Requests for global roles: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 75:

*::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)

* {{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)

*:::Has @[[User:Globe|Globe]] sufficiently proven said checks were justified? If you cannot say so for privacy reasons, I understand, and I will change my vote to Abstain in that case as I do not have enough information to make an informed judgement. [[User:SPIRACY NOTCANON|SPIRACY NOTCANON]] ([[User talk:SPIRACY NOTCANON|talk]]) 21:18, 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.