Global sysops, A good idea or not? Options

[Trick cyclist]

Does anyone know about this proposal to create global sysops?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops

They seem to be second rate stewards. Are there not enough proper ones? This could have serious implications for small projects where there are say six active admins but there's just nothing needing doing. A global sysop could say "Aha - no active admins" and stick his unwanted nose in.

Still, Ottava's supporters should be pleased that because he's a curator on Wikiversity he could apply.

[NuclearWarfare]

LHVU, I authored the proposal that's being voted on, and I'm not really sure what you mean. You realize that there is no real internal system at near all of the projects global sysops would have access at?

The sole purpose of the global sysop is for anti-vandalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

[LessHorrid vanU]

LHVU, I authored the proposal that's being voted on, and I'm not really sure what you mean. You realize that there is no real internal system at near all of the projects global sysops would have access at?

The sole purpose of the global sysop is for anti-vandalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

I seem to have missed that - I saw the arguments of there being projects with only a couple of local admins who may not be that active, and where a global sysop may have rights to block, protect, etc. It seems to me that those local admins may not appreciate having people who were not elected by that community from acting. I may be wrong, and I !voted approval anyway, but these things need considering.