Requests for global permissions

Closed requests for global rights:
 * Archive 1 (23 July 2018 - 19 December 2019)
 * Archive 2 (20 December 2019 -

Sourav Halder's Request for Interwiki administrator
User: Sourav Halder ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
Hi I'm Sourav Halder.According to the policy, the user is a validate candidate with over 1000 global edits and more than 2 months old. Interwiki administrator I request you to improve the position.I am sharing the link to my global contribution for your convenience The number of my global contributions 2,323 ,Besides, I have been working Miraheze for 4 months.The humble request will improve my rank.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Here is the reason why I would be Interwiki administrators


 * 1) If there is no local Administrator present on the wiki, I will request a community notice board to change the interwiki.
 * 2) When I went to edit any wiki after becoming Administrator for Interwiki administrators, I was able to prevent it from being destroyed here.
 * 3) We help develop the global wiki.
 * 4) As rule I will contribute. ~'Sourav Halder'  02:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Opposing this based on the fact that the user has been blocked multiple times on Meta and has abused multiple accounts in order to vote for themselves for other permissions requests. This makes it impossible for me to trust this user with any elevated rights at this moment. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Believe in me and take away my right if I make a mistake. I realized my mistake ~'Sourav Halder'  08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not really how the system works. For me, this is just too early after what you did just a few weeks ago. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What should i do now. From now on I want to contribute honestly. Please do not deprive me of this right.Give me a chance to correct my mistake.I promise it will never happen again. ~'Sourav Halder'  08:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to seriously contribute you can continue helping out and prove your worth, and in a few months if you are trustworthy I could consider supporting a request. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)  Go a little while without any sockpuppetry or bad behavior anywhere on Miraheze and I would be glad to support you. EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand your talk. ~'Sourav Halder'  19:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What I mean is: nobody trusts you because you are currently known to be vandal and a sockpuppeteer. That said, if you show that you really are here to contribute, then people will trust you. I am telling you to just behave yourself and come back to request again in a month or so and you will have a better chance at getting the rights that you want. EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 20:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks I understand. ~'Sourav Halder'  20:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reception123's Request (Confirmation) for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful reconfirmation. John (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User: Reception123 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
As per the new RfC that just passed, former CVT members are required to have a confirmation vote in order to be transitioned to the Global Sysop role. I have been a member of the Counter Vandalism Team since 7 March 2017 and I would like to continue my work fighting vandalism and cross-wiki spam, but also with the new scope of Global Sysop I will be able to help the community more and also help Stewards. I'm active on Meta and regularly check abuse logs and IRC feeds as well as noticeboards to deal with user complaints, and if I am confirmed as Global sysop I will continue to do so, as well as support different communities on Miraheze. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)   ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sure!--MrJaroslavik (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Was an excellent CVT member, I'm sure they will make an excellent Global Sysop. Sario528 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  A trusted and active user.-- 15:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Without a doubt. Hispano76 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  --そらたこ (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  No issues. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  Trusted user, very active, no problems here. Bonnedav (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  Great CVT member and sysadmin will make for a great GS. Good luck Reception :) -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 10)  I have no qualms. WickyHoney (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 11)  From what I have seen this user is active and has been useful as CVT so I do not have any problems with the transition to Global Sysop to continue to be able to help us. DeeM28 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 12)  Per above.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Was an  hard-working CVT member. --松 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 14)  Sure, why not?  14:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 15)   he is helpful to everyone and Listens to whatever anyone has to say i think he deserves this --Cocopuff2018  16:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Zppix's Request for global sysop
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Request does not meet the requirements for appointment as outlined in the Global Sysop policy. John (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Reasoning for request
Just confirming (and/or requesting the rights again) (albeit a bit late as i was on a wikibreak) as I wish to continue my work as a GS Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1)  Will you be active if elected Global Sysop? (since you were not able to be here in time for your confirmation). DeeM28 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes i will, I was inactive before as I was on a Leave of Absence. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Welcome back :)--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Zppix did a great job as CVT before and I'm sure they will continue as Global Sysop :) Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Was an excellent addition to CVT, will make an excellent Global Sysop. Sario528 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Great CVT member and always fair with other users. I think that they will make a great global sysop. -<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Certainly,I think that the latest activity amount of Zppix tends to decrease.But I think Zppix should be the global sysop.Because I think Global Sysop Group should meet the condition: inf {#Global Sysop Group (Set)} = 2. i.e. I think the assumption that there is only one person at global sysop is sufficient to reach the conclusion that the review of work done by global sysop is still under review.In short,I think that a global sysop needs a colleague who can consult.--松 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I am sure they will use their rights accordingly. WickyHoney (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  Seems reasonable. I'd also add that, per Zppix' user rights' log, it seems this is mostly a procedural nomination that requires all global sysops to undergo an Requests for Permissions-like nomination process and vote. Activity on Meta is substantial, and I'm satisfied with their needing to take a leave of absence from the project as the reason for the inactivity. (As an aside, perhaps we should draft a policy on requesting or notifying of leaves of absence and expected dates of return that could involve the administrator, global sysop, or steward requesting or notifying the applicable noticeboard on Meta?) At the end of the day, we do have the ability to revoke user rights, which could include long-term unexplained recurring absences. Dmehus (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  Without a doubt.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I am not familiar enough with this user to make an educated vote. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * for 2 reasons. One, I am not very familiar with this user beyond the fact that they are the operator of one of the main bots on IRC. This in and of itself would not be reason for me to oppose, but I thought about why exactly I wasn't familiar with this user, and I realized that it is because they are not very active on Meta. The user has not made any global locks since February, has not made any global blocks since March with the exception of a single global block made on May 1, and has only made three local blocks in the past 2 months. Sorry, but that's not nearly enough activity for me. I know the user is also a sysadmin and I believe that they are more active in that role, which is fine, but I do not think that they are active enough in this role for me to support their reelection. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but if im understanding right, my activity isnt showing activity? Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that you have extremely little activity in regards to CVT/global sysop tool usage, and therefore I do not feel that you are active enough at the role for me to support. Amanda Catherine (talk) 21:28, 8 June 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's Request for global sysop
User: Zppix ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I am running for global sysop as I was a member of CVT, the only reason I did lose it was due to me being on a LOA and missing the timeframe to do a "reup". My beliefs about vandalism and other various policy violations have stayed the same and believe that I can ensure that reports that are brought to attention are dealt with in a timely manner. I am fairly active in the community either on IRC or Discord especially. I also am in a timezone that is somewhat in between that of other GS and stewards. I hope you all will consider me again for this position Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) I've already supported you, again, without question,, but I thought it would be helpful for other community members, who don't know you, to have at least one question you can answer. On wikis that haven't opted out of the Global Sysop program, can you illustrate process or method by which you quickly and efficiently locate that wiki's local content, conduct, promotions, and other policies (including any limitations locally placed on Global Sysops)? This is, of course, assuming, they aren't linked prominently from the main page, but just sort of paint a picture for everyone how you'd find their local policies with respect to the above, consensus determination, etc., to ensure you're operating within the local policies. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would search the pages use Special:AllPages, or check the categories to see if they have a policy category. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 23:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. That's probably exactly what I'd do, too. :P Dmehus (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  You're honorable and kind. WickyHoney (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Without a doubt. Hispano76 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per my support last time, hopefully this time it passes. Now that you're active again it'd be great to have you back on the team :) Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) SS undefined We need more global sysops/stewards and every new steward/global sysop is the benefit for the project. But for that we need more candidates...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Friendly + helpful + compassionate + clue = global mop. Passes my simple criteria. Dmehus (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I know I'm swimming upstream here, but I still don't feel that Zppix is active enough for the global sysop toolkit. For me, general activity levels (i.e. activity in one area but not another) is not adequate when requesting advanced permissions, especially global permissions. For these kind of requests, I want to see at least a fair amount of activity in the areas where the rights in question would be directly used. Since the user's previous request, their only actions on Meta have been creating wikis as a wiki creator, making this announcement on the Community noticeboard, and filing this second RFP. The statistics that I put forward about their use, or rather a lack thereof, of the CVT/global sysop tools when they held the rights prior to the reform RFC still remain unchanged. While I believe that Zppix is an excellent system administrator and bot maintainer/administrator, I do not see enough activity on-wiki to justify the gaining of global sysop rights at this time. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you putting forward and articulating a valid argument regarding ' activity levels. I think you've better articulated your concerns this time around (versus last time). Though it's not enough for me not to support Zppix, I do think the concerns you've addressed are both fair and valid. We should have high on-wiki activity levels (not necessarily on Meta, though that helps) for users with advanced rights, especially global rights like Global Sysops. Anyway, I just wanted to reply to you and thank you for sharing a valid concern, as I really dislike it when editors oppose on grounds of, "I'm not sure we need anymore," or "we have enough already," as those address the role not the candidate. I'm sure Zppix will be happy to reply to your concerns and, perhaps, put in place a possible remediation plan whereby he might be subject to recall in say n number of months if x level of on-wiki activity is not met? Would such a plan be enough to move you to support? Dmehus (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I may not have contributions, but I am very active on wiki, and off wiki, if I'm not doing something or watching meta, I'm usually doing something sysadmin related, remember, just because I don't make edits doesn't make me inactive. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 01:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points,, and that's, partially, why I'm not changing my !vote. Personally, I think we should just adopt an amendment to the System administrators global policy that gives explicit permission for system administrators, while they hold that role, to serve as de facto backups to the stewards as and when a steward is not available. They already have the access, so there's no reason not to do this, actually. Dmehus (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)