Requests for global roles: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 *{{support|Strongest}} Per Fearless. [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]] ([[User talk:AlPaD|talk]]) 09:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
 *{{support|Strongest}} --[[User:PinkPugPrincess|PinkPugPrincess]] ([[User talk:PinkPugPrincess|talk]]) 12:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
+== Globe (Revocation) ==
+Hello all.
+I have been ruminating on this for a while, and while I understand my own role in this conflict, it has been brewing for many months behind closed doors. I understand Globe has held this role (or equivalent) since almost day 1 of WO, however right now, I don't believe that Globe has either the intention or the ability to continue to act in the best interest of WO. This latest incident which has cemented my opinion on the matter is relating to attempts to micromanage the opinions of volunteers. I will detail this further along in this fairly long topic.
+This is not meant to be a spiteful attempt to remove him from a position of trust within the community, but I myself feel the trust that I have placed in Globe is no longer honoured. This stems from a pattern of behaviour that I have noticed that appears to me to be anti-community, and some are downright ridiculous:
+* Globe has a very strong opposition to 2FA (two-factor authentication), which is currently mandated for all foundation managed Google accounts. Globe does not have 2FA enabled currently on his on wiki account as of writing, and at the time when I changed 2FA to become a requirement for foundation Google accounts, I recall Globe saying (through channels that have since been made private to me), that he was considering motioning the board to remove requirements for 2FA. I need not explain the security risks this poses, but the attitude of "I have a strong enough password not to get hacked" really isn't sufficient, and runs a risk of compromise to users safety.
+* I continually have the belief that Globe wants to keep control of the site, such as election of stewards, global sysops and other RfC topics under the control of the board, one of his concerns being people from less reputable communities supporting their preferred candidates who may cause problems. While I appreciate the community governance mechanisms haven't been around for long, these concerns are yet to be realised, and I've seen evidence above on this page that these concerns have actively not happened.
+* The latest incident is surrounding volunteer opinions, their ability to speak freely, and Globe actively trying to micromanage them. If you read [[User:Globe/Volunteer Conduct Policy]] (which is largely LLM generated), it effectively removes any ability for volunteers to speak critically on any matter. This is backed up by internal messages, where [[User:Fearless|Fearless]] said to Globe 'You're just trying to drag it out for some ideal behaviour that you want to be enforced on WikiOasis Volunteers', where he then responded 'Correct. You've got it'. The belief that volunteers represent the foundation is entirely unfounded, has not been approved by the board to my knowledge, and these roles are entirely community managed and shouldn't be micromanaged by the foundation, this goes entirely against the point of the roles being appointed.
+I don't want to turn this into a big spat, because it's not worth the time, but right now the constant internal arguments provide an environment I cannot work in, to the point that I am planning to distance myself from the project entirely (or at least to tech only until someone can takeover those responsiblities) when these weekly arguments are happening, it contributes to me becoming ever more burnt out, and generally makes me not enjoy working on the project in the way that I did. I am ending up pulled away from tech to defend my peers when their conduct is continually being pointed out by Globe as unacceptable for various reasons which to me and others seem unacceptable.
+I appreciate this is very much the nuclear option, but right now I don't see Globe's involvement in the steward team to be contributing positively to the overall success of this project, and instead focuses on micromanaging his peers as though he has superiority over them, and continually picking flaws with how they speak in public channels. The approach of those in the private channels must only ever speak positively of WO and the wikis that are hosted on it is not the right one in my belief, and Globe is pushing this so hard that it comes at the expense of the overall wellbeing of the project, to the point that it is actively harming it.
+=== Discussion ===