| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 69: |
Line 69: |
| *:For posterity: the subsection Globe is referring to has been removed due to it containing messages from internal volunteer channels. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 02:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC) | | *:For posterity: the subsection Globe is referring to has been removed due to it containing messages from internal volunteer channels. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 02:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC) |
| *::Those channels are not held privately under NDA, so I see no reason why they cannot be partially shared publicly for the sake of this discussion --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 05:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC) | | *::Those channels are not held privately under NDA, so I see no reason why they cannot be partially shared publicly for the sake of this discussion --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 05:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC) |
| *:::"Not under NDA" does not necessarily mean "OK to share" - when private messages get shares publicly, it's usually done as a gotcha rather than in an attempt to legitimately substantiate your claims; in cases where messages from internal channels ''are'' relevant, there's typically no reason why you'd directly quote them rather than paraphrasing (which gets the message across just as well). [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 05:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *::::If I paraphrase it gets accused of it being a personal spat, such as with the 2FA matter where these claims are now seen as "unsubstantiated" despite the fact those messages were shared in private channels that you were a part of --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 05:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *:::::Fair point. [[User:Tali64³|Tali64³]] ([[User talk:Tali64³|talk]]) 05:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *:First part about there not being a shard of proof has been detailed somewhat above — calling it an attempt to spite would be a stretch, I am of the belief that your behaviour which has been ongoing for months, where you call out people who quite often have done nothing wrong for not being "professional", which has never been a requirement to volunteer, is counter-productive and leads to weekly arguments. The board never "refused", I had simply discussed the concept with a few volunteers, and at no point did I ever raise it to a formal board discussion, so this is just entirely untrue. Namedropping IBW in an attempt to get them to become upset and go "Globe is sticking up for us let's make sure he keeps his steward bit" is also unnecessary, I have no problems with them existing here now, but in hindsight they should probably not have been accepted here on so many grounds, notwithstanding the community element. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 05:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *::About the board thing, I definitely could have phrased it better. It wasn’t a strictly board discussion, but multiple board members did comment. I won’t state exactly what everyone said for their privacy, but no one supported changing WikiOasis into this exclusive farm. I name dropped Italian Brainrot Wiki because I had begun to notice a pattern. A pattern of you and fearless continually making comments, both public and private, that disparage IBW. They discredit the work that some members of their administration do in wrangling a potentially problematic user base. I’ve had my fair share of concerns with the things that go on there, but it’s never risen to the level of thinking we should create another farm to exclude them or telling people that I never wanted them on WO in the first place. [[User:Globe|Globe]] ([[User talk:Globe|talk]]) 11:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *:::I never thought to create another farm specifically to exclude them, it was always proposed as a change to make WO more like WG in a way that would involve being more selective in future and providing a much more supportive service focusing on larger wikis than current, given that the current service isn’t the best compared to other services. I simply opposed us becoming a zero requirement farm that has even a lower bar than fandom, at no point did I say that my proposal would include retroactive enforcement of new requirements. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 11:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *::::When you were explaining your vision for this “new” WikiOasis, did you or did you not say it would: “have more wikis like aero, solarpunk, and these new Spanish communities and '''less crap like IBW'''”? [[User:Globe|Globe]] ([[User talk:Globe|talk]]) 11:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *:::::It was an example, at no point did I say that specifically IBW was going to be excluded, but simply wikis of similar scopes, I was describing something closer to WG/MH in quality, and you knew the sentiment I meant at the time. I appreciate the work they have done, however the content on it is still completely brain rotted and I am of the belief that it serves no educational value, which isn't something I myself would want to entertain at the expense of those who actually have a project which is well thought out, generally well behaved and more widely used --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 12:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| * {{oppose}} I agree with JR+ I don't see any evidence to support the claims made against globe [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 04:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC) | | * {{oppose}} I agree with JR+ I don't see any evidence to support the claims made against globe [[User:Cocopuff2018|Cocopuff2018]] ([[User talk:Cocopuff2018|talk]]) 04:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC) |
| * {{support|weak}} Based off zippy's comments below, if the allegations of CheckUser misuse are true, I believe revocation is warranted. However, again, I don't think this is the only solution, and I would rather an RfC regarding every other issue such as 2FA be used to circumvent the deadlock in staff. Additionally, I may change my vote if Globe sufficiently disproves the CheckUser misuse allegations --[[User:SPIRACY NOTCANON|SPIRACY NOTCANON]] ([[User talk:SPIRACY NOTCANON|talk]]) 08:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *:I think this is a really insightful comment actually, and I largely agree with it. Currently, there are no formally established requirements for steward use of the CheckUser tool. The only requirement is to not share the results of CheckUser investigations, as required by the privacy policy. There is no requirement from the community or from the board that explains when CheckUser should and should not be used, nor is there a requirement to leave a reason. I have often not left reasons for my checks, which in hindsight is less than ideal, but I have ALWAYS been willing to explain my checks if other stewards have questions. In my opinion, the solution here is to not continue to entertain this spite request and instead move forward with RfCs to allow the community to decide the requirements for a check and where that line of CU discretion ends, among other things such as 2FA. [[User:Globe|Globe]] ([[User talk:Globe|talk]]) 12:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *::I agree that there should be guidance set in place, however given other stewards fall into the range of anywhere between 0-30% of their checks not having reasons, and you have 90% of your checks without reasons, I would expect a detailed explanation of your checks given how they are almost all unreasoned or with vague reasons, and I will add some below that I'd want reasoning shared for based on a vague skim of the log:
| |
| *::* Checks on User 1 spread between [redacted] and [redacted]
| |
| *::* Checks on User 2 and User 3 [redacted].
| |
| *::* User 4 [redacted]
| |
| *::* User 5 [redacted]
| |
| *::If you are unable to publicly share reasoning for the above, I'd prefer you to paraphrase it vaguely and then email [email protected] the full reasoning for the sake of keeping all informed on the matter. | |
| *::Your comment at the end of your request appears to me as an attempt to divert attention from your usage of CU to instead establish a policy that would get you off the hook for your past checks. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 12:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| *::Edit: I have redacted the above information as I realise it was probably not the wisest to put it on a public talk page, and will instead raise it privately. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 12:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
| I'm going to just make a more detailed version of my initial statement to address some of the issues raised here:
| |
| * I don't think this is entirely a personal spat, ultimately it stems from the fact that short of me entirely leaving the project which I don't see as a feasible option without it dying a very slow and quite painful death, there is no other way to stop the constant arguments that happen internally, that are almost entirely between me and Globe. I will admit I instigate just as many arguments between us, but ultimately it's a conflict that I don't see any other way really to end. I do know how it can be seen as a personal spat, but I really don't see a way forward for my involvement while Globe is here in the position that he is.
| |
| * With regards to the misuse of CheckUser, I have not conducted nor been involved in a full audit, however there are approximately 300 checks across all wikis that Globe has performed, of which 90% had no reason attached to them. When 1 in 10 checks are unclear to others about why exactly they are being performed. Even if they were from SuggestedInvestigations, 96% of his checks from before the feature was even implemented didn't have a reason. This obfuscation makes it unclear why checks are being ran, I assume all are for the most part legitimate checks, but when so many checks don't have a reason I find it hard to AGF.
| |
| * There is a wider pattern of poor handling of PII, for example, internally I have been pushing to use Slack for NDAed communications, such as board, T&S and tech. Globe is seemingly entirely opposed to moving stewards onto Slack, which is a safer place for PII as it means that a rouge discord admin can't grant someone a role which would then give them access to a fairly substantial amount of PII shared in various channels.
| |
| * I will clear up a lot on the 2FA part:
| |
| ** Firstly, Globe did not actually motion the board, based on my recollection it was simply some form of threat to push for removing 2FA as a requirement on Discord.
| |
| ** Secondly, regarding that it is "untrue" — I appreciate there may be gaps in what I can say here as it happened a while ago in the board discord server, there were frequent discussions from Globe surrounding him wanting to get rid of 2FA requirements.
| |
| ** I primarily recall Globe making a threat/statement along the lines of "please remove 2FA from Discord or I will motion the board", this was corroborated by a message that I sent to someone in April where I said 'did I mention globe has threatened to motion the board surrounding the requirement for 2fa in discord/google' — which to me reiterates my belief that Globe was going to consider using his board role to remove a 2FA requirement on discord.
| |
| * With regards to how Globe says he was the first to support the motion surrounding community governance, I do not doubt that, however it took a lot of pushback. Globe had prepared a form for people to express interest in becoming global volunteers, which in response to I expressed the general sentiment that I would prefer we go for the system of publicly requested roles voted on by the community, to which he very literally said "no" without any further discussion. Below is a transcript of that interaction:
| |
| ** Globe: <link to global permission interest form>
| |
| ** [cut 7 messages unrelated about another wiki]
| |
| ** Globe (replying to link above): should i publish?<br>wanted your OK first
| |
| ** Zippy: I'd rather we did proper community requests<br>on an RfP page
| |
| ** Globe: no<br>any other concerns?
| |
| * Furthermore, Globe has made it clear to me how he doesn't want me to be anything beyond a tech here, in multiple messages that echo a similar sentiment, saying "no one has asked you to be a steward, safety, discord mod, etc."
| |
| * Then there's the handling of two fairly large wiki migrations which ultimately went unsuccessfully and I question largely.
| |
| **Wikinews was shutdown by the WMF in early May, and one person who edited Wikinews (won't name them here to avoid outing them) joined the WO discord and wanted to move Wikinews to WO (along with 1-2 others), despite no consensus existing from the existing Wikinews community based on Meta discussions, and discussions ongoing between MH and the WMF surrounding the copyright. Despite this, newswiki was created in what I can only describe as an overzealous attempt to move a community with no consensus. This prompted me being privately told by an onlooker that WO was not a "serious enough project for anyone other than you", and they had encouraged newswiki not to stay with WO.
| |
| **Sneaky Sasquatch Wiki was considering a move from Fandom, to either WO, MH, WG or WGG — the aggressive attitude of Globe (and others) at very quickly joining their Discord after one of their bureaucrats had asked for advice in the WO discord and pushing very aggressively for them to join WO, to the point that those in their community had become suspicious. I then followed, having already been in the server since before the founding of WO as a periodic player of the game. I was mostly giving the advice to them that while WO is very similar to MH, they may get somewhat better service from MH/WG, effectively saying that I don't always agree with what goes on at WO, trying to give the sentiment of "it’s not the best space for every wiki". Globe apparently took this as me attempting to disparage WO, saying verbatim that "nobody had asked me to join, that I did so of my own accord to share information that would not make them migrate". I am genuinely of the belief that not every wiki is one that best suits WO, and equally so that WO doesn't best suit every wiki, and forcing a community into something they themselves aren't sure of is simply dishonest and would cause more long term damage than simply encouraging them to find the best host for them.
| |
| I hope this clears things up for those who are confused. --'''[[User:Zippy|zippy]]'''[[User talk:Zippy|bonzo]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Zippy|c]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/Zippy|ca]]) 06:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
| |
