Requests for global permissions/Archive 2

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
Archive 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 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC
  • Abstain

    1.  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)
    2.  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)
    3.  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

    1.  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)
    2.  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

  •  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

     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)

  •  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 (talkcontribs) 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

    1.  Oppose He's been very helpful. Waldo (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

    Abstain

    1.  Abstain -- Gomdoli (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    2.  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