Meta:Requests for adminship/Innv (removal)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Innv (removal) edit

Innv (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email) - [past RfA]

I'm sorry to open this but recent issues described below (& after consulting with other users) makes me think that this is the right & fair way to go.

Innv became an administrator in late January, 2010. During the last few days we have been reported that this user «turned out to be a bad-faith social experiment on how much power can a sockpuppet of banned user gain (cit. VasilievVV)». He's got many accesses across different projects, and he even is a member of the global sysop & global rollback user groups. The RfP query was marked as "not done" because of lack of information. Now a request for comments has been opened in the general case of global sysops being indefblocked on any wiki, and this user in particular. DR, the local administrator (& OC) who blocked him provided a statement confirming what VasilievVV said on the removal request and has provided the past history of this user.

In the meanwhile, Innv has been asked about this issue days ago, but the user has not commented, nor provided a rationale, nor said he will add one soon. Innv has been also emailed privatelly several days ago, but no response has been received upon.

The discussion regarding his global sysop permissions is taking place in request for comments, please do comment on that issue in that place.

After reading the statements provided, consulting with other users, considering this a serious breach of the trust that the meta community deposited in him in the past, the security issues surrounding this, and the irresponsiveness of the user in question I must say that, sadly, I am no longer confortable with Innv having sysop access on this project anymore untill this gets clarified and thus I request his sysop tools to be removed. — Dferg ☎ 10:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - per my statement. Sorry, — Dferg ☎ 10:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - agree with Dferg. It seems only reasonable given the circumstances. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 10:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The absence of communication is worrying. Per Dferg --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove After seeing Innv's talk page history and block log, the story seems to check out. Somehow it seems that not many people here on Meta were actually aware of the user's background. Jafeluv 10:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - In particular, the lack of communication is concerning here. Maybe in the future we can revisit this, but removal has to take place now. – mike@meta:~$ 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove; Per above arguments. –BruTe ^talk 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I kept assuming this was due to mis-communication. Alas... no explanation. Seb az86556 14:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Per the evidence provided by VasilievVV and others. Additionally, I agree the lack of communication is troubling. Tiptoety ^talk 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Agree with Dferg's rationale. -Barras ^talk 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Dferg, Cary, and Herby said it all. -- Avi 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Dferg and other users. JenVan (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I have written before that a female sockpuppet of a male indefblocked user shouldn't be trusted. Now it's clear why — NickK 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the above. Would be interested in a response though. --Erwin 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unfortunately for now. Reconsideration is always possible but when credible doubt or issues exist the flag should be removed. Easy come/Easy go (yes I know that isn't always the case, doesn't mean it shouldn't be). James (T C) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there is anything to reconsider. See DR's statement, in which he provides solid evidence showing Innv was simply an experiment to see how many flags a blocked sock could get. Looks like he got us all. Tiptoety ^talk 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Dferg --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 03:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove must be unquestionable --KrebMarkt 05:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I've been watching this RfDA, and I am not normally one to pile on when I see a situation such as this. However, in this case I feel it is just wrong not to speak up. fr33kman ^{t - c} 06:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Seems the only reasonable course of action given the situation. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -jkb- 09:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per all others. --თოგო ^(D) 09:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No question of letting them keep their flags. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above - Hoo man 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above. Can we snow close these discussions as there seems to be a clear consensus here. 24.60.217.245
IPs cannot vote. Please login. --Bsadowski1 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Bsadowski1 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. No other course of action seems sensible at this point. {{Sonia|talk|simpleWP}} 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. —I-20 the highway 02:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove PiRSquared17 08:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Sad. Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Dferg. LeinaD (t) 11:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per unanimous vote. FiliP ██ 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]