|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
|
Sourav Halder's Request for Interwiki administrator
Sourav Halder's Request for Interwiki administrator
Reception123's Request (Confirmation) for Global Sysop
Zppix's Request for global sysop
Zppix's Request for global sysop
Cocopuff2018's Request for Global Sysop
MrJaroslavik's Request for global sysop
Support I believe this user is capable of being a global administrator. He seems knowledgable and active, as well as kind too from my perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmodulars (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC
Abstain
- Abstain 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)
- Abstain I agree with Amanda's point of view here, which is why I'll also abstain. Hypercane (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Abstain 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. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 11:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Im not very familar with this user, and I think it may be too soon. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
AtticComedian's Request for
Dmehus'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. John (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User: Dmehus (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Reasoning for request
I am a wiki creator here on Meta, who has been successful, together with my fellow wiki creator colleagues, at ensuring all valid wiki requests are created either the same day or by the next day (which was a personal stated goal in my successful wiki creator nomination), and an active community volunteer who helps out on Discord and here on Meta daily through the noticeboards, talk pages, and elsewhere with answering users' questions and responding to requests. When there is a request to a link to a local wiki's local interwiki table, usually at the community noticeboard, it is also my goal that such requests be completed by the end of the calendar day on which it was requested, just as we are now seeing all valid wiki requests created within the same timeframe. We currently only have six members of the interwiki administrators global group, three of whom are either largely or somewhat inactive and the other three who are either active or semi-active. Excluding those who are either largely or somewhat inactive, this means we have less than one interwiki administrator for every 1,000 wikis. In addition to actioning such requests in a timely fashion, I would also like to make local wiki bureaucrats aware that it is possible for them to select (through a local appointment or election process) a local interwiki administrator, a process which is ultimately effected by a steward.
Secondarily, on that point about locally selected interwiki administrators, over the medium- and long-term, I intend to do outreach to our most active and largest content wikis, to make their local bureaucrats aware of the advantages of using interwiki links versus external links (i.e., in templates). This would be part of a larger outreach strategy I'm planning that, together, should help to boost overall community participation on Meta and a general feeling of increased community cohesion.
In terms of assessment process for deciding whether or not to add a site to the interwiki table, I would assess who owns the site, who is hosting the site, whether and if the site has a valid SSL website security certificate, and various other factors, such as general common sense.
With that, I welcome any questions the community may have and look forward to your support. Dmehus (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Prerequisites
- Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze (on more than one wiki) (Note: These edits may not consist of directly copy/pasting content from other wikis, they must be edits done by the user)
Met - 2,016 global edits
- As at the date of this nomination
- Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months
Met - Two months
- Be involved in some way in community matters (in discussions on Community Noticeboard, etc.)
Met - Very active on the Meta noticeboards, companion talk pages, and Discord, answering questions from new or existing users, and responding to requests.
- n.b. Meta is one of my two home wikis, and I will always be very active here
Questions for candidate
Support
- Strong support Not only he is pretty active in Meta and Discord, but he's also a very nice guy. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 18:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support Eager to help, knows what he's doing, asks if he needs help, polite, definitely active. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 18:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongest support Why the hell not? Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. I mean, Doug, you are probably one of the best contributors here on miraheze. You help other users, and you helped me. There is absolutely no reason for you to not have this right. --TFFfan (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support Hispano76 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support He is always positively helping people.--松•Matsu (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongest support Sure! Why not? 「T ҍ C」(yell / earth) left miraheze 13:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongest support Very helpful and friendly user! User:Universal Omega/Sig 14:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC) ] |
Strongest support He is helpful I appreciate all the stuff he does and all the help he provides. He has my full support. (: --Cocopuff2018 16:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Very helpful, friendly and has a large knowledge of how Miraheze (and MW) works --Lakelimbo (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Why not ? There is very helpful and active on Miraheze ! HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Strong support He definitely is active and experienced enough to get the user group. I support. Hypercane (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
Universal Omega'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. John (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
User: Universal Omega (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Reasoning for request
I am pleased to be able to nominate @Universal Omega: as an additional global interwiki administrator, principally, because, as noted below, he has also taken to being active on Meta, doing a lot of patrolling, answering users' questions on the community noticeboard, creating wikis with the guidance provided by me and other wiki creators, and enhancing Meta's content pages. Additionally, he is also helpful and active with answering users' questions on Discord, especially when it comes to CSS styling and MediaWiki skin questions. Even though my interwiki administrator request closed yesterday, we do still have only seven (7) global interwiki administrators, for which only roughly 5 (including me) are either very active, active, or somewhat active. With nearly 4,000 wikis, we could do well to have at least a couple more. Universal Omega was very intrigued with my plan to do outreach to our busiest and most active wikis, making them aware of the advantages of using interwiki links instead of external links and also that they can hold hold a local election or appointment process for one or more local interwiki administrators, consistent with both their local and Miraheze global policies. With the upcoming outreach and reworked way of handling interwiki requests, I fully expect to see an uptick in interwiki addition requests, thereby adding to the need for more interwiki administrators. Secondarily, Universal Omega comes to us from Fandom, in which he has also migrated several wikis from Fandom to here, so this simplifies him having to request local interwiki administrator granting by stewards, after having held local election or appointment processes, on multiple wikis.
Nominated by: Dmehus (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination accepted by: Universal Omega (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Nominated candidate's acceptance statement: I would would to start by thanking @Dmehus: for the nomination. I would like the opportunity to help Miraheze in even more ways then I already am, which is why I am accepting this nomination. Me being an interwiki admin provides me with a unique ability to help Miraheze with interwiki requests, as I already do with wiki requests. I thank you for consideration!
Prerequisites
- Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze (on more than one wiki) (Note: These edits may not consist of directly copy/pasting content from other wikis, they must be edits done by the user)
Met - 4,442 global edits
- n.b. Many of these edits, would've been related to the importing of files and such from his Fandom wikis, but with more than 100 edits on Meta, it is certainly reasonable to expect there were at least 900 additional, manual edits done by the user
- As at the date of this nomination
- Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months
Met - Four months
- Be involved in some way in community matters (in discussions on Community Noticeboard, etc.)
Met - Active with patrolling on Meta, enhancing content pages, answering questions on the noticeboards, and helping users on Discord
- Note: Please kindly refrain from voting until the candidate has accepted this nomination and added their own comments. Thank you.
Questions for candidate
Support
- Strong support As nominator, to which I'd add that Universal Omega is friendly, engaging, helpful, and, crucially, very receptive to feedback and constructive criticism as part of his personal training and learning process. I've seen this first-hand as his unofficial wiki creator mentor. No concerns. Dmehus (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per Dmehus --Lakelimbo (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support Nimrod (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nice user overall. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 14:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I believe he is quite suitable for the role. As such, I support this. Hypercane (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very helpful on the Miraheze server! UpnCbs06 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support One of the best users I've work with! Glad to have the opportunity to work with someone as talented as him. Cool11guy12 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support he’s active and helpful fully support him --Cocopuff2018 01:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
Oppose First off, I feel it's too early and, 2nd, I would like to see him make more edits on more wikis before requesting this rank. Most of his edits come from one individual wiki and to get this rank the user should edit on more then just a few wikis. --Cocopuff2018 05:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural (Weak) Oppose I do not like opposing users that seem friendly and helpful which is the case for the user, but I can not support this request for the only reason that only 248 edits are actually made outside of their own wiki which to me is a bit cheating the system of 1000 edits. As soon as there would be 1000 edits outside of their own wiki I would support this user. "Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze (on more than one wiki)". I do not want this to discourage you though, you are doing a good job and I would switch to support until the requirement is met! DeeM28 (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: @DeeM28: thank you for the vote. While I will 100% accept it, and understand it, I would like to still comment on it. I do not personally feel as though I do not meet the criteria. I do have 1000 global edits, and while it may be true that quite a bit are on my own wikis, the requirement is not 1000 edits on multiple wikis equivalating to multiple thousands of edits. The requirement is meant to show that the user has global activity, and from my activity on meta, and others where users do request help sometimes, simply helping them there, I do feel I meet that criteria. Thank you! User:Universal Omega/Sig 08:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC) ] |
- Comment: @Universal Omega: I said before I do not exactly have a problem with supporting you as the interewiki administrator role is concise but for me the policy means you need more edits. I put the "procedural vote" mention because if maybe, I misunderstood this policy then my vote cannot count. My vote should only be taken into account by a steward if the way that I interpreted the interwiki administrator policy is also right. If I did not interpret it right maybe my vote can be "Weak support". I hope the steward that closes this can make the policy clear for me. DeeM28 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @DeeM28: I believe your vote and argument are valid, but I don't think it's a "procedural" !vote. My understanding is the requirement is for only 1,000 global edits on at least two Miraheze wikis. There's no specific quantity on how many of those 1,000 contributions cannot be simply imports or copying and pasting of pages/templates from other wikis, but that's certainly a valid argument one can assess, as you've done. It then comes down a nosecount and a weighing of the arguments presented. A portion of those 1,000 contributions could be copying and pasting or import contributions, but I believe at least the majority of them should be manual edits (including WikiGnome and copyediting-type edits). As I stated in my nomination of Universal Omega, though I suspect a lot of the ~4,400 or so global edits were imports, uploads, and copying and pasting-type edits, I believe there's sufficiently enough to have the majority of the 1,000 edit requirement be manual edits (including on his own DC Multiverse Wiki). Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
DarkMatterMan4500's Request for Global Sysop
Gomdoli4696's Request for global sysop
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 • CA • blocks log • rights log • 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:
- Being unable to manage the role conflict between his Global Sysop and system administrator roles;
- Feeling as though he is not limited by the policy to which he is bound by; and,
- 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 Meta: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.
Screenshot evidence
Support
- Support Per my proposal User:Universal Omega/Sig 23:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ] |
Strongest support Hello community, we have an extremely troubling problem at this time. A meta administrator/global sysop by the name of @Zppix: 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#Recent Block, 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 @Naleksuh: to ban me from TestWiki because I deleted a page. Just a notice: I deleted it with a @Dmehus:'s (a consul) permission there. On Meta, the co-founder of Miraheze, @John: 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. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 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)
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)
- @Naleksuh: Does this mean a Support? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- BlackWidowMovie0 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! BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support Per above. 「T ҍ C」(yell / earth) left miraheze 00:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Strong support 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)
Weak support. He does strike me as impulsive and harsh. I will support revocation for now. --GondorChicken (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, 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 sysadmin
and globalsysop
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)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support Per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkarletWitch (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support Probably my best advice for Zppix is that he should probably improve his response towards such situations --Hookuai (Talk to Nuclear Jaws) 02:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Support Per all the above points posted. Hypercane (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Support 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 | CVT Member | 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
- Oppose He's been very helpful. Waldo (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Abstain
- Abstain -- Gomdoli (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Abstain 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
R4356th's Request for Interwiki Administrator
WikiJS's Request for Global Sysop
DarkMatterMan4500's Request for Global Sysop
Ugochimobi's Request for Global Sysop
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section