Requests for global roles

You can request Steward, Global Sysop, and Global Patroller permissions on this page.

Any user who registered before a request was opened may vote in that request. Only one vote per user per request is permitted, and it cannot come from an alternative account. This is to prevent abuse.

All archives by year can be found here.

Please make your request below the line.

---

Steward for Zippy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Successful. Tali64³ (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Zippy (talk • contribs • logs) • Hiya, I don't think I really need to offer much in the way of introduction, as you most likely know me already, I've served the platform since October 2024 in tech, and have helped out in global enforcement since day 1 as well. As the result of a recent board motion, stewards will now be community elected (yay), so I am putting myself forward for your consideration. Please feel free to follow up with questions below (preferably related to steward work as opposed to tech, but I'll answer tech questions too), and I look forward to hopefully serving you. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 01:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This candidate has signed an NDA with the WikiOasis Foundation, as is required for stewardship. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

In the interests of making this more of an interesting process than a formality, I have a few questions which more or less mirror to all candidates. Some I admit are bundled questions, feel free to answer to the extent applicable.

1. Do you believe you have made mistakes in your official capacity on this platform so far? If so, what did you do to improve from those mistakes? You could elaborate on just one if you like, or a couple.
2. What is your vision of what a steward is, and what they do for the community?
3. Two users are connecting from T-Mobile USA with IPs that are absolutely all over the place. One uses an android and windows 10 and the other regularly connects from a different browser on windows 10. One has been there a long time and the other 'user' is a string of alt accounts that spam gibberish. Is this a slam dunk connection, if your review of edits suggest 'maybe'? Why/why not, and if not, what's the next step to find out? Am I missing an important detail that would make the connection (or not) more clear?
4. How would you consider a request for permissions which has six supports, three oppose, and three abstains, assuming there was no dealbreaker in argument or an unaddressed concern by the requestor? Would your approach change if there was a minor question left unanswered?

Thank you, --raidarr (📡) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Many many mistakes, an abridged list is:
   • My approach to deployment of codebase changes was scrappy until very recently, causing regular downtimes because I typed the wrong thing, it's changed now in that they are tested on staging first which is a completely separate server (apart from database due to time constraints of setting up a fully separate environment and beta cluster)
   • My approach to the behaviours of an LTA (you'll know who I mean), and my relation to the activities other team members who crossed a line, which I shouldn't have had the level of involvement and awareness that I did
   • My attitudes to others have sometimes been less than acceptable, I have lost my temper at times and made comments that in hindsight I was less than proud of
   • The growth of tech was handled by both me and others on the board at the time poorly, onboarding close to half a dozen people with no clear goals in sight leading to me still doing all the work because even of the willing volunteers none knew how to do shit
   • The expansion of the feature set of TSPortal was way more than it needed to be, in an attempt to somewhat mirror what miraheze does despite the need not really being there for what it could do
2. At the scale WO runs at, it's not very impressive compared to keeping the lights on, but essentially as privileged helpers, who can resolve some frontend issues, along with filling in for local authority when needed to handle vandalism or abuse issues, and to an extent governance if such an issue were to arise
3. I wouldn't link them particularly closely, if they geolocated closely or had editing patterns/timings similar then it could be a possibility, but I wouldn't consider it to be a possibility generally as it's too vague to be able to consider them anything beyond a tenuous link
4. I'd review mostly based on my own judgement of the arguments presented within the discussion, along with my assessment of the candidate, potentially involving other stewards if necessary in a way that may add value — if a question was left unanswered, would depend on whether the question could've led to some argument being significantly weaker/stronger, but it probably wouldn't make a significant difference, and it would be based on my assessment of the discussion and candidate

--zippybonzo (c • ca) 23:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

1.  Support, I've worked with Zippy for a long time, and I definitely have confidence in his abilities. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
2.  Support SleepingElephant2145 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3.  Support given their awesome contributions in the tech side of things. Tester (ᴛ•ᴄ) 01:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
4.  Strongest support ~ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
5. We’ve had our fair share of disagreements, but Zippy’s heart is in the right place and he wants the best for WO.  Support. Globe (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
6. Zippy was - and still is - the sole Team Leader for day to day tech operations on WikiOasis, he has even spent money on servers for WikiOasis expecting nothing to be returned. No reason not to  Support really. Fearless (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
7.  Support --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
8.  Strongest support AlPaD (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
9.  Support although me and zippy have our differences, he has put out alot of effort into WO +1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocopuff2018 (talk • contribs)

---

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

Tali64³ (Steward)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

With an over 90% support percentage and 10+ users in support, this request is successful. Congratulations! -Globe (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

---

I am running for Steward because I believe strongly in WikiOasis' goal to provide free and libre wiki hosting and will support it for as long as I feasibly can. Tali64³ (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This candidate has signed an NDA with the WikiOasis Foundation, as is required for stewardship. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

In the interests of making this more of an interesting process than a formality, I have a few questions which more or less mirror to all candidates. Some I admit are bundled questions, feel free to answer to the extent applicable.

1. Based on your request, what do you currently do that requires Steward capabilities?
2. Do you believe you have made mistakes in your official capacity on this platform so far? If so, what did you do to improve from those mistakes? You could elaborate on just one if you like, or a couple.
3. What is your vision of what a steward is, and what they do for the community?
4. Two users appear in the CheckUser interface with an identical user agent and IPs that are different but both fall within a 192.94.21.0/24 range. Is this a slam dunk connection, if your review of edits suggest 'maybe'? Why/why not, and if not, what's the next step to find out?
5. An RfC proposing a major change languishes after a few weeks with two strong supports and one abstain. Lets say for the sake of something to work with that it introduces changes to the Content Policy and there's nothing about it that would inherently deserve a veto. How would you approach this RfC?

Thank you, --raidarr (📡) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Wiki requests and managing abuse filters are the two key responsibilities that Stewards handle - handling CheckUser requests is a close third.
2. My mistakes don't really involve my use of the Steward toolset, but rather my overzealous approach to threats of legal complaints (which is mostly a Safety thing). I admittedly haven't improved on that yet, but I would think carefully and determine if there is merit to the complaints and if they can be resolved without involving the Foundation in the courts, and not let emotion cloud my judgement in the future.
3. A Steward represents the community aspect of policy legislation and enforcement, as opposed to the Board which handles legal policy and Safety which enforces that policy.
4. Given the fact that the IP range belongs to a university, the user agent + behavioral evidence is more important than usual. If the accounts are likely to belong to the same person, that would be grounds for a lock. If there is reasonable doubt, err towards the side of caution and wait for concrete proof of multi-account abuse.
5. There would be a quorum of votes required to pass an RfC - that number will obviously shrink and grow as time goes on. If the quorum happens to be 3 votes minimum, the RfC would have to be closed as successful if it does not contradict Board policy.

Tali64³ (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

A few questions targeted towards individual candidates across the process:

1. Do you see your ability to handle complex situations under pressure as that which would be expected of a steward?

Best, --zippybonzo (c • ca) 00:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There will be situations where there is no clear plan of action - good and rational judgement and team discussion is paramount in such cases. In many cases, I can maintain my composure, though I need to work on not blowing up when someone starts threatening people with lawsuits and whatnot. Tali64³ (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

1.  Support, has a clue, not a jerk --zippybonzo (c • ca) 01:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Definite  Support, Tali is great! Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3.  Oppose SleepingElephant2145 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
4.  Support Trusted, awesome dude! Crystalite13 (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
5.  Support I've noticed their contributions around SkyWiki and on here as well. Tester (ᴛ•ᴄ) 01:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
6.  Strongest support ~ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
7. No brainer  Support. Globe (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
8. Gotta agree with Globe here. No brainer  Support, known in the Miraheze Volunteering community and he currently holds the hat Global Administrator and deals with Vandalism on his own time. Fearless (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
9.  Support --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
10.  Strong support ⯎ asteralee ⯎ 14:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
11.  Strongest support AlPaD (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
12.  Support --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

---

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

Globe (steward)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Successful. Tali64³ (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Hi there! My name is Globe, and I am also a founding member of WikiOasis making this RfS as part of the recent board decision to transition to a community governance model. I currently serve as the director of operations for WO and the Vice President of the WO Foundation board of directors. I would love to continue in my role as a steward to keep up my work in managing LTAs and abuse globally, in addition to handling some wiki requests. I have signed the required NDA for this position and am eager to answer any questions you may have. Happy editing! :) Globe (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This candidate has signed an NDA with the WikiOasis Foundation, as is required for stewardship. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

In the interests of making this more of an interesting process than a formality, I have a few questions which more or less mirror to all candidates. Some I admit are bundled questions, feel free to answer to the extent applicable.

1. Do you believe you have made mistakes in your official capacity on this platform so far? If so, what did you do to improve from those mistakes? You could elaborate on just one if you like, or a couple.
2. What is your vision of what a steward is, and what they do for the community?
3. Two users based in China appear in the CheckUser interface with a user agent that indicates Google Chrome on an android device (no apparent difference) and identical IPs from a common VPN. Is this a slam dunk connection, if your review of edits suggest 'maybe'? Why/why not, and if not, what's the next step to find out?
4. A user requested a wiki say a year ago, made a very large number of edits for say six months, and for the last six months has completely disappeared. A new user comes in and successfully manages to be appointed bureaucrat by a peer. This user also makes many contributions but is running things very differently then how they were originally. A few weeks later the original bureaucrat returns and is absolutely irate about the new guy. The two have a massive pissing match and block each other which goes as well as you expect and it comes to your table. What is your approach to this situation?
5. What were the merits of appointing Crystalite as a Global Sysop initially? Was it a team decision? If applicable, should such decisions be a team decision, excluding the scenario where it becomes election only?

Thank you, --raidarr (📡) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the questions! It actually gives these elections some purpose and the community a better idea of who they’re electing.

1. Absolutely I have, none of us our perfect. The thing I’ll talk about here is teamwork. Working as apart of a team is difficult, no matter whether that’s in person or online. People have different views and feel quite strongly that their way is right. This is the same for me. I need to be more open to comprise and less “my way or the highway” per se. I’m actively working to do better at that both here and in real life.
2. My ideal vision of stewardship would be a team of users empowered with special tools to assist the communities of WikiOasis. Whether that’s be handling abuse globally or assisting with requests on meta, my goal would be that all stewards are simply doing their best to make the best decisions and actions for the community.
3. Definitely not a “slam dunk,” but a connection is definitely possible. User agents are very rarely a reliable means to determine sockpuppetry and usage of the same VPN indicates they may be related, but it could also simply be two users happening to be connecting to WO via the same proxy (especially if they are located in China and have to use a VPN). I would first talk with my team. As this is obviously a potentially complex case, I would want to talk with the other stewards before doing anything unilaterally. I would also look for any other similarities (editing pattern/history, usernames, etc.) I wouldn’t take any action without discussing with the team for a case like this, however, for the sake of answering this question, I don’t think it would be a bad idea at all to email the user in question (assuming all of their edits are in good faith and positive) asking if they are aware about our policy on multiple accounts.
4. I’d say the existence of an active community really comes into play here. If an active community exists on the local wiki in question, I would coordinate with the other stewards to facilitate a community discussion about the direction of the wiki. If the changes made to the wiki are sufficient enough to change its entire scope, I would suggest that the “new user” bureaucrat request a new wiki, given that changes in scope are prohibited without approval.
5. When Crystalite messaged me after the announcement in the WO Discord server looking for global staff, they mentioned they were active on Miraheze. As Miraheze is a respectable (pause to look at Fandom) farm with somewhat similar workings and policies as WO, I was willing to consider the application despite limited experience on WO. I then contacted Tali64 regarding the application, as he is active on Miraheze as well. He shared the Crystalite had been extremely helpful with CVT reports. He also agreed that with the recent hosting of Italian Brainrot Wiki, more help would be needed. We then discussed what position they would be best for, which I will not share out of respect for information that was shared privately to me by Crystalite. We landed on global sysop and they were appointed later that day. Global sysops are now election only I believe so the second part is moot. -Globe (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I do want to add on to the question about Crystalite. When I was looking at their Miraheze experience, I was also looking at their temperament and attitude towards other users. I was looking less at their actions directly, which while important, can always be taught. Their conduct and demeanor towards users was always extremely helpful and respectful. That’s what impressed me the most. Globe (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A few questions targeted towards individual candidates across the process:

1. What is your view on the boundary between the board and the community, and where the line is drawn between what the board and what the community govern?
2. What do you think that you would bring to the steward team that other candidates may not?
3. Where do you think the line between what is considered a T&S issue compared to one that can be handled by global enforcement?
4. When do you think it is appropriate to leave local administration to handle an issue as opposed to you doing so as a steward?
5. Mirroring the above, what was your thought process between the appointment of Crystalite with little to no internal discussion?

Best, --zippybonzo (c • ca) 00:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

1. That line is at an ever changing point right now. Currently, the bylaws allow for direct election of the steward role by the community, but not much else. I wouldn’t be shocked if that changes in the near future, but currently, that is the only direct way the community has to “govern” itself. However, I don’t believe that it would be a stretch to think that the board would listen to and comply with community requests through processes like Requests for Comment. For me personally, I believe the board has sole authority and discretion regarding legal compliance and financial decisions (although both should be done transparently). I also, though controversially, believe that part of legal compliance involves site governance. So I do believe the board, by default, has control over the governance of the site, unless specifically stated otherwise in the bylaws (such as direct election of stewards). I hope this makes sense, I’m very tired and kind of rambling.
2. That’s a tough question as many of the candidates are extremely knowledgeable and qualified, but I’d have to say a different perspective. I’m definitely an outside the box thinker (whether that’s a good or bad thing, you can be the judge) and I really like to try new things to test how we can improve users experiences on WO. Some of my ideas aren’t super technically feasible, so there’s that. :)
3. I’d say anything that borders on the lines of illegal or severely violates our terms of use/service. Anything surrounding harassment, the immediate safety of our users, or legal requests (data removal, underage users, etc) should be directed to trust and safety. Simple vandalism, including sockpuppetry and long-term abuse, that does not involve and legal issues is fine to allow global enforcement to handle.
4. If you could be more specific, that would be very helpful. “An issue” is super broad and could mean anything from a simply spam edit bypassing the filter to a complex community discussion where users are attacking each other.
5. See my reply to Raidarr. If you have any other questions to follow-up that, I’d be happy to answer them. —Globe (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

1.  Support, definitely. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
2.  Strongest support ~ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3.  Support SleepingElephant2145 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
4.  Support --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
5.  Support --zippybonzo (c • ca) 13:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
   •  Weak oppose, your general ability to handle steward situations such as counter vandalism and MAA is fine, however your view on the board role within the community is one that I disagree with, especially given discussions that we've had internally. I also slightly disagree with your answer to my question 3, as some harassment cases could be handled by stewards without deferring to safety.
     
   • What I'm also not super impressed with was your lack of discussion surrounding the appointment of Crystalite, it may turn out well but I think there is a need for some supervision here, and your approach to governance in general is one that I'm not particularly fond of, and the handling of communities ultimately plays quite heavily into the role of steward, which I'm not sure you are able to handle in a way that prioritises that community over the interests of the team at large --zippybonzo (c • ca) 22:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
6.  Strong support ⯎ asteralee ⯎ 14:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
7.  Strongest support AlPaD (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
8.  Support +1 --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
9.  Weak oppose I've noticed some discrepancies between your vote with me and Crystalite Requests for Global Roles. I am quite sure me and Crystalite is somewhat in a similar situation, that being having practically zero edits on meta until recently, however you pointed it out in my request and didn't point it out in Crystalite request, telling them "good luck" without anything more attached to it. I believe you hold some bias against me for some reason (either that or you wanted to nepo Crystalite in, which is a stretch), and Stewards should be impartial when handling situations as Stewards exercise a lot of judgement on the platform so I believe you should not hold this role. Fearless (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

   +1 to this --zippybonzo (c • ca) 17:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

   Hi fearless! That is not at all the case. You are running for two (very) different roles. I would probably weak support you for global sysop, with something like global patroller, meta sysop, or wiki creator being what I think you’d be best suited for. For the record, I wouldn’t support Crystalite for steward either.

   My main pause with steward vs. global sysop is access to the CheckUser tool. Your answers to raidarrs question gave me some pause in that area. I hope this makes sense, and I do want to applaud you for your work on the Discord as well. Globe (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

   You would weakly support someone who is more familiar with the platform and has been on the discord team for months, led one of the largest community upheavals on SkyWiki (migrating to WO) than your seemingly preferred candidate for global sysop? Your immediate support for Crystalite with little comment other than "Good luck" doesn't inspire confidence in your neutrality on such a request, which as has been mentioned above, stewards should be impartial. I don't have confidence that you are impartial towards Fearless or Crystalite, despite how neutrality should be the principle underpinning the steward role. I'd like you to clarify why you support Crystalite, who is new to the platform, over someone who is well established like fearless, for the benefit of all here --zippybonzo (c • ca) 17:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

   In hindsight, I really should’ve included a better reason in my support vote for Crystalite. I was getting ready to go to musical practice (and already running late) when I first saw the request. I wanted to support them early and gave the rushed reason “good luck” as you mentioned. I intended to expand on my reasoning later, which I did through answers to my own questions rather than editing my vote. As for why I would choose Crystalite over fearless, I detailed it a little in my response to fearless below, but I would prefer a candidate with wiki experience over someone who has been on the Discord server of the farm for longer. Being discord staff and over throwing SkyWiki translates to exactly 0 of what fearless said they wanted to do (cu investigations, etc.) Just a personal preference at the end of the day, you’re welcome (and allowed to) disagree. But saying I’m not being impartial is false and insulting. Globe (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

   I understand Steward and Global Sysops are very different roles. However I was mentioning on why are you giving them a Support vote and didn't point out the same issue you had with me when Crystalite had quite literally nearly zero interactions with WikiOasis until they got appointed as Global Sysop as Global Sysop still retains a lot of power, I don't believe requestors should be able to immediately get a hat, especially one as powerful as Global Sysop when they have never interacted with the community a lot before. At least I interacted with the community before on Discord, but Crystalite didn't until very recently. Fearless (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

   I simply look for different things in candidates than you do—and that’s okay. I would prefer a candidate with more experience with MediaWiki, and workings of a farm in general (Mira specifically) than someone who is very familiar with our community, albeit only on discord. If you had more (any) on-wiki experience anywhere, I would be much more comfortable supporting such a request. I do wish you the best of luck in your global sysop request next week as I agree you are better suited for that role. Globe (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

   On elaboration both to me and over here I don't find Globe's logic unreasonable. There is precedence in this space for 'credentialed outsiders' to be brought in, the exact line for what qualifies is debatable of course. But while it would have been nice to approach with a principled vote later instead of an attitude of I must vote as early as possible, the logic has definitely come through and the rest comes down to voter discretion. I was also curious if this was a unilateral appointment earler and it appears at least Tali had input in the process, which is a reasonable minimum even if for future reference any high appointments would be good to raise in an open space with peers and let sit for a little longer in case there are qualms like this to resolve. It's pretty obvious there was a schism of opinion here, which could have been resolved with a more thorough initial appointment process initially, or working out some of these gripes internally as the issue has left Globe with an unusually large non-voting section. Its not nice to see current peers and core members openly express lack of confidence in each other in a process like this and it suggests a deeper communication problem that needs to be worked on. --raidarr (📡) 09:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

   Thanks for the elaboration Globe, it clears up a lot of misunderstandings I had with you, though I'm still going to keep this as a weak oppose at least, as I believe you really cannot cut corners with time when you become a Steward. Sure, time management is important if there are multiple urgent problems that needs to be addressed, but it should not sacrifice quality and fair judgement for other users, as you're done so here and caused some misunderstandings. Also I believe both of us could've also elaborated on our intentions better/earlier as well. I wish you luck for Steward. Fearless (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

   Thanks Fearless, I'm glad that cleared things up. I will note that I did explain my vote (in the questions section above to Raidarr) almost a full two days before you commented on my request. I should have edited my vote to make that clearer, though. Globe (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

---

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

Crystalite13 (Global Sysop)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Successful. Tali64³ (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Hello! My name is Crystalite and I am running for Global Sysop (a position I was appointed to today) because the aforementioned staff role abolishment. I joined recently but am experienced in the wiki community, being very active around Miraheze. When elected properly, I plan to help out with Meta clean up, vandalism, and wiki requests. Thanks for listening to me! Crystalite13 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

In the interests of making this more of an interesting process than a formality, I have a few questions which more or less mirror to all candidates. Some I admit are bundled questions, feel free to answer to the extent applicable.

1. Based on your request, I have a two part question; what do you consider the skills you bring to the role, and what do you think you need assistance learning?
2. As a very new candidate and figure to the platform, what would you say to concerns about electing/promoting a user with under 100 global edits to a mid-senior CVT role?
3. What is your vision of what a global sysop is, and what they do for the community?
4. Suppose you have the following actions to use. Lock (reasons spam, vandalism, abuse of multiple accounts, long term abuse or username policy violation), issue a warning, and consult with peers if you do not have a clear answer or feel it is out of your scope. Which would you consider appropriate for these examples? You can write in something different if you believe it would be appropriate.
   • a. An account that fills their userpage with text describing automotive services, and a day later edits links to an automotive website on their meta userpage. New account, no other messages, say within a day to a week.
   • b. An account that fills their userpage with text describing their background as a wiki editor who really likes cars, and they link to a personal blog about cars at the same time. New account, no other messages, say within a day to a week.
   • c. A newly registered account by the name "Hentai".
   • d. A newly registered account with a userpage stating they are 12 years old.
   • e. Two users engaging in a bitter argument with insults on a wiki with admins who are recently active, assuming you have no other context to go on at this time.
   • f. Three accounts are created with incrementing usernames (idk, Awesome1, Awesome2, Awesome3...) and the first one has made several edits giving advice that isn't quite right.
   • g. You are browsing a random wiki and come across a user who recently blanked large sections of several page for no apparent reason. The pages still have stuff on them, but they are now stubs. An admin last edited about three days ago.

Thank you, --raidarr (📡) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful questions, I will do my best to answer these questions!

1. I think Patroller on miraheze Meta has helped me be comfortable in identifying stuff like spam, vandalism, and other issues quickly. I have had experience using sysop tools on the miraheze Grace Wiki, a semi-popular one, which I'd say involves a lot of coordination and learning to work with people. For assistance, I'd say I want help on more complex cases that aren't entirely textbook, especially considering policy interpretation and documentation is lacking a bit on meta.

2. If I were an outsider, I'd say my biggest concern would be giving someone so new such large hats. Sure, my Miraheze experience can also be counted a little bit, but WikiOasis has its fair share of differences. I totally understand why my appointment was a little shaky-I was pretty surprised myself, straightaway getting the role. Talking about myself, being, well...myself, I can't reasonably say I will be perfect in my role, because firstly, I'm biased...surprise, surprise, and also because I'm human. The simple fact is, the most senior stewards to the newest faces will all make mistakes, and I'm no exception. If I am elected, all I can promise is that as a relatively new user, I will do my best and seek guidance from my fellows.

3. I think what I'd want most from global sysop is more distinction than just "sysop but everywhere". It's a new role, so I'd say what I'd want from it is not only just maintenance of different wikis, but more interaction.

4A. For this, considering it's a brand new account, I'd delete the userpage and llock with the reasoning of an account only made for spam/advertising purposes.

4B. This wouldn't be too much of a concern to me if it's general info about them self and the link to the blog isn't very pushed/spammed everywhere.

4C. Just a lock for this one.

4D. For this, I'd delete the local page and contact T@S to vanish the account and hide revisions.

4E. For this one, I'd only intervene straightaway if there's serious stuff, like death threats and similar. But if it's just a plain nasty discussion and the admin's aren't intervening, I'd leave a message on the most recently active one, more like a friendly user giving a nudge than an action from a global sysop.

4F. For this one, I'm not totally sure. It's possible they're socks, but if they have done nothing I ask someone else and keep an eye on the accounts.

4G. I'd revert the changes, and if the user had made constructive edits before, issue a warning, but if not then I'd lock with the reasoning of VOA. Crystalite13 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A few questions targeted towards individual candidates across the process:

1. What are your thoughts on your appointment to the role prior to this election? Do you feel that it was right for you to accept such an appointment without community involvement?
2. What do you see yourself doing on the day-to-day, which areas would you most likely want to work within?
3. Where do you see the overlap between stewards and global sysops, and where do you see the line between what should be handled by a global sysop and what would be best handled by a steward?
4. How do you see local administration fitting into the role of global sysops and stewards?

Best, --zippybonzo (c • ca) 00:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

1. While I do admit, I think some of the "hey, why am I getting these rights so easily?" might have been lost somewhere in the "WAIT ME?? REALLY??", and honestly, I understand how rights like these usually involve community trust and experience, but for the purpose of transparency, my accepting this nomination was done in mostly good faith, and I hope this election will validate it.

2. On a day to day basis, i would focus primarily on cross wiki maintenance, like handling spam, vandalism, and unattended issues on smaller or less active wikis, or even the inverse, like very large wikis that can't handle their size. Recently, the Italian Brainrot wiki migrated from Miraheze to WikiOasis. "Migration" is putting it nicely; I think the proper word is "eviction". Of course, I understand it was necessary, but a wiki having to leave Miraheze of all farms....it's going to be tough handling it. I think firstly though I would also see to some meta clean-up, since there aren't any sysops here yet.

3. I would say there is some overlap in the two roles, but I see global sysops as focusing more on routine maintenance (e.g vandalism + basic cleanup), while stewards handle more sensitive or complex matters that come with their tools and rights like CU and Suppression.

4. I think local administrators should always take priority on their own wikis and global sysops and stewards should act in a supportive capacity, not as replacements. I believe making that promise of "we won't interfere unless we absolutely have to" should be very important...though some wiki farms would disagree *cough cough* fandom *cough cough*. Jokes aside, I think finding the balance and knowing when to step in is something important that all global volunteers should know. Crystalite13 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

1.  Support. Good luck! Globe (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
2.  Weak support Not sure if I can fully support, given that you basically speedran the right, but I trust you. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3.  Support SleepingElephant2145 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
4.  Abstain I cannot support you as I really don't see you much in WikiOasis, even tho we have interacted lots in the Miraheze Discord Server, I don't think it is fair to base someone's capabilities on another platform irrelevant to WikiOasis. Fearless (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
5.   Weak support, per fearless, I've seen some of your work on miraheze and it seems good, but I won't base my opinion on purely your work on another platform. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 13:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
6.   Weak support Per above AlPaD (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
7.  Abstain per above --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
8.  Support, the case is adequate despite an unusually low local investment. My Miraheze experience makes my broad assessment 'needs growth, but coachable', and I think this platform would be good experience for that. I hope the role goes well for you. --raidarr (📡) 14:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
9.  Weak support --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

---

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

Raidarr (steward)

I did not expect to fire for this role at first, on account of being in quite a few places and being on projects that must take higher priority.

Seeing existing requests I have shifted in this position, and I believe I would offer some value as a figure providing second-opinions who can temper decision making, a presence in appeals, and occasionally someone to complete first line actions if I am in the right spot and ahead on other projects, among other aspects a Steward is involved in.

I would also like to exert some influence in developing the community model with insights from, but not directly mirroring Miraheze. Indirect activity like this I consider a major aspect of a community facing role such as Steward. I am interested in other organizational aspects such as pushing for the reduction of direct board bureaucracy in local governance and optimizing the procedures the platform uses in favor of more straightforward and thoughtful service. Stewardship is a role offering gravitas quite useful in these fields even if it does not directly control them.

This is the capacity I offer if the project would like to have it, I welcome critical votes and any questions that might interest you.

Thank you, --raidarr (📡) 16:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This candidate has signed an NDA with the WikiOasis Foundation as required for the role --zippybonzo (c • ca) 17:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

1. Given your involvement in multiple projects, how will you ensure consistent availability for steward responsibilities here?
2. What types of steward tasks would you prioritize, and which would you realistically leave to others?
3. You mentioned reducing board bureaucracy. Are there any specific processes that you would change first, and how would you avoid creating chaos or inconsistency?
4. Where do you personally believe the boundary lies between board authority and community governance, and how would you handle situations where that boundary is unclear or contested? -Globe (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Consistent availability will not be possible I'm afraid; I expect that I will not be a very prominent everyday figure as there are multiple existing staff and candidates likely to be more visible in the community. What I offer is more subtle to be elaborated in #2, and I can offer that much because ultimately I am available on discord alone by direct ping pretty much always and at least browse on an occasional basis which I can boost to daily or near-daily on-wiki logins. In the end there is enough investment here I am unlikely to totally vanish, short of an incident so discouraging I no longer wish to have affiliation.
2. I would prioritize offering a second or alternate view in more involved decisions such as community interventions or CU investigations, being an alternate or fresh, or occasionally quite biased by experience opinion which may rear itself in wiki requests, appeals or again following up on an intervention that was started by another, and as possible soliciting community input and more rarely directly tackling more everyday issues. Where desired I'd like to impart topical experience to peers and help them get new skills. First line wiki reviews, most matters of CU/common vandalism, and support tasks along the steward requests or help desk variety will likely be more quickly served by a peer. How likely I am to chew on those is a measure you can probably gather by how the Miraheze queues are looking as that would necessarily be where I look first on most occasions.
3. First thought, reducing how much of community process depends on a board specific vote verses what can be delegated to a more flexible and community involved 'lower structure'. Instead of codifying "Operations Team" matters directly into the bylaws, an Operations Team page, or I would honestly prefer Community Team page or category could exist laying out the roles, or being a hub to refer to each role. This can be addressed more flexibly first by an initial board adoption of the starting version and modified later by RfCs, and perhaps consultations that still seek community input but will proceed barring a clear case not to. A similar veto that exists for unsuitable candidates could exist for sparse use on RfCs. I would not consider this course chaotic, and any flaws in this plan that would create inconsistency could be discussed and resolved. For a bonus, the title of operations director itself could well be streamlined into a simple board 'vote of no confidence' and a steward peer may be able to do an emergency removal which later solicits community/board validation. Also along these lines I have thought for a moment now, there is not much semantic purpose to the division of 'safety' and 'steward' operations here. The two often overlap and there is little specialized knowledge or need as far as I know on the platform to make T&S a truly separate process. The two could become one and the existing T&S lead can instead be the T&S contact for the occasional compliance purpose that may come up. I do not see that really causing any problems but any of these thoughts should of course be discussed and not taken at face value.
4. Its hard to further specify absent a scenario and a case where a steward-only figure would not simply hand the matter to the board and ask 'so what do you want to do here', which is likely the most frequent answer. Technically speaking the way to interpret the line from my part would be to observe the Board/Bylaws and use that as a model while attempting to approach the situation diplomatically, in other words, ask how can things operate correctly while also keeping the goodwill of the community. It could be to escalate a change to the bylaws to fit or clarify, hand the matter to the board advising a response that does not alienate the user base, or if its the way to go, advise the user(s) that this is the way things are done and how to work with that.

Twisting into more of a 'where should the boundary lie' question:

It's a matter of purpose. The board acts as a legal and functional necessity to manage boring but crucial matters like finances, the collective 'assets' of the project, specific legal scenarios, perhaps if I am getting ambitious, offering a roadmap and vision and spiritual heart of the platform where each other function comes together, and all of it, in line with what the core mission is, and what the community (that the project is going for) would like to see. And these aspects are ideal to any open service project like this.

On another side of is the community facing core of the project which comes under a team, operations presently. Foremost of these figures, the stewards, though this regularly overlaps with the board. They are part of the whole so I wouldn't like to set a hard boundary and call them 'the community governance' axiomatic to 'board authority', but I think it is reasonable to let the community self-represent, the figures empowered by the people work on their behalf, and for the board to also operate on the community's behalf, but in its more indirect way. If it's not clear what people want then it is the duty of leaders, from stewards to the board or direction-setter of tech, to find that out. Not guess but to find out as objectively as possible.

If these was a situation like a controversial request for comment where a lot of people want something but the board has fully researched the matter and has good reasons not to do it, I think it would be reasonable for the board to explain this and do what should be a rare override. People might have bones to pick but if the decision has been arrived to in a responsible way then it is what it is and the platform moves on.

There are other models that might work, but this is the model I believe Zippy is looking for, as a key founder and the primary technical drive of the platform, and seems to be the direction that others are leaning to as well.

--raidarr (📡) 22:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

1.  Support, I think raidarr is the person we need on the community and governance side who is prepared to make difficult decisions that others will not, and has a unique position to make judgement and pass guidance from a more external perspective to help guide things when others are doing so poorly. I don't expect to see much on the anti-abuse side but I trust that if it were to come up from time to time he is capable of handling it responsibly, in addition to the guidance towards others. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 17:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
2.  Support per Zippy, WikiOasis desperately needs someone that has a large amount of experience and insight as Raidarr, having Raidarr here to even at least train the WikiOasis Volunteers here would be an massive benefit to the platform overall and helps each of us WO Volunteers grow individually as well. I would not be so bothered by his activity as well as he would probably be an back up plan should WO catches on fire metaphorically. Maybe we'll also see Raidarr making an "How to be a Steward 101" guide one day as well for some of us. --Fearless (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
3.  Strongest support Per above, Raidarr is already a Miraheze steward and has the experience required for this role. AlPaD (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
4.  Strong support Trusted and experienced. ~ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
5.  Support per answers to my questions. —Globe (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
6.  Strongest support Per above. --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)