Meta:Requests for permissions/Archive 6

__NOINDEX__

Zppix - Revocation of Rights (Sysop)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * 18:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ］ |

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

Reasoning for request
Alright, let me start off by saying that this decision to post a revocation of rights request was so not made lightly or easy in any case. 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 hi
 * 1) Feeling as though he is not limited by the policy to which he is bound by;
 * 2) Failing to assume good faith to new users on Meta;
 * 3) Failing to adequately warn good faith users who make mistakes user talk pages, seemingly preferring to take the action which requires the least amount of effort (i.e., a block);
 * 4) Feeling as though he is impervious to error when other administrators question his administrator actions and/or decline to act; and,
 * 5) Being unable to differentiate between his Meta administrator and Global Sysop roles, which suggest role conflict

Firstly, some examples of this include Zppix 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] There was also this example[src] in which he blocked a user for a week, without warning, merely for trying, in good-faith, to create a user page and being blocked by an abuse filter. He also ignored a warning from another Meta bureaucrat on his own talk page, [src] to which he obviously saw per is 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 Meta administrator to disregard a warning from a Meta bureaucrat or even any fellow Meta administrator, least of all one who is also a steward, like that.

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 occurring in Meta alone as well as his own personal annoyance with the user, letting personal opinion dictate his actions as a Meta administrator. The fact that he feels the user should either be globally locked or locally blocked on Meta suggests he either doesn't understand the difference between the purpose of a global lock and a local block, or, even more problematic, he apparently feels as though he can do either. 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 bureaucrat and steward 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'  Global Sysop user group at Requests for global rights, in which you're encouraged to review and express a view.

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 warrent 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 warrented.

Support
Per my proposal. 23:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ］ | 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. 23:39, 29 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) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I think he deserves another chance. Waldo (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I approve of the revocation of Zppix as a Global Sysop, I am willing to give it a last chance as a Meta administrator. Added to that, I don't really like that we make two revocation requests at the same time. It's not cool. HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 07:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Contrary to my above statement, I believe Zppix should be given one last chance to be responsible with Meta Sysop rights.  15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I supported and thought that Zppix needed a break from Global Sysop however in this instance I agree with HeartsDo that he deserves another chance as Meta administrator and that it would be unfair to remove both rights at the same time. I disagree with some things I have seen him do on Meta but will be willing to give him another chance to acknowledge the constructive criticism that has been give to him by the community this time. DeeM28 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I'm willing to give Zppix a change on local sysop, I don't feel like he needs his sysop revoked.  17:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


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

Gomdoli (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Gomdoli (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) ］ |

User: Gomdoli ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I joined miraheze, 7 September 2020. And I have contributed to miraheze wikis (including the miraheze meta) for several months. There are 24 Wiki Creators here, but I think about three ~ five seem to be active. I want to shorten the period between the time of the wiki being requested and the time of the wiki being accepted and created.

Additional comments: none

Thanks. Gomdoli (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions

Abstain

 * 1)  Ordinarily I would support all wiki creator requests where I get a good sense the candidate would exercise good judgment in interpreting wiki requests and measuring them against Content Policy; however, given that the requestor's nomination statement is void of any comment that demonstrates their understanding of Content Policy and also that the requestor recently wanted to convert his private testing wiki into an unauthorized fork of Public Test Wiki, do feel like the candidate would do well to reach out to an existing wiki creator and engage in a mentorship, with situational-based probing questions that shows the candidate can fully interpret wiki requests and measure them against Content Policy, and try again, perhaps as a third party nomination, in another couple months. As well, due to the activity level of a handful of wiki creators, we're meeting or exceeding our de facto service level agreement ("SLA") standards. Dmehus (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) *I thought I knew wiki create and Content Policy well, but I wasn't. Thank you. :) Gomdoli (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  you clearly don't understand our wiki creating policies, nor do you have a good reason towards your request I would suggest getting to know our wiki creating policies before requesting wiki creator and not to mention you only have been at miraheze 1 month it's too early. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I feel it may be a bit to early.  15:17, 2 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

BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (Bot)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌. This can be assigned locally on your wiki. This is for Meta bots. Dmehus (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User: BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Bot Reason: I am requesting the bot permission because it will be easier to manage my wikis if the bot can block users, protect/delete pages when I'm not on the wiki. If a user vandalizes something, the bot can quickly revert, protect, and then block the account for page vandalism. If there isn't a bot, the user can keep on vandalizing until a sysop comes online and blocks the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 November 2020 UTC

Additional comments:

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


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

BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ per User close policy. Though there is no minimum support ratio for wiki creator, consensus is clear here that the candidate's recent contraventions of user accounts policy and active partial block on Meta indicate concerns of trustworthiness. Candidate would be well advised to heed the concerns and put some distance between those contraventions and disruptive behaviour, and engage with an experienced wiki creator in a mentorship arrangement after a few months time. Dmehus (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User: BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I am requesting this right because I believe I am ready to tackle the responsibilities of the Wiki creator. I have repeatedly read the Content Policy and the Wiki creator guide, and am ready to answer any questions anyone might have for me. I know that there are some who have issues with my trust level, but I promise I will be impartial, and responsible with these permissions. I realize some users will immediately write:, but I strongly urge you to reconsider, as I have grown familiar with the policies and all that is going on.  —［  ］［ Talk  |  Contributions  |  Guestbook  | Status:   00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1) Hey, who set the thermostat so low? It is SNOWing in here. Zppix (Meta &#124; Sysadmin &#124; talk to me) 02:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) In good faith. Waldo (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) While I certainly believe in second chances, that generally requires time passing (you were engaging in sockpuppetry less than a week ago), and even if that is ignored you are currently blocked from mainspace. Naleksuh (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I think you're still early. -- Gomdoli (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I unfortunately can not support this request. In the past few days alone, you have requested rights on every community wiki, you are currently blocked from editing the main namespace of meta, and have actively engaged in sockpuppetry.  04:44, 18 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