle still stands, despite a few instances where he just disappears until like a week later. Say whatever you want about my statement being delusional or convoluted at best, but I don't find this necessary in the slightest. And to, please actually listen to what the community has to say about your supervoting mentality. I wouldn't want you to lose your Steward flag, unless if you were to resign, which I probably won't see happening in the near future. I doubt the third time will change much substance here, I'm afraid. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Striking, and I will change my vote to abstain, as this is perpetually out of hand. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * what makes you think the third time will change anything? This is exactly what should be asking to the people opposing. This is not the first time Steward problems have been raised, and there is no indication of changing at all. They already went up for revocation once and people figured "well, maybe he will improve". He didn't, and has gotten much worse. To me, this sounds like an endorsement of Dmehus's actions, and since there is no indication of change there is no need to oppose while simultaneously telling the user that they need to stop and saying they may lose the flag while also complaining about repeated requests to remove the flag. Naleksuh (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, and I cannot deny the very fact that his recent actions have been at best questionable (and at worst, annoying. For example, being inactive for long periods of time and not responding until the very last minute, which I could understand if he has family business or whatnot), but we already had 2 failed revocation requests which went nowhere, and if I could describe this in just one sentence, this would be it: We're becoming the very thing that we swore to destroy. In retrospect, I'm referring to this 3rd request against him, which I have a feeling won't get very far. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1)  Even if I am in the minority I have decided to oppose this request. There are two principal aspects in relation to this request. One of them is assessing Dmehus' behavior and actions as Steward and the other is determining whether it would be in the communities interest and for the greater good to remove Dmehus.
 * In relation to the first aspect there have indeed been enough questionable incidents including the most recent one in relation to ApexAgunomu which have clearly made the community doubt Dmehus' abilities to interpret their wishes. I believe that one of the main problems is that Dmehus sees the Steward role as one where the community has delegated a large amount of responsibility to Stewards similar to citizens electing representatives to national bodies. The issue is that within a smaller community this concept does not work and it is evident that the community prefers a more direct democracy approach where Stewards are to execute what the community wishes and refrain from enactments or interpretations inconsistent with the general will. To conclude the issue here in my view is that Dmehus' 'representative' means do not seem to represent the current community. Based on this factor alone and the general community feelings I would have tended to support this request but even so would have been doubtful given that in my view there is still more positive that is done by Dmehus which outweighs the few times where he makes a grave mistake such as the one with ApexAgunomu.
 * In relation to the second aspect it convinces me not to support this request. In principle and theoretically it should not be the case that there being few other Stewards is an excuse for current Stewards to stay. In practice my observations indicate that Miraheze is in a dire situation in terms of Stewards and it would be irresponsible to remove one and be left with three stewards which are not very active and especially not very proactive. Dmehus has made mistakes but it must be acknowledged that he has also done a lot of good work for the community and is able to resolve requests that otherwise would take more time to do. In a place like Miraheze ever volunteer counts and Dmehus' actions in my view are not so serious as to warrant having one Steward less in an already difficult environment where many things often do not get done on time. Finally I would add that activity wise it is a shame that Dmehus is no longer as active as he once was. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  I have never seen any abuse of rights by Dmehus, instead I consider him a helpful and kind user who gives second chances and forgives the mistakes of other users. AlPaD (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * His recent closures of community discussions appears that Dmehus didn’t improve from his previous mistakes, instead, goes against the community and close the discussions at his own belief. “I have never seen” should not be an argument, please look at the links mentioned above. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 13:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * : No one seen issues with Dmehus. Cigaryno (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If no one has seen issues as you claim then we wouldnt be in this situation. I find the claim you make to be completely false. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but except for MrJaroslavik, Zppix, Naleksuh, Matttest, Universal Omega, 小美粉粉, Bukkit, and MacFan4000, no one has seen issues with Dmehus! Naleksuh (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the link to the YouTube video really necessary? Looking at the user's page, they self-label themselves as having a basic understanding of English. It is quite possible that they meant they personally have never had any issues with Dmehus. While I cannot speak for them, until they respond for clarity sake, I think that is the simplest explanation. --SchizoidNightmares (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Judging based on the evidence provided... I see no justified reason to revoke his stewardship. I reviewed all of the links provided in the "older comment" collapsible tab and found nothing objectionable or offensive in the slightest. I do agree however that editing archives is in general a bad idea as they are meant to be a pure historical record. However, on review of his edits, I did not find anything that would change the interpretation of the archive. The edits made seemed to be done in good faith and benevolently so. This is the same for his edits to user pages and user comments. I cannot for the likes of me find any reason to condemn someone for taking the time to correct minor spelling errors and formatting mistakes; or for responding to legitimate corrective requests. The "bullying" evidence would appear to be a wiki creation request, inside which I found no instances of bullying, insults, or harassment. The other issues mentioned seem to be a private dispute. --SchizoidNightmares (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Here’s what I’ll say. Dmehus has shown a pattern of supervotes, and has not adhered to promises he’s made or shown a regard for global policy. Indeed, I initially voted in strongest oppose, like you, on this RfR, but the more I thought about it, the more that I found that he hasn’t been a positive contributor to Miraheze in the sense we would appreciate. He is a steward of Miraheze, and has consistently put a stain on our reputation. His work reflects the entire company, and he hasn’t shown and appreciation or even an acknowledgment of that. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral

 * I have no strong opinion, but I can agree that some of their more recent decisions have been questionable. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 00:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Some of my points I've added when I originally opposed this request still stands, but to counter my own points with some irony would have to be this: Over the past few months, I've been noticing him do something that I wasn't a fan of him doing, but some of the things he did were actually minor, such as questionably unlocking a few user accounts, then succeeding in relocking at least a few users (except for, as he actually appealed his lock via email from what I've been told by Doug) back up again. One of those instances occurred back in February, and mid-March. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Having seen both sides of the argument, I will vote neutral.  Hypercane  <font color="#8152C6">(  talk <font color="#8152C6">) 18:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  - I have been on Miraheze for over 2 years (not exactly my account, but my presence), and he's been very helpful. However over the past year I have been very inactive, so I can't say he was helpful if I haven't interacted with him in a while. So it's neutral. However I'm more likely to oppose his revocation of stewardship if you asked me 1 year ago. CRAB-2 (c) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * 1)  I have been a bit disappointed in Doug's recent actions, but we're slowly becoming the very thing that we've sworn to destroy: The Doug drama, which unfortunately got out of hand quickly the last time I'm afraid. I wouldn't mind if he rethought about what he's been doing lately and actually re-read the policies first without it becoming a tedious chore. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the frustration bearing here is that how many times do you ask someone to reconsider their actions and to explain them - for the response to ignore accountability and just go ‘well I did it because x’ to then next time do the same thing and yet again avoid accepting responsibility? We block users who do this, we’ve banned users who do this, why do we allow a steward to keep doing it and not face consequences for their actions? To call it drama is to illegitimise a genuine ongoing concern that Doug has failed to address and reassure a good portion of this community over. If it’s drama and only drama, can you get Doug to offer the explanation we’ve been waiting weeks for and have asked for numerous times over the past year and a bit? John (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong here that it's been brought up on more than one occasion, but here's the thing: I've tried to get in touch with him through IRC, emails, and Discord, but no cigar as of yet. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly - so in these circumstances, why indefinitely wait for a response we won’t get when the previous ones have been unsatisfactory? It’s not like this is a first explanation that we’ve rushed to get, it’s a long standing problem we’ve have numerous explanations around and they’ve been unsatisfactory or borderline satisfactory, none have been acceptable or confidence inspiring. John (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've waited for him to review some of the CU requests I've left on both Discord and on the Stewards' noticeboard, but some of those requests on the former were eventually answered by another Steward. I myself became quite concerned on where the actual problem lies. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.