Requests for global permissions

Gomdoli4696's Request for global sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ per SNOW Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Gomdoli4696 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I am Korean. There are many difficulties in managing the Korean wiki but there are not many Korean in Mirahezian. So I request Global sysop.

I'm not a hat collecter. it hasn't been long since I started Join to miraheze, but It's not a lie, it's real.

My regards, Gomdoli4696 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
gomdoli.miraheze.org, truth.miraheze.org, wooriwiki.miraheze.org, etc.

Oppose

 * 1)  While you seem eager to help out, you unfortunately have only had an account for three weeks and only have 11 edits (3 of those being this request) on Meta as well as no demonstrated experience with countervandalism. It is way too early to be requesting global rights right now though I am glad that you want to help out and invite you to help us out in your capacity as a user for the time being. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , regrettably, per my comments to you in stewards' noticeboard that we mainly need to see more Meta activity, some activity on Discord, and a general feeling that you understand and can objectively apply our global policies. Dmehus (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Clear WP:SNOW request, very few edits here. '''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥 T he B lazing D uke 🔥) ( B lazing T alk ) ( B lazing E dits ) 19:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


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

Zppix - Revocation of Rights (Global Sysop)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Regrettably marking this as "successful" in line with obvious consensus below. I feel some things were blown out of proportion but it seems the community has some definite concerns with Zppix, and as such them being in an administrative role of large scale is currently problematic. Hopefully Zppix can choose to attempt to address the concerns of the community and potentially regain these rights at a later date. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 20:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Zppix ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Global Sysop

Reasoning for request
Alright, let me start off by saying that this decision to post a revocation of rights request was not made lightly or easy in any way. I understand there will be mixed opinions about whether this is warranted and whether I am mistaken to even take such action as posting this request. That's fine, but I will give in detail the reasoning for my posting of this proposal.

Over the past month or so, Zppix has made some very questionable decisions, which has apparently resulted in him:
 * 1) Being unable to manage the role conflict between his Global Sysop and system administrator roles;
 * 2) Feeling as though he is not limited by the policy to which he is bound by; and,
 * 3) Feeling like he is not accountable to stewards

Firstly, in terms of the first item, apparently in the course of exercising an apparent Code of Conduct-related issue, he added and removed user rights to the sysadmin global group, without a log summary, which suggests role conflict. [src] [src]

Secondly, regarding the last two points, some examples of this include Zppix getting involved in local affairs where local administrators disputed it and he did not seen to have any interest in discussing his reasoning. [src] Other examples include the fact that he has been very rude to newcomer users and has not been assuming any good faith, and has been far to quick to take action against simple good faith mistakes with no attempt to engage with them beforehand.[src] He ignored a warning from another Steward on his own talk page, [src] to which he obviously saw per his own responses to another user to that very same thread, [src] but had no effort to improve upon his behavior and to seemingly have no regard for John's warning, which is absolutely unacceptable for a Global Sysop to disregard a warning from a Steward like that. The Global Sysop position was established to assist Stewards, and they should not disregard them under any circumstances.

Most recently he issued a local Meta block against a user which he had been previously arguing with on his talk page [src] and on Discord. On IRC, during a conversation with other users, Zppix even acknowledged that he should not take action against this user because he was personally invested in it. [src] However, he seemed to not care and blocked the user anyway.[src] That is an example of an action which he should've not done and waited for approval to block him from whomever he claimed to have talked to. [src], [src], and [src] It is worth noting that Zppix also during this same IRC conversation, apparently requested another Global Sysop or Steward globally lock his account for something occuring in Meta alone as well as his own personal annoyance with the user, letting personal opinion dictate his actions as a Global Sysop. src After seemingly failing to get another volunteer to globally lock this user, he took his own local action on Meta, once again, showing his disregard for the community and authority.src

As a final note, I would like to add that far too often, the log entries Zppix gives are very vague.[src]

Additionally, should this revocation request pass as successful, the community additionally requests that a steward and Meta bureaucrat review the circumstances surrounding Zppix' global account locks and Meta blocks in the past 30-60 days (steward or bureaucrat discretion applies here), excluding spam only accounts, to ensure that they were all justified and appropriate to the policy infractions claimed.


 * Note: Given that this involves both his Global Sysop and Meta administrator roles, there is also a companion revocation request for Zppix' Meta administrator user group at Requests for permissions, in which you're encouraged to review and express a view. - Meta adminstrator  vote withdrawn.

Additional proof/explanation

 * Regarding the IRC conversation, which you can see in the section below, Zppix originally requested that that user be globally locked. That is a 100% inappropriate action towards a user who was doing good faith edits, and only made mistakes on Meta alone, absolutely nothing to actually warrant a global lock. And I have absolutely no idea his rationale for attempting to get someone else to globally lock a user where a global lock is not warranted.

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal  23:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 2) Hello community, we have an extremely troubling problem at this time. A meta administrator/global sysop by the name of  has decided to abuse his powers. This must be dealt with urgently and swiftly, as Zppix has caused nothing but chaos and hurt towards many members of the Miraheze community. There are many examples of Zppix's abuse of power, but I will share a select few with you in this message. For in-depth info, see User talk:Zppix, but for now we'll settle with the basics.
 * He Blocked a user for, and I quote: "Continuing to spam their wiki after being asked to stop". He was not involved in that wiki, got no talk page messages about it, and decided to intervene WITHOUT communicating with the user to either notify them of the block or discuss their behavior. A user requested an un-ban on a wiki and Zppix immediately deleted, with the reason for deletion being simply "No". He overrode a community's decision and deleted another request about a user's ban, citing "Code of Conduct violations by topic creator". You say, oh, that's ok as it's only 3 mistakes in his reign. Well, no. That all has happened in the past TWO WEEKS that has been remembered. Imagine in five years what he has done that hasn't been remembered.
 * He blocked me on Meta ONE HOUR after I had last edited, and also instructed to ban me from TestWiki because I deleted a page. Just a notice: I deleted it with a 's (a consul) permission there. On Meta, the co-founder of Miraheze,  had to step in to get Zppix to stop. He has harassed users on Discord either on servers or in private DMs, calling them a "pain in the ass", or a "whiny b***h".
 * Quotes from John in User talk:Zppix reads:
 * "I am here to address the attitude of an administrator who despite being asked to consider their harsh and heavy handed approach and dislike to engaging with users in a manner to prevent escalation, has chosen to ignore such advice and act in a similar manner to which I have received complaints about from members of the community and fellow administrators in relation to their use of global and local permissions. Since there does not seem to be a willingness to engage in the matter, I will now consider whether more formal processes are necessary to address the matter."
 * "You’ve blocked them for things not even related to the capacity you are acting in then? It seems like you’re trying to justify being called out for acting in a manner not suitable to the role you’re acting in by trying to get out every defence than answer the core solid question of why you blocked a user, an hour after they last edited, in relation to a conflict you were in with them against the advice of your colleagues. Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that, excuses are not good enough to justify this action."
 * Quite obviously, Zppix has shown no willingness to try and fix his actions, instead resorting to blocking as a way of minimalizing opposition to him. He blocked me because "I wanted to". This is not appropriate behavior that a representative of Miraheze, a Global Sysop, should be portraying. To be blunt, this is an abuse of power. Global Sysops were created to assist Stewards, not outright ignore them, especially when they post on YOUR talk page, looking for an answer but not receiving one. For every one of those reasons and more, I am voting for a full revocation of rights from Zppix, which includes, but is not limited to: Global Sysop, Meta Admin, System Administrator, and Wiki Creator. For Zppix, when you next request rights, make sure you can be responsible and kind with them. Thank you. 23:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note the fact that while the community is free to express their view or disapproval of a System administrator, they do not directly participate or have a say in the appointment and removal of a sysadmin as that is not in the community's purview. The appointment and removal of sysadmins is decided by the Site Reliability Engineering team. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) While I believe that his block against BlackWidowMovie0000Editor was valid, I believe the hostility concerns displayed are problematic. There are other questionable judgements calls as well. Naleksuh (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this mean a ? 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do indeed support, that is why I wrote in the support section. I generally refrain from using such templates except under specific circumstances. Naleksuh (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Reviewing and considering my experiences and my impressions of Zppix’s interactions/decisions/behaviours, I feel like I must support this. I could delve down deep into history to display a consistent behavioural pattern but I feel like that would be less constructive and more critical than needs be. Therefore, I’ll keep it short and recent. In this topic, I’m unsure why deletion was a necessity when local administrators were actively engaging in the issue and seeking to resolve the matter themselves. Further, why an alteration to a local block to take away the ability for the local community to handle a code of conduct issue. While I’m sure the pre-emptive response (as was already given) will be “I can’t discuss it”, I can say I reviewed it and I don’t feel the need to intervene in such a way was necessary or proportionate as the two users were having a discussion between themselves at the time – no active harassment on-going. Further, there was no communication given to the local community to inform them that he overrode a community block at the time. On the topic of engagement, this topic was deleted because Zppix did not wish to reply to the user. Deleting a topic on a wiki with local active administrators because a global sysop did not wish to reply is not an acceptable use of the tools. To extend on the issue of not wishing to engage with users, engaging with colleagues also does not seem to be a point of consideration when he confirmed he sought advice and ignored it because it wasn’t what he wanted to happen in a situation where he was directly involved in a conflict with a user. John (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above.  00:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) He is rude and not to mention when he blocks someone he says  he can make decisions on his on and does stuff without consulting Fellow colleagues --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) . He does strike me as impulsive and harsh. I will support revocation for now. --GondorChicken (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , very, very regrettably, unfortunately, per the arguments expressed by Universal Omega in his request and John in his comment. This is a mentally and emotionally gut-wrenching decision, as Zppix is unquestionably a talented, funny, generally kind and friendly person, and a very knowledgeable, talented, and responsive system administrator. For me the core problems are addressed in the apparent inability to appropriately distinguish between his  and   roles, when the latter doesn't include user rights relating to oversight; the apparent inability to take guidance from both functional superiors and colleagues; and apparent unwillingness to reconsider his actions when colleagues provide a view of the situation which counters actions taken. Perfection isn't required for any role, but it's essential to leave room for doubt or that one may not always make the correct decision. Regardless of the outcome, I do hope that Zppix chooses to remain as a system administrator, wiki creator, and MirahezeBots developer, where he does generally excellent work, is responsive to customer requests, and provides helpful code improvements to the MirahezeBots project. He certainly wouldn't even be the only system administrator who isn't Global Sysop or Meta administrator, and certainly there are are still other tools that can be provided, if requested, to help him continue to make helpful improvements to Meta. Dmehus (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The proof is there, I am sad to come here but it is clearly a misuse of the tools HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 07:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  After looking at the arguments advanced by the proposer and the various supporters, I unfortunately can't find myself disagreeing with what they have put forward. Zppix undoubtedly has redeeming qualities, especially in the sysadmin area which I think Dmehus put very well in his statement above. That being said, my main concerns regarding Global Sysop relate to his attitude towards users and blocks/locks. On his talkpage, in a reply Zppix claims that "there is no policy against me being blunt". While that is indeed true, there is a policy (the Code of Conduct) regarding being nice and for me being overly blunt is incompatible with being nice, and the statement made to BlackWidow was not nice. The other issue is the unwillingness to reconsider his actions (which are often BOLD) and especially the rush to block and/or lock users without enough warning in advance or seemingly without consulting other Global Sysops or Stewards who may disagree with that action. Specific examples of such behavior and links have been provided above, so I don't think it's necessary to bring them up once again. With all this being said, I feel that Zppix should no longer be Global Sysop for the time being, however I see no issue in him continuing to be sysadmin and help us with technical matters, as he has been great in that area, and it would be a shame to lose him. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Like many people said above it is very sad and very regrettable that this must happen. Before saying my other points even though other people said it before me I want to mention that I really do not like discouraging Zppix with this vote and that I think he has done some great things both as sysadmin and in his other functions that he has had on Miraheze and I thank him for that. For the reasons above however I do not think I can oppose this revocation. The main issue for me is that Zppix has not listened to advice that was given to him to be nicer and follow the Code of Conduct like every Miraheze user should. I myself said this when he ran for Stewardship and I said that he was not assuming good faith and that he was not being nice enough or at least he did not come off as being nice enough. Looking now on his talk page too I notice that other users tried to discuss this with him as well only to be ignored and "shouted at" instead of a productive discussion becoming of a Miraheze Global Sysop, and even worse for me that Zppix then removed the entire discussion. In the end Zppix has been sanctioning multiple people without first trying to talk to them or ask them to change their behavior and I think that is not right and every new user should be treated kindly and have the benefit of the doubt. My belief is that Zppix should take a break now and learn from the mistakes pointed out by the community and later I would be willing to vote for him again. DeeM28 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkarletWitch (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) If this stuff occurred under his management position, then I don’t really think that he’s trustworthy. Paramount1106 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Probably my best advice for Zppix is that he should probably improve his response towards such situations -- H ookuai ( Talk to Nuclear Jaws ) 02:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  Per all the above points posted.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  Well, his actions reminds me Vicious187, a former bureaucrat from mainline Reception Wikis.  SpazJR61 08:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you are just now commenting on this, after I wouldn’t do what you wanted me to do... just an observation. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 07:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should be a bit more careful about your decisions in the future, Zppix. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  He's been very helpful. Waldo (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  -- Gomdoli (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  He's okay to me. So I don't really mind if he gets his rights revolked or not. While he did close down the toxic waste that is the outcast network, he does unfairly ban people on the times they least expect it. RedTheShadowWarrior73 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


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

Bray's Request for Global IP block exemption
User: Bray ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I use proxies for my privacy and I like to be prepared, so I would like Global IP block exemption. I have only access to a few proxies and if they all got blocked and prevented me from editing through this account because it did not have the usual "anonymous users only" restriction then I would not be able to edit. I would like to avoid that just in case, though I assume that is pretty unlikely.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
I read this page.

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Have any of the proxies you use been blocked yet? R4356th (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes. Bray (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * All blocked open proxies and VPNs should only affect logged out users. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well actually, NDKilla global blocked an IP range with restrictions to both users and anonymous users editing under it. See Special:Contributions/5.150.96.0/21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bray (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because it was not blocked per No open proxies policy it was blocked as it was used for abuse. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 07:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it's probably not necessary in this case, my suggestion to you,, would to keep on editing, and if an IP address gets blocked globally and all pages, contact cvt@miraheze.org and request an unblock. If you only get partially blocked from certain pages, request an IP exemption here when that time comes.  16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I missread that, sir. I don't wear my glasses while looking at electronic screens. I still would like to be prepared, for the accord. Bray (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)  Per above UmbraKing (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I would just like to say that I'm not sure why this matter became something that needs to be voted on. While it seems like GIPBE is listed as something that can be requested on this page, I don't really think this is a matter that requires a community vote. I'd rather such requests are made directly to Stewards (preferably via email even) and are dealt with there rather than becoming a community vote. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has an email. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Adding an unnecesary support since Cocopuff2018 added an unnecessary oppose. Waldo (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Checkuser is a restricted tool and there is privacy policies, on top of that using a proxy in any shape way or form goes against miraheze's Terms of Use I would suggest refraining from using a proxy/vpn and using your main IP aswell, plus there is privacy policies.  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While it seems unlikely this user needs a global IP block exemption, I would just note that this is the one global user group that is not a vote and a discussion amongst other users; thus, your vote will not matter. A steward will decide whether a global IP block exemption is required. Dmehus (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read my request then you'd know that I never asked for the checkuser right. Please think about what you type. Also you act like I have a choice. Looks like you don't live in my home so I can understand how befuddled you are, so please give your "advice" to people that actually need it. From what I understand is that any user can edit through a proxy, it's just that all proxies have to be globally blocked to prevent abuse, and so your logic is weak since I not only do I not have a choice but you seem to believe that no one should use proxies. I simply just want to be prepared and what I get from you is that you hate privacy and being safe. Also, please read carefully next time since I never asked for a restricted tool. Bray (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) From No open proxies policy.(But I'm weakly against it because it's my first vote.)--Waki285 (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the policy isn't about not using proxies it's for making it harder for anonymous users to. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) seems unneeded. Zppix (Meta &#124; Sysadmin &#124; talk to me) 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) On your home wiki, you can request a Local IP block exemption from an Administrator or Bureaucrat. Justarandomliberal (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Justarandomliberal you missed my point. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

R4356th's Request for Interwiki Administrator

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. Clear consensus, in which there was unanimity that were no issues or concerns about the candidate. Dmehus (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User: R4356th ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I already volunteer with some advanced rights here on Meta and would like to help out more. I have been volunteering a lot on Miraheze for the past few months by translating, helping other users etc. I want to be able to help out users who want to be able to use interwiki links in their wikis. I will also use the right on my own wikis but it is not the main reason behind requesting this right and I would have requested for local  rights on those wiki, if that were the case. I meet all the requirements:
 * Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze: I had 2,508 edits while writing this request.
 * Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months: I created my account on 5 June, 2020.
 * Be involved in some way in community matters: I am an active Meta Translation Administrator, Wiki Creator and Patroller. I am also very active on Discord (and sometimes on IRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4356th (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Valid reasoning and nicely worded. I will support this since you seem to meet the criteria plus have good reason to request. Danner (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This could be debatable, especially since global rights can only be given to those who have met the criteria, thus, eliminating the chance of hat-collecting. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already meet all the requirements. R4356th (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Even if the local rights can be sufficient for him, I think there are very helpful and trusted for hold the global rights. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  The weak part of my support vote is because in my opinion, there are too many interwiki administrators at the moment. I do not think there are enough interwiki requests to justify having 8 (9 with R4356th if successful) interwiki administrators. I have seen the discussion below about some of them being inactive, and if that is the case I would support removing them and even so I think there would still be enough. However, I have looked at R4356th's contributions and I believe that there is enough experience and activity for this role and therefore I do not feel an oppose only on the grounds that there are too many is necessary in this case. DeeM28 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think this candidate will do well and I believe they will be active. Frigg (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. There is no need for more interwiki admins IMHO.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) edited --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, I cannot really agree with it since there are only 8 Interwiki Administrators at the moment. Three of them are also inactive and one of them is barely seen on Meta. R4356th (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some are active and response time is fine.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Some are active" - I never said there is not any active interwiki admin. I just pointed out that almost half of the team is inactive. R4356th (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no need for more iw admins, there should have been a quota for total number of IW admins, because there should be a set definition as to which number of IW admin is enough IW admins. &mdash; revi  18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited my vote, I forgot to include "IMHO". --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


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