Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry 2: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Votes: {{support}}
Line 89: Line 89:
# {{Support}} No reason not to, good chap. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
# {{Support}} No reason not to, good chap. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
# {{support}} Trusted user. [[User:Thibaut120094|Thibaut120094]] ([[User talk:Thibaut120094|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
# {{support}} Trusted user. [[User:Thibaut120094|Thibaut120094]] ([[User talk:Thibaut120094|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
# {{support}} I implicitly trust this person - I trust him to agree with me on the sensible stuff, and challenge me when I do something wrong. That's really what I look for with advanced permissions. [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 14:27, 13 February 2015

INeverCry

Vote

Links for INeverCry (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth):

NOTE: CU requests at Commons run for 2 weeks minimum, this request will end no earlier than 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A while back I laid down the CU tools and adminship due to health reasons. I was able to get back adminship, but not the CU tools. I have epilepsy, so my health is never going to be 100% solid, but I do good work when I'm up and running. As a checkuser here on Commons, I performed several thousand checks, so I'm well able to handle using the tools. I used them for dealing with spambots and their proxy IPs/ranges and sockmasters and their puppets.

I find myself reporting socks to current checkusers quite often, and I think it would be better for myself and for Commons if I had the CU right back. I have familiarity with most of the active sockmasters here, especially David Beals, Wikinger, and Milanopablojavier24.

I'm currently pretty stable physically, and I feel I can do the job properly. I realize that in the past when I've "retired", and/or been rude/confrontational, I would have been much better off just shutting my mouth, taking a short break, and coming back refreshed. This is what I plan to do in future, whether or not this request is successful.

I have my failings, but I can say for myself with complete certainty that I've always been committed to Commons, and have gladly spent my time doing the things I'm good at here to help out. Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 00:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support yup. — Revi 00:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support But make sure your health goes first. -- Rillke(q?) 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support But please remember what you wrote about resigning and taking a break. --Didym (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support - previous experience is a plus, resigned for health reasons, next time just go for a short wiki-break (have a look at one of the Wikivoyages to see if you fancy a holiday somewhere). Green Giant (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support :D Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support 1989 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support. Sure. Érico Wouters (msg) 04:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support. We need trustworthy and knowledgeable admins to take on tasks like these. But always remember that your health comes first. Commons won't implode because you have to take some time off to sort your health out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Of course! -FASTILY 05:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support - INeverCry was one of the most active CheckUsers on the team. Having him around again will be a net positive to the Commons community. Tiptoety talk 06:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support - INeverCry has been a wonderful administrator and I would believe that he should be a great assistance as a checkuser. Well done @INeverCry: you have been a wonderful administrator please keep up the good work - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support trusted. sure. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support trusted and active editor. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support You have my trust. Taivo (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely  Support. Sealle (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support /St1995 15:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support Why not? User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 20:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Oppose - nothing personal - but as long as the CU on Commons is used in the terrible way as today I don't want anybody to be a CU here. And 7 CUs are enough for such an project.Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Oppose - You once banned an editor (when you were no longer a CU) as a sock of a known troll even though i kept telling you he wasn't..I can't support someone who can't follow proper protocol and thinks he knows everything..I trusted you before (u left and asked all your rights removed and blocked your account) to make the right judgement but I don't think that trust is there anymore..--Stemoc 05:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support Sure, but take care of your health before taking care of Commons. ;o) Yann (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support We badly need people who are willing to do this! At present, we have sockpuppet issues that go back and forth between here and en:WP. The socks upload photos here under various names and use them on en:WP under different account names. Take a look here to see one of the problems like this. We hope (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support, sure! — TintoMeches, 16:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support Trusted and as with so many things on Commons there are always more people who talk about doing things than actually do them. --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support --Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support Mike Peel (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support. Yes, trusted user. --Brateevsky {talk} 19:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Weak support So he can do still better things. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support. Sure, but your health first! --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support Thanks for wanting to help to the extent you have the resources and motivation for it. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support I think it's really important to have long-term "memory" on projects like this and support the request. I only wish we could bottle INC's brain for times when he's not online. Perhaps an "recent history of hosiery matching and how to do it effectively" page? Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC) +1[reply]
  35.  Support You have my trust. Michael Barera (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support you have my trust too, but make sure your health goes first! That is the main of your life. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support. Definitely. Does many small things for the benefit of Commons. This tool can be useful to him and us. -- Geagea (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Oppose. Fails often in copyvio issues, seems to have personal issues with other users, no reliability for proper CU use. Schmelzle (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schmelzle: Could you explain more information about the things you described? 1989 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A tit-for-tat !vote related to Messina - see, for example, de:Benutzer Diskussion:Messina/Haus Chillingworth and User_talk:INeverCry#Special:DeletedContributions.2FHeilbronn-7_-_Special:DeletedContributions.2FHxeilbronn-1 and surrounding edits. Эlcobbola talk 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See the various deletions of Messina uploads like File:Wohnhaus Rudolf Chillingworth, Liebigstraße 3 in Nürnberg-Wöhrd, Umriss.jpg even if they have been approved by trustworthy users (ongoing discussions about the files on WP-de for several days now). I also see some several hundreds of deletions within a minute in INeverCry's deletion log. I wonder if he really can take care of what he's doing when he spends only a part of a second for his deletion decisions. Too much, too fast, too wrong. Schmelzle (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Oppose Very opposing that, see Schmelzle. No trust but really heavy distrust. This user seems definitely not to be mature enough to deal with certain user and/or community problems, and I do not see any reason why a user which is messing into (German language) Wikipedia community conflicts should be a checkuser at the Commons. (I even doubt that he should be a Commons sysop anymore.) This user a CU? Hopefully not. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support Has done good CU-work in the past so I see no problem to get them back. The two oppose votes above are revenge fouls from de wiki users supporting a mass sockpuppeteer and hardly worth any more comments. The comment from Matthiasb is really funny though (for insiders from de wiki).--Denniss (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Oppose see Matthiasb. --Ralf Roleček 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support Trijnsteltalk 23:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  Support --Praveen:talk 06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Oppose – Boshomi, +Schmelze +Matthiasb 07:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support Of course! Eurodyne (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Support now as ever. --SJ+ 10:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.  Support Thank you for your work. Kf8 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support Take care! --AFBorchert (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.  Oppose I think that this user has spent too much time commons, for my the health is first, I worried about the situation as this could affect the future healing. --The_Photographer (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.  Support − Meiræ 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  Support − Trusted sysop. --· Favalli ⟡ 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.  Support No concerns with this very productive contributor. Royalbroil 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53.  Support - With pleasure..--The Herald 04:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  Support sure. --Aga (d) 08:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  Support! --Лукас Фокс (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56.  Support - DLindsley Need something? 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Support Trusted user. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  Support Absolutely. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59.  Support Reliable and dedicated to this labour Poco2 13:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60.  Support I like the humility and admission of past mistakes, whatever they were. Be firm but fair and take time off whenever you feel like it. — --Belvedere (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  Support --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62.  Support - It was always a pleasure to work with him. -Barras (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63.  Oppose - Sorry, sound like a New Year's Resolution. Good intentions, but how long will they last? --Kiltpin (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64.  Oppose – +Schmelze +Matthiasb, --Ordercrazy (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65.  Support I didn't know INeverCry the first time around, but based on my experience working with them (namely on enwiki) they seem well-mannered and I haven't the slightest of distrust. From the admin stats it's clear they are very dedicated and passionate about this project. — MusikAnimal talk 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66.  Support. As an en.wikipedia checkuser I have interacted with INeverCry on sock-related matters both here and there. He has a strong dedication to serve the community. His hints were always reasonable and useful, and CU rights would only help him to help the project. Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67.  Weak support, first you have health issues, I really don't want to see admin suffering when they are doing their job because irl health issues, second there are concerns regarding your judgement on Socks case, I suggest be more calmer, patient and not hasty, people will find you unreliable if you're reckless, other than these 2 concerns you are fine and also a trusted user.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68.  Support --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69.  Support --Vantey (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70.  Support --Shadowxfox (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71.  Support. Per the CUs and administrators I know and trust on the English Wikipedia and per my own interaction with INeverCry.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72.  Support, bien sûr. Benoit Rochon (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73.  Support --Ganímedes (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74.  Support Por supuesto. Take care Anna (Cookie) (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75.  Support No reason not to, good chap. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76.  Support Trusted user. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77.  Support I implicitly trust this person - I trust him to agree with me on the sensible stuff, and challenge me when I do something wrong. That's really what I look for with advanced permissions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Question I consider that you a good sysop with good judgment. Lately commons has become a less pleasant place, full of trolls is normal, however, we have a new old enemy with super controls driven by WMF. What makes you think CU could help in this activity? . Thanks for your answer --The_Photographer (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean by "we have a new old enemy with super controls driven by WMF". Could you clarify that? INeverCry 21:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Superpowers for global lock users and perform cu unbeknownst to us --The_Photographer (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex issue. Any case that rises to the level of a WMF ban/lock, CU, etc, is something that I and most others won't know all the details of. In these cases there may be legal ramifications, and that's something the WMF should handle. I think WMF and volunteers should work together as much as possible, but such a relationship naturally has limits. The positions of trust here on Commons amongst volunteers have similar limits: If I become a CU, I have to abide by privacy policy; OS keeps info private as well; and only OTRS members can access OTRS tickets. INeverCry 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for take your time to answer the question --The_Photographer (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stemoc

I don't want to clutter the voting space, but what you say is a valid concern, so I want to respond. After initially examining Popeye191's edits, he looked identical to Michael J. Scofield, WikiCelebs, and other Chace Watson socks. I unblocked him after talking to him when he made his unblock request because our discussion reassured me that he wasn't a CW sock. In hindsight, I recognize that this block was a mistake on my part. I should've tried contacting him via en.wiki or email, which is what I would do if I could do it over again, or if I face a similar case in future. I take full responsibility.

As for my occasional incidents of being confrontational/rude, it doesn't happen often, but I really put my foot in my mouth when it does. I always end up regretting it, and it's something I'm continuing to work on. INeverCry 06:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Schmelzle and Matthiasb

I don't like to leave any concerns unanswered, so I'll reply to the two votes above from the editors indicated. First in reply to Schmelzle, when you see very fast deletions in my deletion log, this comes from my using Help:Gadget-autodel.js to delete obvious copyvios in CSD, or from closing simple deletion requests and especially mass deletion requests using Help:Gadget-DelReqHandler. I try to be as careful as I can be, and when I make a mistake, I do my best to fix it.

Concerning Messina, I can assure you that I have nothing personal against him, or anyone from de.wiki for that matter. What I don't like, and what I've fought against here on Commons, is the use of more than 200 sockpuppets by Messina, and the uploading of atleast 200 copyvios. I would be glad to see Messina editing here on Commons if he would only commit to being careful about the copyright status of the images he uploads. He must take responsibility for his actions, and I, as an admin, can't allow copyvios to remain on Commons, or continued sockpuppetry. INeverCry 22:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you (maybe not, maybe surely) know, is that Messina was driven into sockpuppetry since he is followed for almost 10 years now by notorious opponents, who first acted against his jewish themed articles in 2006/07 and keep harrassing him since. Maybe these people instrumentalize also Commons sysops to take any possible action against him. His current work is under strict control and the questionable files have been approved by trustworthy users for their legal use. Your sysop colleague „Denniss“ stated on german wikipedia, that there was no time to check each file, they simply were deleted because they seemed to be uploaded by Messina. The speedy deletion of the discussed files has been stated as „against the rules“ by another commons sysop. There once was a time, when people could write articles and illustrate them, and if there was a problem, there was a discussion page and it was solved within a few days . Nowadays all time is eaten up by controversies between users, and by checking questionable short termed actions, that are primarily taken against users and not done for the sake of an encyclopedia. I distrust everyone involved in such activities. No exception on you. Also there is Messina opponents on german Wikipedia who collect IP numbers (from various Mediawiki/Wikipedia platforms) they believe to be Messina. And now you, being involved in action against Messina, are applying for CU access. In my humble opinion this is just suspicious, and therefor you will never ever get my PRO vote. Schmelzle (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have Messina as a productive fellow editor than all this copyvio-uploading and socking that has already gone on for far too long. Messina's talkpage is open any time he wishes to discuss a possible unblock of his master account and how that could be accomplished. The first step would be to stop all sockpuppetry and copyvio uploads, and use his own account to post on his talk. His recent uploads via sock were dated 1910 with no author indicated, but were tagged with {{PD-old}}. That doesn't match up. A photographer in his 20s or 30s in 1910 could easily have lived into the 1960s or even the 1970s. No claim of US publication was made either. These are exactly the kind of uploads that have been deleted here in the past through numerous deletion requests. If you review my self-nom above, I wasn't even aware that Messina was back when I made it, nor, for that matter was I aware that ja:LTA:ISECHIKA was still creating socks here. I would've included both sockmasters if I had been aware of their continued activity, because I certainly would use CU to deal with further socking by either. Now, Isechika has created more than 10,000 accounts globally, so I would consider him to be a long-term abuse case, but I hope Messina can turn this around at some point. INeverCry 00:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like Messina where there is a group of editors taking care of this case (among them Matthiasb and Schmelzle, see here for a list), it is perhaps best to work with them closely to give them the opportunity to fix these uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acting on behalf of Commons or the WMF?

INeverCry, I think Wilfredor The Photographer has hinted at the real question here. You have blocked several of Russavia's new accounts since he was globally blocked wihout warning or explanation by the WMF in a rude and very un-mellow fashion. Those accounts have done nothing except improve Commons and add important and much-needed aviation content. Are you asking for CheckUser access so that you can continue the WMF's war against Russavia? Crampudder (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry already answered your question above. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry_2&oldid=149973442"