Requests for global permissions

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

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

 * 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)

Support

 * 1)  Why not? Also, LGTM. Friendly + knows more than one language + knowledgeable + experienced = global mop. I may consider something similar myself in another month or so. 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)

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)