Requests for global permissions

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

Zppix's Request for global sysop

 * 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 Sysops 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. -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

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Success. John (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * 6)  User meets all my criteria for knowledge, friendliness, and fairness. I have no issues with Zppix's activity level. Sario528 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) SS undefined no change from my last vote.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  It was a shame that last time this request did not pass as there are really more global sysops needed. Zppix has enough experience for this role and has said they will be active if elected. DeeM28 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  Paladox (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 10)  He is feeling pretty active, and also kind. I support this. CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 12:49, 12 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)
 * "just because I don't make edits doesn't make me inactive." is simply not correct. If you don't make edits or logged actions, we have no way of knowing if you are active or not, since just reading things doesn't leave any trace behind. As I said above, just because you are active in one area doesn't automatically make you active in all areas. Being active as a sysadmin is not enough for me to support granting advanced global rights if you are not also active on-wiki. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


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

MrJaroslavik's Request for global sysop
User: MrJaroslavik ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
So... How start? Hello, here is MrJaroslavik, from Czech Republic... After much deliberation, I decided to request the global sysop rights. Yes, I know it's a little early, I wanted to apply in 1-3 months, but for a few reasons I request now. Yes, I'm in the same timezone as most of users (CEST) I think I know how recognize vandalism/trolling/spamming and other bad things. I have experience with vandalism handling on WMF projects as global rollbacker. I have read and understand policies, of course. Thank you for considering this request and all your votes! Any questions? Ask me.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have about 4 000 wikis and only 4 stewards and 2 GSs (with Zppix)
 * Miraheze need more active global users and more GSs and stewards as well.
 * I would like to help with the handling request and reports (SN, #cvt channel, etc.) - I have enabled notifications on Miraheze discord server and i getting notifications about recent changes on Miraheze Meta as well (thanks to @Reception123)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
If this my application will not be successful, but someone else applies for global rights, it will be success for me.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1)  What administrative tasks would you be most likely to do across all wikis, and why is this important enough to deserve global sysop rights? --TFFfan (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The most important task of a global sysop/steward is to respond quickly to urgent requests > (b)locks. Knowledge of abuse filters and the ability to search spam-logs/abuse are also required by me. Any more questions? :)--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. And you have my full support!
 * 1)  Would you be able to streamline communication and help on IRC? Sometimes I have questions/help needed and go there, and I would like to see some more activity (no offense to any currently working members on IRC, good job to you guys). Fredmodulars (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not an IRC user, but I am active on IRC using a relay from Discord-IRC, see Discord for more info. If the user needs help, he can write there, or ping me.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Why not? Also, LGTM. Friendly + knows more than one language + knowledgeable + experienced = global mop.  In consideration of the subsequent comments, particularly Amanda Catherine and Universal Omega below, I am clarifying my support level only slightly. I'm still supporting because the user is friendly, knows multiple languages, and has demonstrated experience with cross-wiki counter-vandalism as a global rollbacker on Wikimedia projects, but am just a bit concerned they may be spreading themselves too thin (as local administrator and a Global Sysop). In short, I'd prefer to see MrJaroslavik as either an administrator on Meta or a Global Sysop, which would be enough to move me back to full, if not strong, support.  Amended 22 July 2020. Dmehus (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think its a bit early to request this and I am not sure how much Miraheze counter-vandalism experience this user has. I give my weak support because this user is friendly and very active and can back up their claims with their Wikimedia countervandalism experience so they do not deserve an oppose. DeeM28 (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above  18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I do think it's a bit early to request this status, but I will show support as I have experienced only good things from this user. WickyHoney (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  We have very few global sysops. We need more of these, and  is the a great choice for global sysop. I have seen him around, he has contributed significantly to the project, and I don't see why he should not be a global sysop. I also see him frequently, and he could check and respond to issues or concernes at the admin noticeboard, and would also help lock abusive users. I also want to say to him, keep up the good work, and possibly request stewardship in about a year. --TFFfan (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  - No need to explain PowerDagger15 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  I think it is a little bit to early for this, but from what I have seen this user is helpful.  23:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 8)  I believe this user is capable of being a global administrator. He seems knowledgable and active, as well as kind too from my perspective.

Abstain

 * 1)  While I do think that the candidate is helpful around Meta, I feel that they are jumping into things a little too quickly. They requested Meta administrator much earlier than most users would that I know of, and now they are requesting global sysop, again much quicker than most users. As such, I do not feel comfortable supporting at this time, but there are no red flags that I know of that would cause me to oppose. So I land here. Amanda Catherine (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with Amanda's point of view here, which is why I'll also abstain.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I also agree with Amanda and Hypercane. I think they step up too soon. But there's not enough bad things to make me oppose.  11:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Im not very familar with this user, and I think it may be too soon. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) he requested right' not too long ago So i am going to be opposing for Now Keep up the good work Though And then in about 3 months you got my support (: --Cocopuff2018  18:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018'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 diff.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Cocopuff2018 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I think we could use more Global Sysops currently there are only two. What I would do as a Global Sysop is clean up spam and vandalism. I'm an active user and made over 600+ edits. I think it's important to have Users to enforce Terms of Use, and clean up bad edits. I would make sure that things are handled in a fair way. I am experienced at vandalism and spam. Since it's summertime, I have more time on my hands and would like to use it fighting vandalism. On top of all that, I will take care of wikis with inactive staff members, including Admins, and Bureaucrats. I am a friendly user, and think it's important to take care of inactive wikis. I would be available most of the time when someone needs me to do something, and to wrap it up. Last of all, I am good with installing/managing abuse filters. I would go provide abuse filters to wikis in needed of filters and am helpful throughout the server and Miraheze. (:

Support

 * 1)  This user is very helpful and welcoming new users, primarily on Discord and Phabricator. Universal Omega (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
 * 2)  I don't have to explain PowerDagger15 (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think he will be a good and helpful Global Sysops
 * 4)  Cocopuff is a very friendly user as the comments have mentioned. Although his goals as a sysop seem broad, I have inquired about them with him and he has clarified and elaborated them with me. However new and slightly inexperienced at times, he seems dedicated and active and he should have a good shot at global rights, although I do advise he has some more time on the platform for a bit and truly understand the role as my fellow users have mentioned.Fredmodulars (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I think you have good ideas for what you would do as a GS. You are active around here, and you have made several hundred edits. I think that you would be able to handle the task. --TFFfan (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  you stand with the beliefs of the AntiWikians and are a very friendly user. I believe that if you become a global admin that you could change the whole way wikifarms work. Anti Sinistram AZ (User talk:Anti Sinistram AZ) 19:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Very friendly user, extraordinarily helpful and welcoming to new users/Mirahezians, primarily on Discord but on-wiki as well; however, it's not clear from the candidate's nomination statement that they've fully digested and interpreted all of the duties that the Global Sysop role entails. It's not enough for me to outright oppose the candidate, but I can't outright support, either, so, regrettably, this is where I land. As I've said to the user on Discord, I'm happy to guide them to a particular local or global role in which I think they'd be well suited, and this has not changed. Dmehus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This really is a person open to help and that seem to have a lot of experience. As with Dmehus, I think that it's present presentation doesn't show a clear understanding of what does a Sysop. Developing a clearer understanding should be required in my own opinion. On the other hand, it's clear that he can still help those that accept it.

Oppose

 * 1)  I believe it's too early for this user to request such a prestigious user right, and it's not the first time the user has tried to achieve a feat like this (such as requesting Oversight once, and Wiki Creator more than once), which makes me feel that the candidate has too much confidence. I am okay with not giving up so easily, but it just strikes me that the user is too insistent in getting such an altitudinous position, which doesn't bode well for me. I do think the candidate is acting in good faith, but maybe this user should perhaps give us way more time to get familiar with them and how they work. I heard they have lots of experience, but I haven't seen it and I would like to. WickyHoney (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  While Coco may be helpful on Discord, I don't believe requesting global sysop is appropriate at this time and I also don't believe the user has enough experience for this role yet. As WickyHoney also pointed out, the user has requested quite a few rights in the past which seems a bit like hat collecting as well. Additionally, Cocopuff2018 said "I think it's important to have Users to enforce Terms of Use", which is factually incorrect since the Terms of Use is enforced by system administrators and not by elected users, with all the other policies being enforced by Stewards and Global Sysops. Therefore, I am not confident that this user is fully aware of how our policies work and of what the role of global sysops entails just yet. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Although I requested the same rights, also very early, so I agree with Reception123's and WickyHoney's inputs.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I'm sorry Coco, while you are helpful on Discord, it's a bit too early. I also don't think he is experienced in global sysop.  12:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I see that many people here have mention Cocopuff2018 being a friendly user and helping people on Discord but I do not think that is enough for someone to be global sysop and a global sysop takes care of wikis not Discord. I checked the contributions for this user and he has very little contributions on Meta and I do not see any proof that this user would be able to do countervandalism from his contributions or that he has already helped wikis. Since the recent RfC global sysops are more powerful and this power should not be this easy to get. My oppose is weak because I like giving everyone a chance and if Cocopuff2018 proves that he has experience I can change my mind for the next global right request. DeeM28 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) too soon imho. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 14:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Having seen their behaviour on Discord, they are absolutely far from demonstrating the maturity and competence needed to serve as a global sysop. They have demonstrated cluelessness with help requests. For example, in this image, when a user asked about the line underneath "From Dreamverse Wiki", they responded "Oh that's suppose to be there" (when it's not, and they clearly did not think their response through). They have been seen forum-shopping for votes on Discord via DMs (link), which earns an automatic oppose from me. Moreover, they have also been banned from the Wikimedia Discord server after making a racist comment about Chinese people (which has since been deleted). I could list more reasons, but the last one especially should be enough to completely disqualify this candidate from serving in any capacity with any global tools. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


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