View source for Requests for comment/Locally indef-blocked global sysops

{{rfc subpage
 |status=closed
 |comment=RfCs should not mix issues re individual users and policies, it may confuse those who watch the RfC page. Stale, user [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=gblrights&user=Laaknor&page=User%3AInnv&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= global right removed, 4 July 2010.] --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 18:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 |date=2010-07-03
}}
__TOC__

== Issue ==
I hereby request comments on '''global sysops who have been locally indef-blocked''' for vandalism and how to handle such a situation. 

This RFC was triggered by [//ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Innv&uselang=en&limit=1 the case of User:Innv] who [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInnv&action=historysubmit&diff=2023490&oldid=2014127 hasn't commented], but since this seems to constitute a precedent, I would ask to keep this as general as possible so that the discussion could lead to a general rule/policy to be included on the [[Global Sysops]]-page. (I will notify Innv nonetheless) Thank you. --[[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:It appears that Innv was blocked for sockpuppetry and not really vandalism [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-06#Innv]. I think that there are a number of things that need to be followed up with this specific case before we discuss the broader issue. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:: Well, he was blocked after making a series of edits with [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Государственный_строй_Польши&action=historysubmit&revisiondelete=1&diff=25127110&oldid=25124081&ids%5B25124081%5D=1&ids%5B25124075%5D=1&ids%5B25124066%5D=1 inflammatory edit summaries] (sufficiently against policy that the summaries were suppressed - ru:wp seems to be rather strict on this point), which made it appear that he was a sock of a banned user.  And there was some [http://community.livejournal.com/ru_wikipedia/1262324.html discussion on a Russian livejournal community similar to Wikipedia Review] where that user talked about using the Innv account as an experiment... &ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> &middot; [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] </small></span>

=== About Innv in particular ===
This was first discussed as a [[Steward requests/Permissions/2010-06#Innv|permissions request]] last month, but not resolved for lack of information.  Innv's account may or may not have been hacked, but he seems to have [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Википедия:Запросы_к_администраторам&diff=25124823&oldid=25124806 asked to be blocked] on ru, and was [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/BRUTE&diff=prev&oldid=2003539 voting on meta a week later]. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> &middot; [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] </small></span> 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


I have left requests for clarification for [[user talk:VasilievVV|VVV]] and for [[w:ru:Обсуждение_участника:DR#Innv_questions_.26_update|User:DR]] on ru:wp.  DR seems to be the last admin who was involved in clarifying Innv's block there.  It's not clear to me from the discussions on ru:wp whether Innv's account was hacked, or whether he really consciously [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Википедия:Запросы_к_администраторам&diff=25124823&oldid=25124806 asked to be blocked]... either way, it seems unlikely that this account will be doing useful global sysop work until Innv posts some sort of explanation (and perhaps a request to recover a hacked account). <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> &middot; [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] </small></span> 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


==== DR's statement ====

{{U|Innv}} is a well-known sockpuppeter in ru.wiki. He began as [[ru:User:Оллэгиуссс|Оллэгиуссс]] late 2006, later changed to [[:ru:User:Afinogenoff|Afinogenoff]] and after many warnings and short blocks he was finally [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=user:Afinogenoff blocked indefinite] in May 2007. During 2007-2008 he tried to evade this block by creating new sockpuppets,  [[:ru:User:Innv|Innv]] was one of them. In May 2009 he made an Arbcom request [[:ru:ВП:462|ВП:462]], where he apologised for all that he has done before and promised not to break rules and not to create new sockpuppets in return for unblocking his [[:ru:User:Innv|Innv]] user account. Assuming good faith Arbcom unblocked him and allowed him to work with some restrictions as [[:ru:User:Innv|Innv]].

In the late spring/summer 2010 ru:wp account [[:ru:User:Innv|Innv]] was used nearly only for voting, but at 4th June he suddenly made a number of edits with inflammatory edit summary, that breach ru:wp rules (currently suppressed by {{U|Alex Smotrov}}); used foul language and finally requested to be blocked "Per user request". Because in ru:wp it is not allowed to be blocked "per user request" if user had broken rules right before request, I've [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=25130560&oldid=24850812 notified] blocked admin and after his [//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=next&oldid=25130560 agreement] changed the blocking reason .

Later this account was checked by checkusers ([[:ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Innv 2]]) to check that the account wasn't hacked. On the next day he used his old [[:en:Livejournal|Livejournal]] account "afinogenoff" to publish in Livejournal-community ru_wikipedia (please note, that this isn't ''ru:wp livejournal forum'', but a community moderated and primarily used by indefinite blocked ru:wp users) [http://community.livejournal.com/ru_wikipedia/1264291.html?thread=15449251#t15449251 a post], where he states, that the Innv account was "only a special project" to find out how much wiki-flags can be collected by a known sockpuppet. He confirmed it by [http://community.livejournal.com/ru_wikipedia/1288713.html?mode=reply publishing parts of letters], that arbcom wrote him during discussion of case [[:ru:ВП:462|ВП:462]] and abusing commenting them. [[User:DR|DR]] 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:  Thank you for the clarifications.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> &middot; [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] </small></span> 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:: (Unsure what the format on meta is. Move this comment if that's required) ''"find out how much wiki-flags can be collected by a known sockpuppet"'' - if that turns out to be an accurate quote, then this "special project"-account should have the flag withdrawn immediately. [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 23:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::: Please see [[Meta:Requests for adminship/Innv (removal)]] for discussion in regards to his sysop tools here. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎]] 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
==== Policy ====
{{quote|1=
Continued global sysop access depends on both activity ''and'' the continued support of the Wikimedia community.
;Inactivity: Global sysops will automatically lose their access if it is unused for more than six months.
;Vote of confidence: Any steward may remove a global sysop's rights at any time if they feel the tools have been misused, '''or if a [[Requests for comments|request for comment]] has shown that a significant minority does not trust the global sysop'''. If this occurs and the global sysop wants the tools back, a [[wikt:vote of confidence|vote of confidence]] shall occur, where the global sysop must retain the consensus of the community in order to return their access.|2=[[Global sysops#Removal]] - emphasis added}}
As things are now and as far as I know, Innv has not missused the global sysops tools (correct me if I'm wrong and then speedy remove) notwhistanding there is some trust issues that concerns we, the community. As things stand now, I think that we should start a one week poll to allow the community to voice their comments wether the user should or should not continue having access to the global sysop tools. I intend to do that in ~1 day or so if nobody raises points against that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎]] 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:I'm aware of that policy. It was my understanding that such a request for comment was to be posted exactly in this place, thus I did so. Was that wrong? Or do you think a separate page is required? (Since no-one's ever launched anything like this before, I had no precedent to go by) [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Hello Seb az86556. Yes, I think that this RfC is correctly placed and I am sure you are aware of the policy. I also think that the poll should be done on this page too since we are discussing this matter here. My quotation of that part of the policy is with the aim of illustrate the way I think we should follow to determine if Innv should have continued access to the tools he's been given. Regards, &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎]] 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Personally, being blocked on another project for being a sockpuppet and then failing to respond to a reasonable inquiry results in a huge lost of trust. I think it is rather clear that such users should not have globalsysop or globalrollback. Innv should have both bits removed. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think like you in this and would have removed their bits days ago if I weren't involved in this. However since [[SP|we can not decide]], it's the community that should speak now (& then, we will enact that consensus). I'm opening a poll bellow to look for consensus regarding this issue. --[[User:Dferg|dferg]] <sup>[[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]]</sup> 09:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Agreed. (@Tiptoety, edit conflict) --[[User:Erwin|Erwin]] 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::::(ec) To clarify: I agree too with Tiptoety FWIW. --[[User:Dferg|dferg]] <sup>[[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]]</sup> 09:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Agree with Tiptoety. Global permissions require a large amount of trust and clue. '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <sup><font color="darkgreen" size="2">[[User talk:Fr33kman|t]]</font> - <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Fr33kman|c]]</font></sup>''''' 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

==== Poll ====
{{discussion top}}
: ''Ending: July, 17 - 2010''
* '''Remove''' both: global sysop and global rollback as per evidence provided by [[User:DR|DR]] and [[User:VasilievVV|VasilievVV]]. --[[User:Dferg|dferg]] <sup>[[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]]</sup> 09:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* Remove both per [[#DR's statement]] and lack of reply. --[[User:Erwin|Erwin]] 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' all! Frankly, globally trusted users should only be those that have either had zero blocks anywhere, or have no recent blocks and have shown a massive, permanent change in behaviour/attitude and have shown remorse.   '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <sup><font color="darkgreen" size="2">[[User talk:Fr33kman|t]]</font> - <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Fr33kman|c]]</font></sup>''''' 10:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' per DR's statement. Shouldn't have such wmf-wide tools. -[[User:Barras|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Bookman Old Style">'''Barras'''</span>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Barras|<span style="color:red; font-family:Bookman Old Style">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' both per DR's evidence. [[user:Pmlineditor|<span style="color: blue ;">'''Pmlineditor'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[user talk:Pmlineditor|<span style="color: #50C878; font-size: 22px;">'''∞'''</span>]] 11:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*{{remove}} - Per my statement above. User clearly gamed the system and has lost all trust. Both globalsysop and globalrollback should be removed. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' (both) inapropriate to allow these rights in the circumstances --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*Again, {{remove}}. My opinion did not change since voting: a female sockpuppet of an indefblocked male user can't be trusted. Even if we are sure that situation has significantly changed and a previously blocked user wants to make a clean start, it obviously shouldn't be a sockpuppet of a different sex — [[User:NickK|NickK]] 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* {{remove}} (see below) [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 19:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' per dferg et al. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Sock puppetry invalidates any election under a new name. The status is based on trust, and trust cannot be given to a sock as a sock is not real. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' (both) per Dr, dferg. [[User:Stephen G. Brown|Stephen G. Brown]] 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' Per the above comments. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

=== About this subject in general ===
I think that being indef-blocked anywhere should be a strong reason to review whether a user is still trusted (or, in the case of a suspected account hack, trustable).  If this is a case of one wiki having a massive internal conflict resulting in some formerly-good contributers receiving strong sanctions, then some cross-wiki mediation might be appropriate.  However if a global sysop has truly alienated an entire wiki for any reason, that seems like an indication that they may not be even-handed enough to provide neutral support for the development and protection of smaller wikis.

At the very least, we might set up a guideline of posting a clear description here on Meta of the reasons for a local block of a GS.  That way anyone interested in reviewing GS work can see it.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> &middot; [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] </small></span> 12:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:It seems to me that there could be valid reasons for still being trusted to be a global sysop while at the same time being indef-blocked on a project. However, I agree with Sj that such a block is a strong reason to review the user's global positions. I like the idea of having to post a description on Meta. If someone doesn't think that is a sufficient explanation for the block an RfC can be started possibly resulting in the loss of global rights. --[[User:Erwin|Erwin]] 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::I can understand when someone had a bad day, "loses it" for a moment, and gets a short block. I can even understand when someone is at odds with a wiki where one is a regular contributor and has a block-log with more than one entry due to having been there for years and having a long history there. I am quite understanding in those cases; '''however,''' getting an ''indefinite'' block should in my view <u>require</u> that said user come to meta immediately (without being asked) and explain the situation (without having us guess around). At the least, I would write a rule that says something like "after receiving an indefinite block, a global sysop <u>must</u>, without being asked to do so, inform meta immediately by giving a statement which explains the circumstances of the block. Failure to do so within 24 hours will result in the flag's being removed." [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
* It should be enough to make it clear that we invalidate any global status if it is revealed that the account was an undeclared sock puppet of any form. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[[Category:Global sysops]]