Requests for global permissions

MrJaroslavik (Revocation - Inactivity)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Revocation successful. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Reason(s) for request
As is customary when I begin a request of this nature I would like to start by thanking MrJaroslavik for his service as Global Sysop over the years and by saying that this request is not 'personal' but merely a request from a "functionalist" perspective. As I have before mentioned it is my belief that in order to be Global Sysop a person must be active and available to action requests regularly. This does not exclude the possibility that there is simply no request to action as activity outside of the use of the tools is relevant to the consideration. In October 2022 MrJaroslavik asked for a confirmation vote which ended up passing even though the own standards that were set were not met. It can be seen that the votes that supported MrJaroslavik were not enthusiastic and it must be said that at that time it could be argued that he was somewhat semi-active. I am opening this request because since then circumstances have changed.

Just by looking at MrJaroslavik's edits to Meta in the year 2023 there are only 7. There are some log entries related to some maintenance in March 2023 and a few CVT actions in February and March 2023. Since March 2023 MrJaroslavik has largely disappeared from Meta except for one insight.

Reviewing all this I conclude that the activity is insufficient for the role of Global Sysop and that the rights are no longer needed or used. I once again thank MrJaroslavik for his service but I believe that he is no longer interested or no longer has time to fulfill it. As a final reminder the Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct states: "If something occurs in your life and you can no longer find time to devote to your roles, find a way to step down gracefully. If you don't, other people on your team may always await your opinion and stall things waiting for your very delayed review or response. Some users may become discouraged from seeking advanced roles which they would be a perfect fit for because they think the role is adequately staffed when in reality, it needs more active users.". I have debated whether to attempt to ask MrJaroslavik via his userpage if he considered resigning for these reasons but given the fact that he did not after the confirmation vote I think it was a fair assumption that he did not wish to do so.

Since there was confusion in a past vote: Support means that you support the revocation (you no longer want MrJaroslavik to be Global Sysop). Oppose mean that you oppose the revocation (you want MrJaroslavik to continue to be Global Sysop). --DeeM28 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Hello all, reply to all users: Yes, I failed, I am aware of it, there are few reasons why my activity is low - watching of feeds is time consuming, there are reports in #cvt channel, but most of time they are created and processed when i sleep or it are requests for stewards - but that doesn't change the fact that my GS activity is really really low and it's my personal failure. Reason why I didn't is same as before - it looks like alibism and you don't have to believe me that it's not HAT collecting or some kind of show-off - but just because what if something happened and no one else was online, but again, it's my failure. As you may have noticed, I do not agree with direction and changes in the community, it's also reason for my inactivity. I will keep Meta Administrator permission until I complete tasks that i want to do or until i decide if i will continue here.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While the process is by no means complete, it is evident that this request has a strong, unlikely to fail basis for support. It's a shame that the direction of the platform is not to your liking, I'd be happy to discuss in public or private however it may help but it is your prerogative to carry on if you feel it won't really change regardless. Do you wish to resign the GS bit on account of the factors you've explained, or would you wish to see the process continue to its procedural conclusion? --Raidarr (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is surprising to me that you admit to us that you "failed" and that you are inactive but yet do not propose to resign. I would remark that activity is an implicit requirements for all roles and as such I take the admission that you are inactive as an implicit admission that you are no longer able to fulfill the role. I once again thank you for your work but if you do not agree with the direction of Miraheze and no longer wish to continue would it not be easier to resign permissions rather than wait for the community to hold a vote? I do not believe it is very pleasant to hold revocation votes and also not the most effective use of the time of community members. As for administrator I am troubled by the fact that you say you complete tasks "that you want to do" since an administrator should not be doing tasks that they "want" when they want but instead should perform tasks that are relevant and important to the community and be active in that role. I also do not believe it is fair for the community to have to wait until you decide whether to continue as I would contend that you have had many months to do so. I sincerely hope that my observations do not seem unfairly harsh but I strongly believe in the idea that that when users are inactive or no longer motivated it is best for them to give up their hats and potentially regain them in the future if they are later able to participate again. I also believe that the community would be more wiling in the future to vote for someone who resigned voluntarily rather than someone who had to be revoked by a vote. DeeM28 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have very high standards in terms of activity requirements of volunteers. For me, trustworthiness, competence (both technical and procedural), and a spirit of collaboration and collegiality to work with both other volunteers, community leaders (i.e., Stewards), and the community at large matter most. To be clear, I think you are both trustworthy and technically and procedurally competent. I can certainly forgive the low activity (my own activity has been intermittent recently), or if someone is completely absent, but if someone is active on other platforms and semi-actively watching the CVT feeds but then not actioning anything, it does give me a bit of pause than, say, someone who is only able to be active on certain days of the week. It's fine to disagree with the current direction of the community, with Miraheze, or in the formulation of policy; I certainly have not agreed with everything, just as I'm sure Agent Isai, for example, doesn't agree with every one of my ideas, but saying you disagree with the direction of the community and that that is a reason for one's low activity/motivation and then that you wish to stay on as a Meta administrator until you've finished with self-identified tasks seem to be at cross-purposes with each other. I tend to agree with DeeM28 here in that is puzzling to say the least. Dmehus (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Per the reasons I give above in my statement. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , regrettably. Since his last self-imposed vote of confidence, I was hoping that he would improve in his activity but that is not the case. He is rarely seen, even in his capacity as Meta sysop, when there is plenty to do not only in the CVT field but also in the community. We all had hoped that he would improve his activity but it appears that is not the case and he is rarely active or seen which is of concern. If this is successful, I would hope that he also gracefully resigns as Meta sysop as this inactivity extends to that role too. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the above. MrJaroslavik is a valued member of the community but unfortunately, is not active enough to justify the occupation of global sysop. One day in the future, if he becomes active again, I would be happy to see a re-request. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 02:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope he will be active and we will nominate again (or he will run himself) who knows :D Hey Türkiye  Message? 12:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  per @NotAracham, Dmehus Although I regret the retirement of the users, it is obvious that he has done good works for Miraheze behind him. I wish you success in your real life, which will take place from now on, and wish you good luck.  Hey Türkiye  Message? 12:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Imamy (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  per the arguments articulated by the DeeM28, in bringing forth this discussion, as well as what others have said. As Reception123 subtly hinted in his close that MrJaroslavik was free to voluntarily resign as a Global Sysop given the lukewarm reception to his self-requested reconfirmation request. Since then, his activity has, admittedly, not met his own standards. In addition, I would also add that has demonstrated a persistent pattern of conduct in being willing to work with me collaboratively and constructively, when I served as a Steward and an administrator on Meta Wiki. I believe the source of this conflict stems from August 2020 when I responded to Universal Omega's good-intentioned request to delete some duplicate voting templates MrJaroslavik had imported and which were duplicative of the existing voting templates, which had various parameters built into them. As was a Meta Wiki convention, I had discussed it with Universal Omega, Reception123, and perhaps a couple other users, in a public channel, all of whom agreed with the deletion. MrJaroslavik took issue with that and, since then, has essentially copy-pasted self-plagiarized his own community noticeboard discussion regarding his personal annoyances with me, which the community rejected, into a Stewardship revocation request, which the community rejected, into a Meta administrator revocation request, which the community again soundly rejected, and then into a second Stewardship revocation request. The point of demonstrating this is to demonstrate that his support for community consensus is highly conditional—predicated on the condition that it generally fits within MrJaroslavik's personal views. Taken together, not only has MrJaroslavik not adhered to the letter if not the spirit of the Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct but also the Volunteer Conduct Policy, in which volunteers are to be held to a higher standard in terms of working collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and the community writ large. Dmehus (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  By their own criteria laid out in their own request for confirmation, they should have stepped down.  By the terms of the MsCoC, they should have stepped down.  I do appreciate their contributions over the years to the Miraheze project, but even nominal engagement with the community beyond a blip of activity every one or two months would have dissuaded my support. This has not happened, and given their lack of overall activity, I cannot in good faith conclude that they can continue to be effective in the Global Sysop role and must give my support to revocation. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 03:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Unfortunately after having giving this much thought over the last couple days, I have come to the decision to support this request for the reasons articulated above, and failing to meet their own standards set out in their own confirmation. Universal Omega (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  This isn't something that should be discussed. Our precious time is being wasted. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   05:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * . Lets say, for example, this user logs in in a week and finds their Global sysop rights removed. Do you think not having these rights will encourage them to be more active? No, it will discourage them into actively editing ever again. If we want our users to become active again, removing their rights involontarly is not the answer. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Per Dmehus. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 03:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I Exactly what you said, but each user will also have a final contribution. We will have a job in the future, we will go with other jobs and we will never be active again. Our aim here is not 'No, this is not active, let's take his power and not encourage him to contribute', but 'It is our natural right, myself included, to want to pave the way for the formation of new global operating systems and a bit of new staff. But if we look at it from this Aside; it is really sad that one of us is gone. I can't say anything to him, but everything has an end of course.  Hey Türkiye  Message? 20:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But he may be upset if he sees that his authority has been taken unannounced. This is officially unannounced. Based on this, I'm voting for . Hey Türkiye  Message? 20:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As you may remember, a few months ago (early 2023?), MrJaroslavik himself submitted a vote of confidence against himself for his inactivity. It failed because of the awkward formatting + the general hopes that after that, he'd improve his activity. He hasn't improved at all (see his contributions) despite the majority saying that his inactivity is worrying and if this fails then I'm worried that the community has fostered a protection for inactive users and is enabling them to stay on indefinitely even if they're chronically inactive. Since I became Steward, I have rarely seen MrJaroslavik in action apart from an occasional lock every few months (I haven't seen him action anything recently). I don't wish him any bad and I have strongly desired to see him active and collaborating with CVT and Stewards but if he is so chronically inactive and nothing has changed since his vote of no confidence a few months ago then I believe it would be graceful to step down if he cannot devote any time to the project. If he doesn't realize a vote is going on right now because of his inactivity then that's quite worrying. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * per Globe. It is very disrespectful to take the authorization of this user without any knowledge of it, it will not benefit Miraheze to take the authorization of a 4 year old user just because he is 'inactive' without knowing. If not informed, I will change my strongest opposition to weak opposition. Hey Türkiye  Message? 20:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It also does not benefit Miraheze to have an chronically inactive user on rank and file either. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Agent Isai It does not, it is true, but it is not right to authorise a bidet without its knowledge. Instead of encouraging the user to contribute, you are abusing them. Please do not do this, I ask you. In addition; If the user is not active, he/she can resign from his/her position. Why are you acting in the style of 'he is not active, let me take his authorisation'? I think the measure of activity should be measured by him, not us. I think we should wait until he makes a statement. Hey Türkiye  Message? 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But it does benefit Miraheze if the user helps out when they are actually available. Removing rights prevents that. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 00:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left a nudge discord-side to make him aware of this request directly, someone would be free to take the liberty of notifying him via talk page additionally (I'm surprised that wasn't done initially tbh). As far as the measure of activity, the measure is made when active users see that a user is present or is not - if the person isn't here then they're obviously not in a great position to be making that call in the first place. This is not a circumstance requiring auto-removal for being completely absent in a policy-defined length of time but I must agree that MrJaroslavik's participation has been very low for a long time, further so in recent months, especially subsequent to when he made a bid for WC/a self-initiated ratification vote that has been described above already. It is clearly written in the Code of Conduct: "If something occurs in your life and you can no longer find time to devote to your roles, find a way to step down gracefully. If you don't, other people on your team may always await your opinion and stall things waiting for your very delayed review or response. Some users may become discouraged from seeking advanced roles which they would be a perfect fit for because they think the role is adequately staffed when in reality, it needs more active users. By stepping down, you help encourage more users to take up advanced roles which they may be suitable for." That may or may not be applicable in full here but it is evident that we have multiple functionaries, this case for Global Sysop but the case can be made in several places including meta adminship and operational roles on satellite wikis to Meta, who should reconsider their hats on this basis. --Raidarr (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * --- I don't know if contacting MrJaroslavik will make a difference. Generally when one disappears, that person really is MISSING and WON'T OPEN MESSAGES.  The reason for this vote is to make it possible to open up a spot for someone who can be an active Global Sysop.  By refusing to revoke when the position is held by a dormant user, in time that may also start a trend of roles filled by a growing population of dormant users.  To create additional positions to offset the dormant positions is not a solution, because over time, the staff collective will just tune out the clutter of dormant roles. ---Imamy (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging here as relevant, I have notified MrJaroslavik via his talk page about this request. I do not know if he will see it, or if he will see 's Discord message, but we've done what should be done to notify him. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 04:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MrJaroslavik has been online on discord and has at least participated in discussion within the past few months with a long history of showing up 'eventually', and he has also participated recently on Wikimedia 'across the fence' on some wikis. I cannot promise he will respond in a timely manner but I do believe he is not absolutely absent. --Raidarr (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


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

HeyTürkiye's Request for Global Sysop
User: HeyTürkiye ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reason(s) for request
I would like to submit my candidacy by referring to the past Global sysop nomination. I am well versed in the policies on the English Wikipedia, Behavior policy and participate in the RfCs and am mostly active on Discord. I think there is a need for a new Global Sysop as MrJaroslavik has also left us. I would be very grateful if you would definitely let me know your suggestions and comments, Your comments and opinions are very important to me. I wish the result to be beneficial for Miraheze. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 12:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
CV Details:
 * Member of Miraheze since September 2021
 * More than 14,000 Global Regulations (CA)
 * Active participation and comments on Discord and RfC
 * 2000+ edits on Meta Wiki

Oppose

 * 1)  The rationale for my original opposition in January and the following February 2023 request mostly still stands, though I will note your tendency for mistranslations to lead to unnecessary hostility and comprehensibility have both somewhat improved... However, your heavy reliance on translation tools for communication outside of your native Turkish, combined with frequent misunderstanding of English-language communications and translated replies that often confuse your intent, lead me to the conclusion that this remains a role in which you would not thrive at this time. I look forward to the day when I can support your nomination. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How will it cause confusion @NotAracham, I'm waiting for a detailed explanation. Every 3 months, a person needs to change their mind. Hey Türkiye  Message? 16:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per NotAracham, essentially. There are still standing issues which give me concerns about how you would function in this role. One day, perhaps, you can run for global sysop, but I don't believe that today is that day. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately I have to argue with the same logic as NotAracham. While your answers to my questions are mostly satisfactory, I think it's a little early for Global Sysop. You've only made about 350 edits to the Meta as well, so that number jumps to at least 750 before I request it again. That said, I have to say I like what I've seen regarding your helpfulness in community issues, and if your work there continues, I'd probably be more than happy to support a future request. NotAracham said above, you're definitely heading in the right direction, you just need to go a little further. Thank you" I would like to remind you of the sentence you said to me, BrandonWM. I would appreciate it if you didn't take it as a person who didn't fulfill your promises. Hey Türkiye  Message? 16:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't "promised" anything. I definitely didn't promise you a future support vote as soon as you crossed an edit count number. I said I would be more inclined to support it. But I'm still not where I need to be in regards to my comfort level with trusting you with such a senior position and the responsibility that comes with it. And frankly, I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of not fulfilling promises when in fact I never made any. An argument could even be made that that comment violates the canvassing policy, attempting to intimidate me into voting support? And telling NotAracham that he needs to change his mind? These are the conduct issues (and now canvassing) that I do not wish to see in a global sysop. Sorry, this is now a strong/strongest oppose for me. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 16:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)