Requests for global roles: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by 2 users not shown)

Line 79:

* {{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.