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.
Closing this RfC as it has been open for a few weeks and per a request to close. Considering the mis-placed vote by Rich, there consensus for this currently lies at 69% as a raw vote. The interpretation I get from the votes in favour of opting out seem to be: large enough admin community, not much work is done within scope actively and the statistics regarding out of scope actions per policy. The comments against opting out seem to be: if they want to help, let them and we need to control their actions more (which seems flawed).
Considering the static of 69%, which matches what we usually call a consensus around 70% and considering the comments are not developed enough to give more weight to either side, I will close this as an opt out of global sysop based on the community size, the statistics of usage provided by Vogone, the comments by the support section and the oppose section not providing strong arguments beside 'let them if they want'. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Opting out of Global sysops 2" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
Two years ago, a RFC defined that global sysops having and using their access here is tolerated by the community under certain circumstances. The current policy concerning global sysops reads as follows:
Global sysops and stewards technically have full administrator access (except the ability to assign user rights that can be assigned locally or create properties). However, they are only allowed to use their admin tools for
blocking accounts and IP addresses in cases of vandalism, spam or long-term abuse
non-controversial housekeeping within the MediaWiki namespace
They must not revert or overrule any actions that are performed by a local administrator. If a global sysop misuses their rights, any local user in good standing may ask them to stop.
I still believe our community is big enough to entrust users with such tasks on their own. Especially the recent failed RFA attempt of a global sysop raises the question, if our community wants to give away the decision about who holds advanced rights on this wiki that easily, the global sysop in question yet technically has full admin access to this wiki, even though they do not fulfil the local criteria for obtaining adminship, as of today. This could be continued to the point when a possible GS in the admin/global sysop double-role on this wiki is removed due to a community decision here due to abuse (similar case: TBloemink) and their flag would yet stay irremovable from our point of view.
Unfortunately, some of the GS who have made use of their access to this wiki in the past have not respected our policy at all either, as can be seen in the following analysis of current global sysops only:
Alan: 5 actions within scope, 2 actions out of scope
This makes in total 58 global sysop actions within scope and 30 actions out of scope resp. 5 current global sysops who had all their actions within scope vs. 5 current global sysops who technically abused their access.
The little need of GS assistance on this wiki combined with the issues raised above make me believe a GS opt-out should be considered. --Vogone (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
↑This is explicitly just an example, not criticism on that user's work as a global sysop.
With around 90 sysops, not a lot left for them to do after we started redirecting instead of deleting items, and with several questionable actions from global sysops and stewards lately, I think it's time. --Rschen7754 01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not nearly 90 now — though I agree there's less work than before. --Ricordisamoa 03:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rationale for having global sysops is that they're helpful. But most vandalism is very effectively controlled by local sysops now, and as for CheckUser blocks by stewards, those should be locks of accounts and global IP blocks anyways for spambots and long-term abuse; ordinary sockpuppets occur seldom enough for local sysops to handle block requests. New global sysops are also less likely to understand how the project works compared to those who have been around since the project's founding.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talking as one of the Global Sysops, I support this opting-out, I do find spam and vandal page from time to time, but local sysops are more than enough to handle it themselves.AldNonUcallinme? 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<333 global sysops!!! Also I disagree that some of those actions were out of scope. Maybe they didn't fit perfectly into the policy, but I am hardly concerned with a global sysop deleting a page in their own userspace, for example. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's about the principle. Policies are not there to be ignored, especially not if we are a project which offers extra-access. And own userspace actions are pretty much a minority of the actions performed, more concerning are things like Liliana-60, where global sysops cause extra work by ignoring local rules rather than reducing it. Vogone (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the only actions that were actually incorrect (not just violating the GS scope here). As I've always said, the actions themselves are more important than who does them. Surely it isn't worth worrying about such bureaucratic things on a website on the internet. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have an issue with the existing policy, then please open an RfC on it. Otherwise a policy is a policy. UCS in fact dictates that if they know enough for anything outside of scope, then they are qualified for local adminship and should run for RfA. The RfA is needed for the community to assess that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is me commenting on an issue I have with existing policy on an RfC. I don't expect anyone else to share my views, since people seem insistent on creating as much bureaucracy as possible on these sites on the internet. I follow those strange rules, but I reserve the right to disagree with them. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, turf war!!!!! I'll repeat what Lego said last time "I don't see why we're stopping them from helping us when they are willing to do so and trusted to do so by the global community. " If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Multichill (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: The problem is that the system is broke, as per what Vogone said above. Also, trust for global counter-vandalism activities does not necessarily imply trust on the local level, nor vice versa, so that's a poor argument to make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a Global Sysop abuses their power, they should be held accountable individually, but in most cases of vandalism their help is appreciated. - FakirNL (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they act against policy, then that's their fault, not the policy's. --Ricordisamoa 03:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I originally did not intend to comment on too many votes here, but since this directly refers to my examples I think it may be appropriate not to leave this uncommented. Of course it is the global sysop's fault if they violate policy, but it is our problem. It shows that our policy does not work. Nowhere in this proposal there is said anything about somebody's fault or who is to be blamed, just a problem is pointed out, which is our problem, and we may need to fix. If we just ignore problems with our policies, we could just as well abolish them. Vogone (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the problem does exist and must be fixed. In fact I support the removal of rights from accounts who either deliberately, continuously or seriously act against policy. I don't think a global sysop who abused their rights on Wikidata can ever be trusted to hold them at another project. --Ricordisamoa 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Global sysops have the rights for a reason, however Wikidata has enough sysops. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment my maths adds that to 22 and over half of that from one user. Couldn't that be resolved by discussion? How many bad decisions by local admins comparatively? #baby #bathwater #explosives — billinghurstsDrewth 08:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ah never trust a liitle phone screen). Two GS make up the bulk. Have we tried a discussion? How did that work? — billinghurstsDrewth 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So...has their been any discussion with him about what was wrong? I just quickly glanced at his talk page and didn't see anything. Legoktm (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is pointless to start discussions with several participants when it would be easier to resolve the problem this way (note that we have not checked former global sysops, or other stewards for violations to this policy), and when few global sysops or stewards take advantage of the provisions in local policy, and when we have 90+ admins already. --Rschen7754 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rschen7754: I count 75 'regular' admins, 1 adminbot, the Abuse filter, and 5 "wikidata-staff": 82 accounts with local "delete" permission. I must be missing something... --Ricordisamoa 03:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only if you want your claims to be based on actual evidence :) --Ricordisamoa 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we lost an admin since the start of this conversation. Nitpicking at the technicalities of one's argument is not a good way to refute the substance of it. --Rschen7754 05:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]