Requests for global roles: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:48, 24 May 2026

You can request Steward, Global Sysop, and Global Patroller permissions on this page.

Any user who registered before a request was opened may vote in that request. Only one vote per user per request is permitted, and it cannot come from an alternative account. This is to prevent abuse.

All archives by year can be found here.

Please make your request below the line.

DarkMatterMan4500 (Global Patroller)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Successful -Globe (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am DarkMatterMan4500 from Miraheze, and I want to apply for the Global Patrollers permission here on WikiOasis, based on my experiences from Miraheze, since I have been working hard on clearing away vandalism all across the wikifarm for the counter-vandalism team from said wikifarm. Now, I understand that some of you may have questions and concerns for me, and I'll do my best to answer them in the best way I can, so feel free to give your honest opinions without sugarcoating anything. I am fully aware that Global Patrollers can block users all across the WikiOasis wikis (regardless of where the disruption is taking place), delete pages, revisions, and use the basic tools, but with limited options, something that I'm willing to take as a fellow editor. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

Strong support Why not? - FNFGamer718 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Candidate is well known in Miraheze and known in the MH Discord as a GP that deals with vandals or CVT issues at the CVT channel. Additionally after consulting Raidarr, the candidate has some issues that can be fixed (but no red flags) and 200 edits on Meta. This is what Raidarr said about DMM: "He has problems identifying and staying on the line and the overall approach, well, you can kind of tell by interacting long enough, that said he is one of the most determined watchers and catches things pretty much everyone in here wouldn't have time to look for, the act of patrolling he can do very well, knowing the line on pressing elevated buttons, always been an issue". I believe this person is fit for GP and the issues can be edged out in time. Fearless (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fearless: I'm glad to hear that, especially from Raidarr indirectly. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Always had good interactions for DMM, I have no doubt that they would put the tools to good use. --Crystalite13 (talk) (contribs)
@Crystalite13: Don't forget to sign your vote! Fearless (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fearless and Crystalite13: I'm glad to hear that from you 2. I'll do my best like always. :) --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support no major concerns, would be good to have a few more people to help around. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 18:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support Per Fearless. AlPaD (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support --PinkPugPrincess (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 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. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 07:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support. I, too, have been pondering on this for a while, and Globe's involvement in the project is very much hurting, rather than helping. Constant spats with Zippy, constant dictatorial actions. I'm done with Globe, and I think it's his time to move on from the project. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this seems to have turned into purely a personal spat, and I suggest a boomerang for those involved. Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FNFGamer718 (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No offense, but he has to go and move on. A lot of times Globe and Zippy are usually arguing at each other for something that is just nonsensical. Additionally, the ideal he wants to be enforced is just dictatorial and delusional, everyone has human rights, and one of our rights is the right to have our own opinion. Fearless (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Well, I haven't been aware of Globe's recent conduct, but upon seeing this, I can actually understand why, and am actually quite troubled by the fact that Globe apparently wants to motion in removing the requirements for 2FA, when that's the most basic part about security. I mean, who in their right minds would want to get their accounts hacked regularly? ----DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on making a larger statement later, but the part about me motioning away requirements for 2FA on Google accounts did not happen. I have 2FA enabled on my Discord account and, if a requirement for volunteers to have 2FA on their on-wiki account passes, I would enable it here as well. I have already done so to comply with such a requirement on testwiki.wiki. I don't have it currently enabled because my authenticator is only on my phone, so I would be unable to access WO when I don't have my phone on me and am instead using my laptop. For the record, I do believe in account security and strong/unique passwords. Globe (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Globe: I am just so genuinely confused right now. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I’m happy to explain anything further. Globe (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Globe: About everything that Zippy was just talking about. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my reply to Fearless below, I attempted to debunk some of what Zippy said as well. I welcome additional questions that you still have. Globe (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you motioned it, I simply said you considered motioning it, might have been slightly unclear in my description but the general sentiment was that you were going to take further action from a board role about it --zippybonzo (c • ca) 20:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any way you want to say it is untrue. Google themselves requires 2FA for superadmins, it is not a board matter. Globe (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not have access to the channel but someone such as tali who retains access could check, you were saying you wanted to motion the board to remove the 2FA requirements that I had personally set on Google, as well as that which was set on Discord --zippybonzo (c • ca) 20:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My main statement “debunking” a lot of false claims made by Fearless and Zippy can be found in the subsection below, however, there are a few things I want to add here. This entire thread is a personal spite with not a shard of proof, other than “well I think I remember you said…” Whatever the reason for the spite request for removal is, I’m not exactly sure. Zippybonzo has already informed all of the volunteers of his intention to leave WikiOasis and start a new farm after the board refused to allow him to make WikiOasis an “exclusive farm” where only select wikis would be able to be created. He specifically mention the Italian Brainrot wiki and others that would not meet his ideals. Zippybonzo wants WikiOasis to be exactly what he wants and I am the only one who actively stands up to that. If standing on that is what causes me to lose my steward role, then so be it. Globe (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity: the subsection Globe is referring to has been removed due to it containing messages from internal volunteer channels. Tali64³ (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 --zippybonzo (c • ca) 05:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"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). Tali64³ (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 --zippybonzo (c • ca) 05:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Tali64³ (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 05:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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. Globe (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 11:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with JR+ I don't see any evidence to support the claims made against globe Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 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 --SPIRACY NOTCANON (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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?
  wanted your OK first
- Zippy: I'd rather we did proper community requests
  on an RfP page
- Globe: no
  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. --zippybonzo (c • ca) 06:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]