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 &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; 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 14th 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)

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