Meta:Requests for permissions: Difference between revisions

From Meta
m (→‎うざっきー (sysop): Typographical correction)
Tags: Made through Tor Reply Source
Line 238: Line 238:
 
#****Dmehus has already been given chances. He has caused a lot of drama and still has not improved his conduct. It has been 17 days since this proposal has been created and he is yet to improve his conduct. He has opposed this request without properly responding to my points. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 10:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 
#****Dmehus has already been given chances. He has caused a lot of drama and still has not improved his conduct. It has been 17 days since this proposal has been created and he is yet to improve his conduct. He has opposed this request without properly responding to my points. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 10:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 
#*****I am also well aware of the obvious fact that this proposal will fail due to the tyranny of the majority. Though in all fairness, this discussion should not be closed yet as all concerns have not been acknowledged. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 11:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 
#*****I am also well aware of the obvious fact that this proposal will fail due to the tyranny of the majority. Though in all fairness, this discussion should not be closed yet as all concerns have not been acknowledged. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 11:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  +
#******I was hoping that Dmehus would have a chance to demonstrate to the users who supported this request (and even the ones who opposed it but expressed ''some'' concerns regarding some of his actions, including myself) that he has taken these comments into account and will keep them in his mind. I propose that since the issue seems to be that you believe he has not thoroughly responded to your concerns that {{Ping|Dmehus}} makes a commitment here that he has understood the concerns and will take the feedback expressed here into account.
  +
#******I also wanted to make a separate point here. It is the fact that the word "policy" is mentioned a lot of the times. I believe that this is precisely our issue: that we do not have enough policy. Because of this the current rules governing this wiki are what can be labeled as "conventions". The issue with these so-called "conventions" in some areas is that all users are not in agreement about them or alternatively that it is not clear what the actual convention is because different users have done conflicting things. For example, in the question of editing other user's userpages if the community sees this as something that should not be done (which is my view, with some exceptions to the rule) then to make this clear and ''mandatory'' there should be a written guideline and/or policy regarding this. The way to move forward in my opinion is to create a general policy for the functioning of Meta which will incorporate some of these conventions and current methods and the Meta community will have a chance to vote on. One might argue against this proposal and say that it is better to have unwritten rules because it allows for more flexibility or because they are more or less obvious. I do not believe in this argument as the prospective policies must not be completely strict, they are able to have a degree of flexibility but at the same time include the general principles (as with the example of editing others' userpages: the general rule is not but there can be some exceptions for example if the user says something false, etc.). Another argument against not having a written policy is that for newcomers it is difficult to understand rules which are unwritten and it would be a great benefit to be able to send these users to a page that explains this. [[User:DeeM28|DeeM28]] ([[User talk:DeeM28|talk]]) 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
   
 
== Anton (sysop) ==
 
== Anton (sysop) ==

Revision as of 12:45, 11 April 2021

Requests for Permissions
Shortcuts:
Meta:RfP,
Meta:RFP,
RfP,
RFP

This page is for requesting permissions that can be granted on this wiki.

  • For rights that don't add advanced permissions (like autopatrolled and confirmed) please just leave a note on Meta:Administrators' noticeboard.
  • For rights on another wiki, please take up the matter with the local community.

Here you can leave requests for the following permissions. The community will discuss your request and then a bureaucrat or Steward will close the request, granting rights upon closure of successful requests.

Notes:

  • In most cases, Rights may only be granted after a request lasted for at least 7 days, and no less than 70% of the votes (only support and oppose are votes) are support votes. Some permissions have their own criteria.
  • Although anonymous users may express their opinions, logging out to leave additional comments or otherwise abusing multiple accounts (including IP addresses), is not allowed.
  • CheckUser and Oversight rights will not be granted except under exceptional circumstances. Please leave a note on the Stewards' noticeboard if you would like more information.
  • Remember to update Meta:RecentChanges/Requests with a link to your request.
Click the appropriate button below to request permissions
Archives of Requests for permissions [e]   


DarkMatterMan4500 (Wiki creator)

WikiJS (Wiki creator)

SoyokoAnis (Wiki creator)

Bmoser05 (Wiki creator)

Suwandikevin (Wiki creator)

Dmehus - Revocation of Sysop Rights

User: Dmehus (contributionsCAblocks logrights logglobal rights log)
Group: Sysop
Reason: Dmehus has recently done questionable things as a Meta administrator and a Steward. He has violated the Meta:User close policy in this revision by closing an RfGR invoking the policy despite the policy clearly stating that it should only be invoked by "trusted but, non-privileged, users" (emphasis mine). It should also be noted that Dmehus closed the request before a question left on the request was answered. When I asked about this on his talk page, he said that he is also an Autoconfirmed user here on Meta. This shows that Dmehus does not care about or never bothered to properly read the policy which prohibits privileged users (in this case, Stewards) from closing RfPs or RfGRs invoking the policy. He also removed two comments from an RfP just yesterday (which I reverted). It appears that Dmehus has become very very arrogant and thinks his and his closest allies' (Why do I bring in allies? It is because he left RhinosF1's comment untouched and I was personally attacked by RhinosF1 on Dmehus's talk page) opinions are much more important than anyone else's. I think that it is now self-evident that there is no or very little compelling reason to let him continue to be a Meta admin (or even a Steward, if that wouldn't come with its own side-effects like slow responses on matters that can only be handled by Stewards). User:R4356th/Signature 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments: Reading what I wrote above, I do not believe I have been able to properly mention all the problems with Dmehus so I request anyone reading this to read this RfS. I also think it is worth mentioning that Dmehus globally blocked an IP address that meaningfully added to the discussion invoking the NOP while it is very obvious that there was a strong conflict of interest here. I could go on and on pointing out more about what Dmehus has done in the recent months. I believe this would had been better as an RfS but as I mentioned above, unfortunately, revoking Dmehus's Steward right would mean that there would be delay in responding to user requests that only Stewards can handle. Perhaps, I could make an RfC to deal with that in a better way, proposing limiting his actions but I currently do not have the time to do that and think that an interim solution would be revoking Dmehus's admin right here on Meta so that he cools down and hopefully gets back into editing and behaving in the way he was before getting elected as a Steward. The Dmehus present on-wiki and on other platforms is clearly not the Dmehus whom the community chose to trust with Sysop rights long ago and with Steward rights three months ago. I would be happy to see Dmehus back to editing and helping out users in the way he once used to. Having said all that, I wonder how I am going to be harassed after I save this edit, which has been happening a lot lately. User:R4356th/Signature 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

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

  1. Symbol full support vote.svg Strongest support as proposer. User:R4356th/Signature 16:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Yes,
    He is editing user pages of other users - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
    He is editing archives after renames - [8] [9]
    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 [10]
    He editing posts of other users - for example [11]
    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 [12] and those with perms [13]
    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 [14]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    (Update 9.4.2021) I forgot mention this incident - One from active users created page Meta: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)[reply]
    MrJaroslavik Regarding the first point, that's long been accepted since I arrived, and indeed, many if not all of those users thanked me for those edits. Users appreciate my WikiGnoming. Regarding your second point, the idea here is that when the user is renamed, the wikilinks point to a non-existent user, which will add to confusion should another user register that username. It's a minor edit that does not meaningfully change the discussion; in fact, it improves it. Regarding your third point, hrm? Regarding, your fourth point, again, hrm? Regarding your fifth point, depending on the edit, I will just say that my Thanks log is validation for users appreciating my WikiGnoming. Your sixth point, that's simply not correct. Miraheze take users' privacy seriously where it's clear a user has likely edited while logged out, so convention is to oversight the revisions rather than revision delete. In the past, revision deletion is sub-optimal, and may actually be worse as it hides the revision that should be oversighted. It was done historically when Stewards were less active. Doing CheckUser too often? How so? Spam only accounts are a huge problem on Miraheze, and there's a lot of abuse. Regarding your other points, I don't even know what you're referring to, and the bullying reference is simply not accurate. Dmehus (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a good way forward from this point would be if you explained clearly for both R4356th and MrJaroslavik the reasoning behind why you wanted to clearly state the request was closed in accordance to Meta:User close policy, rather than simply closing the request in the rightful capacity as a Steward, and explaining why you closed it. Further, it would be interesting to gain an insight over why you didn't ask the user if they wished to withdraw the request? Seeing as your prior actions suggest this is usually something you do. From an administrative point, it would be useful for you to confirm that I have spoken to you previously around editing other users comments. I feel wider, there is a problem with discussing problems (on both sides of the argument) which need to be addressed - this is notably the 2nd revocation request raised for you in 2021. My strong recommendation would be to reach out to both users either in public or private to discuss the problem and listen to then - and not come back citing some Wikipedia policy (which I do note you have done with myself numerous times), but rather accept other view points unless there is a relevant policy or discussion on Miraheze which justifies the action as being 'established'. FYI in response to 'Users appreciate my WikiGnoming' can be contested seeing as at least 5 users (including myself) do not appreciate it - with the ongoing attitude to this problem being raised being 'other users disagree' is not helpful to resolving a disagreement and might just be why this is the second revocation request for you this year. John (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John Thank you for the comments. Regarding Meta:User close policy, I would just note that I was preparing a further response to R4356th yesterday in discussion on my user talk page, which I've now Yes check.svg done. Regarding being willing to engage with R4356th, MrJaroslavik, and any other community members, I am absolutely willing to do this. In particular, notably, I have direct messaged MrJaroslavik on Discord on January 28th, 2021, regarding a comment he made and a question he asked in a Discord channel of the Miraheze Discord server, and have yet to receive a response my reply and willingness to engage. I have also separately addressed concerns in the #general general, but have not received further responses. I'm happy to engage further and address any outstanding concerns. Regarding editing other users' comments, I would just note that an equal if not greater number of users have, privately or publicly, appreciated my minor editing. Some edits, as admitted to you, have not mean what one would consider minor, and I think I've made improvement in this area, limiting edits mainly to minor punctuation, formatting, and wikilink target corrections. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you've added this reply to your existing reply, after other responses from other users had already been added, which increases confusion in terms of what the other users were replying to. In any case, I don't see how engagement, private or public, is ever a "waste of time." You seem to have a personal animosity toward me, dating back to August or September, when I deleted some duplicate voting templates you had created following a request from Universal Omega, and I've been trying, for nearly as long, to find out what exactly your issue(s) with me as a person are. Dmehus (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I guess R4356th didn't mention more concerns because, for example, he didn't want his comment to be long or didn't want to sound biased." Yes, I just mentioned a few on-wiki issues for that reason. I excluded incidents on Discord. User:R4356th/Signature 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    "Bullying". In my opinion, that is not bullying. Sure, it was slightly rude, but not bullying. WikiJS talk 16:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the issue, you're voting for a full userright removal, although you haven't expressed the issues with dmehus himself. This feels like a bias against dmehus. You just assume that he will just bring a Wikipedia Policy, although you can just try. It really, really angers me that you would request a full rights revocation for a Miraheze Member that has helped users, including me, with problems that we had on meta, or on a wiki we manage. WikiJS talk 16:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I understand that some people have issues with some things that Dmehus has done, and I will admit that it is true that his methods are different. However, I feel that the issues identified and the way in which this request was formulated (in quite bad faith and impulsively) is not enough to warrant revoking administrator. First of all the issue of the Meta:User close policy. The issue is one of interpretation, and the truth is that the policy is not very clear on the matter. I would disagree with the statement that the policy "prohibits" priviledged users from closing per the policy. Why would that be the case? What is the rationale for that? And, even if it did I do not feel that closing per that policy as opposed to closing as Steward would be such a serious transgression to require immediate removal. Second, there is the point regarding RhinosF1. I don't quite understand how this is being considered a personal attack. RhinosF1 simply stated that in order to change the policy there would need to be an RfC. I really don't see how that can be seen as a personal attack, and I'm completely confident that even if it may appear to you as one RhinosF1 did not mean it in that way at all. I also don't understand why people who agree with Dmehus' perspective are being called his "allies". People are allowed to have their own opinions and simply agreeing with another person on a matter (like the UCP) does not make one their "ally". Thirdly, in response to the point proposing to limit actions, I believe that limiting any Steward's action is incompatible with their role: either they are a Steward or they are not, there cannot be an in between. Finally, I honestly don't understand why there has to be so much drama and why it is not possible to conduct reasonable and sensible discussions rather than everything becoming so heated and personal. Maybe I'm wrong but I have yet to seen a sensible discussion about a specific matter that doesn't include people mentioning other past issues or making it very dramatic. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I believe a lot of the factors mentioned are subjective, especially the User close policy. And I personally don't understand how agreeing with Dmehus makes someone his ally (if I disagree with him, am I his rival now?). And I don't think RhinosF1 is making a personal attack, lol. Reminds me of how Amanda Catherine took issue with Rhinos for simply commenting something like "do something about it?".  —Lakelimbo (talk)  18:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lakelimbo: "I believe a lot of the factors mentioned are subjective, especially the User close policy." Well, Dmehus violated the policy; I do not get what is "subjective" here. "And I personally don't understand how agreeing with Dmehus makes someone his ally" I admit that it was a bad choice of words and has led to confusion (cc @Reception123:). I meant that there are people who apparently blindly support him and come off personally attacking anyone who oppose Dmehus. I do not like to think of them as my "rivals", rather I would like to be friends with them but it unfortunately does not appear that they are interested in it. User:R4356th/Signature 12:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. I personally have not made up my mind yet. While the things laid out by both R4356th and MrJaroslavik are no doubt problematic, most of the diffs seem to be rather old. I have asked Dmehus to stop doing this stuff in the past, so if it is not actively continuing, then where is the problem? We have all made mistakes in the past. That said, this one and this one are startingly recently, and alarming in the content as well, which is somewhat stopping me from opposing at this time. I am curious if the nominator has any thoughts about it or anything that can convince me to change my mind from one way to the other. Naleksuh (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, he was asked many times to not make for example nonsencial edits in archives (is not mentioned in my comment because i forgot) or to not edit archives after user renames. Still doing this.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A fresh example - In my comment I somehow mentioned that it is not appropriate to vote in the request about myself. And what happened? Special:Diff/168666,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note, I'm not really aware of there being a stipulation not to vote for yourself, and it has been done in the past (albeit as a support). Reception123 (talk) (C) 21:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but by this logic it would lose its meaning about editing of others posts or for example edits after user renames, because it is not forbidden by the policies. But it's not just about the policies,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reception123: "(albeit as a support)" Support != Oppose. Regards. User:R4356th/Signature 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naleksuh: "most of the diffs seem to be rather old" - it would be helpful if you could please provide some examples. Thank you. User:R4356th/Signature 07:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  6. (edit conflict) Weak Oppose.svg Weak oppose It looks like the problem in this case seems to be the User close policy which I proposed at the end of 2019 so I will explain my original reasoning. The reason behind the policy was that there were a large number of premature requests for functions such as Steward and the way that I understood it was that under the conventions only Stewards were 'allowed' to close any request. I thought that it would save people's time if sensible users were also able to close requests without Steward intervention if they were clearly not going to lead to a positive result as they were "NOTNOW" requests. I did not think that a Steward would ever apply this policy, since Stewards by their nature are allowed to close any requests as long as they follow the policies in place, or if they do not exist their common sense. My interpretation is therefore that there is no need for Stewards to use this policy to justify their closes. That being said however I think it is an innocent interpretation of the policy and this interpretation is no reason on its own to be revoked. On the point about the actions of RhinosF1 I agree with what was said above and am unable to see how it constitutes a personal attack towards the creator of this revocation proposal. I also wish simply to say that I do not think people's user pages should be edited without their explicit consent before the edit occurs or if there is a good reason (i.e. if they say they are administrator but no longer are). Finally, my general opinion is that some of the issues being raised are legitimate and some of the actions taken by Dmehus are unusual but this to me is not enough for a revocation and instead can be discussed with Dmehus. The reason for my oppose being weak is that I think it would be in everyone's interest if the issues that come up are seriously discussed and solutions are found, as was proposed above. I conclude by saying that I really do appreciate Dmehus' work and dedication here and my vote is in no way meant to be of any discouragement to him. DeeM28 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeeM28 I do agree that my editing other users' user pages is a bit bold, but they've all been done in good-faith and with constructive intentions in mind. To the best of my recollection, none of the edits have been reverted, though it wouldn't bother me if they reverted the change as that is absolutely their right to do so. While I think the edits have been helpful, I'm happy to cease editing others' user pages going forward, notwithstanding the usual exceptions (such as, for example, updating template transclusions on merged templates). I'm happy to address any other concerns you may have on either my user talk page, your user talk page, via e-mail, or through whichever channel you prefer. Dmehus (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dmehus: Thank you for your response, I am satisfied that you will learn from this request and the concerns that have been said which in my view could have also worked equally well if it took the form of a note on your talk page instead of a hasty revocation request. DeeM28 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as premature and per the above comments from other users. Indeed, in that reply, I noted that Meta:User close policy does not specifically preclude other users who happen to be a Steward from closing the request early. Perhaps the policy could use some minor amendments to clarify whether the user groups are mutually exclusive or not, and that would be an appropriate way to handle this, in my view. With regard to this edit with requestor mentions, that was an edit conflict resulting from a loss of session data, and I was not advised of the edit conflict as I normally would have been, which I answered at the requestor's user talk page and which the requestor acknowledged. If the concern is regarding removing blank permissions requests, I would just note that I provided an edit summary to the requestor, and the requestor subsequently added a new request, filling in the fields correctly and around which the Meta:User close policy-based close argument is based. I would just add that the requestor also has removed blank or malformed permissions requests. Personally, I don't see that as particularly problematic, and other users have followed this practice as well. However, I do concede this may not be a universally shared view, so perhaps this seems like an argument for drafting a guideline or, perhaps, proposing a Meta policy for discussion that seeks to clarify when permissions should be removed and when they should be closed per Meta:User close policy, common sense, or other applicable policies. With regard to the requestor's perception of RhinosF1's response as a personal attack, I do agree it was a bit direct, but I personally didn't view it as either (a) a personal attack or (b) aggressive, so that's why I didn't intervene. Again, I feel like it would've been better for the requestor to have approached RhinosF1 on their user talk page or privately on Discord or IRC. Perhaps we could also do well to have a guideline, discussed on the companion talk page, that seeks to clarify when it is appropriate editing of others' comments, and I'd happily support that approach. To me, this feels quite premature, since the active discussion at my user talk page had yet to conclude. Dmehus (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a steward non privileged? Based on my request earlier for you to justify the reasoning, my understanding is you chose not to be a steward in executing a steward duty and instead wanted to use a policy designed explicitly at non privileged users, of which a steward is not. The policy is poor, yes, but it does explicitly say ‘non privileged’. I did ask a rather explicit question earlier in regards to justification and my understanding from the reply seems to be ‘I closed it as a user and not as a steward because I didn’t want to close it as a steward’ which is weird - so to ask the question even more explicit now - why did you chose to close a permissions request as a community user when you fulfil the exact role which bears responsibility for closing that request? John (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John, thanks for the question. I do agree that the Meta:User close policy could use a discussion to clarify certain aspects or refinement of the wording to make it more clear, but to provide some context into why I opted to close per Meta:User close policy, Reception123 and I had been discussing the permission request in question on IRC, and I asked about closing it in accordance with Meta:User close policy, as it was quite clear the request fit the bill for early closure. At the time, I didn't give much thought as to whether a Steward was permitted to close a request early on the same basis as Meta:User close policy, and had thought that it was generally preferred for early closures to be handled in accordance with Meta:User close policy (in my case, as an eligible community user). It seems no one objected to the early closure, but rather that it was closed by me per Meta:User close policy rather than as a Steward. Though I still believe that the policy is a bit ambiguously worded and could use clarification, I do concede that this was an oversight on my part in that I should've looked more closely again into Meta:User close policy and perhaps even asked for a third opinion. Going forward, when closing global permissions requests requiring a community election (i.e., wiki creator, interwiki administrator, Global Sysop, or Steward), whether early in the same spirit as Meta:UCP was written or in accordance with the applicable policy, I will ensure that I close such requests as a Steward, and not as a community user. Dmehus (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "It seems no one objected to the early closure,..." - No? And what is "It should also be noted that Dmehus closed the request before a question left on the request was answered."?,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppose" as mentioned above by MrJaroslavik, this is a weird comment as someone who is not willing to resign would obviously oppose this type of a proposal. If I were on your place and were not moved by the arguments, I would rather put it as a normal comment. "Perhaps the policy could use some minor amendments to clarify whether the user groups are mutually exclusive or not, and that would be an appropriate way to handle this" Why? It already mentions "but, non-privileged". "With regard to this edit with requestor mentions, that was an edit conflict resulting from a loss of session data... which I answered at the requestor's user talk page and which the requestor acknowledged." Why couldn't you revert the edit in that case? Also, you never mentioned that the removal of comments was due to an edit conflict. "If the concern is regarding removing blank permissions requests..." Where does this come from? "With regard to the requestor's perception of RhinosF1's response" That kind of behaviour is unacceptable from a member of the CoCC, IMHO. "To me, this feels quite premature, since the active discussion at my user talk page had yet to conclude." This proposal has not been created solely on the basis of that incident. User:R4356th/Signature 13:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Deja vu once again. Like I said in my previous statement regarding another user wanting revocation of Dmehus's permissions, I feel like you are being too bite-y towards this user all because of something that should've easily been resolved. I'm sorry, but I'm strongly opposing this unnecessary proposal, as this is just a waste of not only my time, but yours and the entire community. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are numerous problems that can be solved easily, but perhaps the issue can be interpreted as not wanting to engage in a dead end process with the user in question? This isn’t a waste of people’s time, it shows a categorical attempt to resolve problems with little avail. I haven’t opened a revocation request but I can see why people might want to, to label other people’s concern as being a waste of time is the problem, not a solution. John (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John True, but I've noticed some quarreling on the #cvt channel on Discord between the requester and Doug in question. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done the same with Doug on numerous occasions, it doesn’t invalidate their opinions or wish to air frustration. John (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand why people would mostly be concerned about Doug, but I've seen a similar revocation attempt last month, making this very predictable. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because concerns raised last time have still gone unaddressed. John (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not take into that the doug has not changed his behavior and works according to the same pattern, regardless of the concerns expressed (in RfS),--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MrJaroslavik Hrm, how is that? Since John spoke with me regarding not making material changes to users' comments, I've not done that. Moreover, despite my attempting to engage with you on how updating wikilinks point to the renamed user's user/user talk pages to find out how that is problematic in your view by inviting you to engage in a discussion on my user talk page or on Discord and IRC, you've not done that. Dmehus (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Also, watch me destroy every single point made in this pointless proposal. Now, let's start off with how Dmehus was only updating Zppix's status that he currently has. Now tell me, how does this relate to what he's been doing this month? I get that he said that he has autoconfirmed, but this is no different to how a battlefield was created between you and Doug, to the point where I had to intervene. Given your history of you and MrJaroslavik's quarreling with him just takes away credibility, let alone even plausibility of having to have his rights revoked. And the fact this proposal was made over a user close policy sounds extremely silly to the point where it becomes disruptive. Seriously, if I had to write an essay of how boring and predictable this proposal is, I would've aced it with flying colors. That aside, this is another perfect example of a disruptive proposal against a Steward just for doing things differently. Not only do I find this to be extremely biased (more so than the wikis I've been going on a lot), but also downright moot at best, and malicious at its worst. Now to conclude this comment, the requester isn't any better than Dmehus considering my point against him (the requester in question), to be valid, and rightfully so. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Now, let's start off with how Dmehus was only updating Zppix's status that he currently has." While I did not raise this concern above, let me express my views. I reported that revision using the Report tool as I found it inappropriate for Dmehus to edit Zppix's user page without any discussion. Why couldn't he just request Zppix to do that and give him some time? If Zppix did not respond within a reasonable amount of time, say a week, for whatever reason, sure, I wouldn't have any problem. I shall respond to your other points soon. User:R4356th/Signature 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    R4356th Yeah, he should've waited and asked for his permission here. But the problem rises when you keep entering conflicts with him, and not exercising the right approach on how to handle single-issued issues, while at the same time, inappropriately making it here. No offense here, but not everyone in this community will share the exact same views as you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yeah, he should've waited and asked for his permission here." Guess than I "destroy[ed]" your "pointless" comment? (This is my response to your uncivil comment. Please be respectful towards everyone of every opinion.) User:R4356th/Signature 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    True to form, I was being civil the whole time, expressing my concerns about this request with concerns about one's actions. The fact still remains that Dmehus has been very helpful in many instances before, and I really got nothing against expressing it freely. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I will not make anymore further comments here as this chain has gone nowhere, and to avoid possible heated arguments in the process. In addition, this is pretty much a losing fight here, so let's refrain from commenting any further from this comment thread of mine. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I get that he said that he has autoconfirmed" Just for clarification and help of the closing bureaucrat, do you partially agree here? "this is no different to how a battlefield was created between you and Doug, to the point where I had to intervene" I do not get how you "had to intervene" as you replied half an hour after the conversation died. Also, I do not get what "how a battlefield was created between you and Doug" is supposed to mean. I immediately took my message back after sending that which Doug replied to from IRC despite being on Discord at the time and probably noticing me deleting the message. Furthermore, he lied about me messaging him in DMs, which I can prove with evidence, if deemed necessary. Just to clarify in short (and I repeat that I can provide evidence), I blocked Doug on Discord immediately after he sent a direct message to me that is unrelated to this discussion (but I knew that he was certainly going to change the topic very soon which is why I blocked him) which meant that I couldn't message him just as he couldn't message me. Thanks. User:R4356th/Signature 10:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    R4356th I would just like to point out that when I replied in #miraheze-cvt connect when I replied, from IRC, to your message, "Also, let me truly express my anger, don't you think it is a bad timing? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:", I was in IRC and hadn't even reviewed the #chat-logs channel on Discord. I saw later in the day that you'd deleted the message on Discord. To your point about me "lying" about what you said in a direct message to me, for greater clarity, it would help to add what I said in the #cvt channel, which was, "I prefer to look past anything you may be upset with me about, even if that is still sometimes a difficult thing to do, but nevertheless, you've expressed your view above in reply to DarkMatterMan4500, so that should be all that's needed." I wasn't saying you expressed a view regarding that wiki to me in a DM; I said you've already nonetheless expressed a view...I was just looking for you to expand on that. For context, the view you expressed to DarkMatterMan4500 was, "dmehus and @DarkMatterMan4500, I think it's time to "take remedial actions by Stewards" for yf2kwiki. I did not expect this type of content when I approved the wiki in Special:RequestWikiQueue/17271." I am reviewing that wiki, once I finish reviewing another couple of wikis with even more serious Content Policy concerns, and will be discussing with existing Stewards my thoughts on those. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "And the fact this proposal was made over a user close policy sounds extremely silly to the point where it becomes disruptive." Have you actually read the entire proposal? The UCP is just one of the reasons behind making this proposal. "That aside, this is another perfect example of a disruptive proposal against a Steward just for doing things differently." This is by no means a case of IDHT disruptive editing; anyone in the community is allowed to make a proposal regarding anyone. "Now to conclude this comment, the requester isn't any better than Dmehus considering my point against him (the requester in question), to be valid, and rightfully so." I very strongly appreciate constructive criticism but this is not constructive. Please do feel free to formally raise your concerns in the form of an RfP, an RfC or whatever you think is appropriate. If you want, you may also reach out to me on my talk page or via Discord DM or email. I would really appreciate that. User:R4356th/Signature 10:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    @DarkMatterMan4500: "I feel like you are being too bite-y towards this user" - could you please elaborate? "this is just a waste of not only my time, but yours and the entire community" - I concur with John here. "That is because concerns raised last time have still gone unaddressed." "You do not take into that the doug has not changed his behavior and works according to the same pattern, regardless of the concerns expressed (in RfS)" Yes, exactly. User:R4356th/Signature 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    R4356th While you aren't wrong that some of his actions are strange indeed, the thing is, what I've seen from both you and him feels like I'm watching little kids arguing on the playground instead of an actual discussion regarding your points. Now as for the argument you had with him, you said it on the #cvt channel rather than to discuss it in private. Trust me, nobody wants to see an unnecessary fight between anyone. As for reaching out to you, perhaps I could express my concern on either of what you mentioned at any time. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Undeniably, the evidence and diffs of Dmehus operation (at least edit the archives, etc.) are strange, but Dmehus is still an extremely important Miraheze user in every sense! I haven’t read these discussions in more detail, but I want Dmehus to be the administrator here. He is skillful and helps in the best way possible, whether the habits are weird or not. --Anton (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose I concur with the point above, he has helped the Miraheze community majorly. WikiJS talk 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I have worked with Dmehus a fair amount, and I have never seen him to anything that would necessitate the removal of rights. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support I looked at the links and I am concerned about what they tell me. RockFood (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose.svg Weak oppose All things was said, but I think that Dmehus should address all concerns if he don't want to have a new revocation request in the next months. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 15:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though, as pointed out in others' comments, Dmehus has faults, we're all only human. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone is capable of improving and fixing what errors they may have made. Dmehus has been very helpful not just here on Meta, but on other platforms like IRC and Phabricator. He is a major contribution to the community, and Miraheze would be losing something big if he were to be taken from this position which he has done a lot of things to help our wikis thrive in. Turtle84375 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom, I believe he is starting to now express the same exact behaviour he had be blocked for in the past on English Wikipedia. Note to those who will undoubtedly bring this up, I didn't specifically come here to comment on this request, in fact, I wasn't even aware it existed until I saw it on RC. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 19:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I keep seeing comments about how Doug has done this or that for the community... just because you can be helpful, doesn't mean you can't still violate various policies, guidelines, and such. --Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose.svg Weak oppose A few of the points mentioned in the original request and by supporters of the revocation are rather alarming to me; however, the majority of the points that have been brought up by other users are, in my eyes, not worthy enough to constitute a complete removal of Dmehus's sysop rights (yet). Although I have not known Dmehus for too long, it is clear that all of actions are done in an attempt to be helpful, and he is by far one of the most active users on Meta and across Miraheze as a whole from what I have seen in my short time being active here. Despite my opposition, I believe Dmehus should consider this request a final warning and should also improve his behavior based on the criticism that he has received here. I am not too concerned about his editing of links following a global rename, but other unnecessary edits to user pages, archives, and talk pages should be done with the consent of any relevant users before the edit occurs. Joritochip (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add that I was unaware of Dmehus's block on the English Wikipedia, brought up by Zppix in the previous comment, before I wrote my comment. After giving it a brief look, Dmehus still seems to exhibit similar behaviors to what led to his block on Wikipedia, but I cannot comment further because I do not know the full situation there. As I said in my original comment here, Dmehus should improve his behavior based on the criticism he has received here, and on Wikipedia. As it stands, I still do not think Dmehus's actions require a removal of rights, yet. Joritochip (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment:Replying to all the comments above at once. Many users think I am biased, which they are allowed to. I just do not agree with it. I really think Dmehus is still helpful in some ways. It is just him editing disruptively and refusing to get the point, causing a huge amount of drama in the community, acting in cases of conflict of interest like it ain't a thing, finding more and more hats to wear, disrespecting others' opinions, refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, saying policies "could use an update" after violating a policy etc. that have led me to making this proposal. I have tried raising my concerns with him before but those have not been satisfactory (I think this statement answers the concerns regarding me making this RfP "without express[ing] the issues with him".). Making "a hasty revocation request" is not something I have done as my first choice. I have tried going through "sensible discussion[s]" but the outcome has not been satisfactory and in several cases, Dmehus has avoided replying to them till he needed something from me. It has been mentioned that me and MrJaroslavik have a "history of quarreling with him". I am confused as to where that comes from. Yes, I have edit-warred with him once in the very page this discussion is happening but that has been purely with the intention of enforcing a policy/convention. There are comments that essentially boil down to "never seen him [d]o anything that would necessitate the removal of rights". That is why evidence has been provided! shrugs "Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone is capable of improving" - yes, I very strongly believe in this. However I think Dmehus has been given a lot of chances already and a revocation of his rights even if partially is important to make him realise his mistakes. "Dmehus has been very helpful not just here on Meta, but on other platforms like IRC and Phabricator" Since IRC and Phabricator are being brought up, I am bringing my concerns about his behaviour on those platforms here now. Dmehus voiced (or maybe opped?, I cannot exactly remember right now) in a channel that was not supposed to have anyone voiced (or opped, again). How is that not power abuse? He is getting himself a new hat using his power as a global op on IRC in the #miraheze namespace. On Phabricator, he awards a lot of like tokens, essentially for every task that gets completed. This sends people unnecessary notifications and floods the Phabricator activity feed making it harder to navigate. He also makes comments on GitHub pull requests without fully understanding what is going on. While I am not a Sysadmin, as a member of the MH community, I want to be able to follow the technical activities and so this behaviour is unhelpful to me. (Admittedly, his behaviour on GitHub is not too much unhelpful for me.) Now to prove the validity of the claims I made in the beginning, cases of disruptive editing and refusing to get the point can be found in this very discussion, Dmehus caused drama in private channels (judging by the public discussion on IRC) of Discord which caused Sysadmins to leave the Discord server. Now, because of that incident, there is only one System Administrator who is active in the server. Evidence of Dmehus acting in cases of COI, disrespecting others' opinion and refusing to acknowledge his mistakes have been linked in the reason section of this RfP. The IRC incident I mentioned earlier (Dmehus voicing or opping without any need) is an example of him finding more and more hats to wear. I have not mentioned so many things because it would take me more than a whole day to mention them all. (Sorry for any silly grammatical or spelling mistakes in this big wall of text in advance.) User:R4356th/Signature 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand your concerns and as far as my comments are concerned I did not say that I think Dmehus is perfect and has not made mistakes; he has. My issue is that while you say you have raised these concerns of him, this fact is not accessible to us as it has been done via private means of communication. The problem with this is that it is hearsay, it is clear that you and him are not on the same page regarding this communication. What are we (the community) to say about this? Who are we to believe? I think that if you want to be able to claim that you have raised concerns with him and he has not responded you should raise these concerns publicly on his talk page in order for the community to view his response and make up our own minds about whether he is addressing your concerns. Maybe this has happened already but I have not seen prior to this revocation request attempts to raise concerns with Dmehus publicly. Finally, my main point was that in my humble opinion the downsides related to Dmehus being revoked are larger than the benefits (if that can be said) of him no longer being administrator. I think (and hope) that Dmehus will learn from this revocation request and will not repeat his mistakes. If I notice that he does not learn from this request then I will be open to supporting a prospective new revocation request. It is clear that this revocation is not going to pass so I believe that instead of continuing to advocate for it you should wait to see if Dmehus' behavior has changed following this request and if you have any concerns with his actions should express them publicly for the seasons I mention above. DeeM28 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me get this straight, you are saying just because there are downsides to his rights being revoked, he should be allowed to continue to have a disregard to policy, and continue his current behaviour? Am I understanding you correctly? Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No that is not what I said at all. I quote "If I notice that he does not learn from this request then I will be open to supporting a prospective new revocation request." I am saying that I believe he deserves another chance to prove that he can learn from this revocation request and while people say that they have tried to raise concerns with him this has all happened behind closed doors and not on this wiki where the community could make up their mind about his response. DeeM28 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dmehus has already been given chances. He has caused a lot of drama and still has not improved his conduct. It has been 17 days since this proposal has been created and he is yet to improve his conduct. He has opposed this request without properly responding to my points. User:R4356th/Signature 10:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
            • I am also well aware of the obvious fact that this proposal will fail due to the tyranny of the majority. Though in all fairness, this discussion should not be closed yet as all concerns have not been acknowledged. User:R4356th/Signature 11:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I was hoping that Dmehus would have a chance to demonstrate to the users who supported this request (and even the ones who opposed it but expressed some concerns regarding some of his actions, including myself) that he has taken these comments into account and will keep them in his mind. I propose that since the issue seems to be that you believe he has not thoroughly responded to your concerns that @Dmehus: makes a commitment here that he has understood the concerns and will take the feedback expressed here into account.
              • I also wanted to make a separate point here. It is the fact that the word "policy" is mentioned a lot of the times. I believe that this is precisely our issue: that we do not have enough policy. Because of this the current rules governing this wiki are what can be labeled as "conventions". The issue with these so-called "conventions" in some areas is that all users are not in agreement about them or alternatively that it is not clear what the actual convention is because different users have done conflicting things. For example, in the question of editing other user's userpages if the community sees this as something that should not be done (which is my view, with some exceptions to the rule) then to make this clear and mandatory there should be a written guideline and/or policy regarding this. The way to move forward in my opinion is to create a general policy for the functioning of Meta which will incorporate some of these conventions and current methods and the Meta community will have a chance to vote on. One might argue against this proposal and say that it is better to have unwritten rules because it allows for more flexibility or because they are more or less obvious. I do not believe in this argument as the prospective policies must not be completely strict, they are able to have a degree of flexibility but at the same time include the general principles (as with the example of editing others' userpages: the general rule is not but there can be some exceptions for example if the user says something false, etc.). Another argument against not having a written policy is that for newcomers it is difficult to understand rules which are unwritten and it would be a great benefit to be able to send these users to a page that explains this. DeeM28 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anton (sysop)

うざっきー (sysop)

User: うざっきー (contributionsCAblocks logrights logglobal rights log)
Group: sysop
Reason:

Additional comments: I think it is important for Japanese people to check carefully for Japanese editing, but Japanese people do not yet have a single administrator. Therefore, in order to manage Japanese posts, I will run for an administrator. --UzakkytalklogMWpedia(my cite)) 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

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

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol partial support vote.svg Weak support LGTM, although low edit count on Meta. If you become trusted enough and get sysop, you should run to be global sysop/administrator to be a CVT for Japanese Wikis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talkcontribs) 17:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikIJS: I am a bit confused from the words that you have used. You say "if you become trusted" which I undestand means that you do not think that うざっきー is currently trusted. If that is the case why the weak support if you do not trust him/her? In addition, it is a shame that you have not provided the reasoning behind your support other than the acronym of "LGTM". DeeM28 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose While I think this request was made in good faith, I do not think you are ready to become an admin yet. I suggest you to become more active, help out with translations and request this right again in 5-6 months. User:R4356th/Signature 19:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To early
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To begin, no accurate reasoning is given for why this permission is required. The user says it is to "manage Japanese posts" but I do not understand what this statement means though it does not sound like something that requires the position of administrator. Second, the user has only been on Meta for a little longer than a month and has almost exclusively done translations. This is of course a good thing and is appreciated by the community I am sure, but it is not nearly enough to be trusted and to demonstrate experience for the role of administrator. Finally, as I said in another recent administrator request my belief is that there is not a need for an extra administrator at this time on Meta. For these reasons I must oppose this request. DeeM28 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJS (Wiki creator) - 2