Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Requesting a global ban for INeverCry ("INC") and all their socks.

  • Indef Commons: Daphne Lantier (desysop), CU INC, block log INC, block log DL
  • Indef EnWP: SPI INC, block log
  • Today's statement by INC to continue their disruptive cross-wiki abuse for long time, large scale: [1]
    Reply from INC
    Hi Tiven. This is #39, but who's counting? Russavia has 1000+ locked socks. I don't intend to do any more vandal edits unless somebody gives me a problem. As for my socking, that's not going to stop in these five years at least. I did 1 million edits here and 500,000 log actions as an admin. I enjoy editing on Commons, and I plan to continue for a long time to come. You've got to do what you've got to do. Why should I let some other volunteer on here, who's done far less work than I have, tell me what to do? That's not happening. Russavia has been doing this for almost three years. He's eaten up quite a bit of the available Hola! proxies, but there are plenty left. If necessary I'll use a paid VPN. But it's no big deal. It's a website and I like it. I spend most of my time categorizing plant and insect images anyways. There are other blocked and locked people editing here. They've chosen to hide it, while me and Russavia haven't. Let me just say congratulations to Guanaco on his adminship. He's a good replacement for me... Face-wink.svg Take care both of you, and have a good night. I try my best (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    [2].

  • c:Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry
  • en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of INeverCry

In my opinion above links & quote speak for themselves. All criteria for GB are clearly fulfilled. Bringing a sock to admin status and abusing these rights for a long time is just one of multiple evil peaks that disqualifies INC from being tolerable for any Wikimedia project for all time.

As for the constant, year-long, cross-wiki aggression, harassment and hounding by INC I do not use my account here because I would like to continue to live & edit in peace.

Cordially, 78.53.71.61 09:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Further multiple account abuse --78.53.71.61 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Further evidence[edit]

(to be added by other users)

Support[edit]

(start your !vote with "# {{s}}")

  1. Support Support The facts speak for themselves, no matter who started this Rfc. Also, Daphne Lantier is indefinitely blocked on Wikidata for vandalism, and the user has had almost two mon L9ths to rectify the problems (including attempts to recover control of the accounts) since the link was confirmed on 11 August.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Are you familiar with Criteria for global bans? --Base (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is the decision-making by the person closing the discussion, not per the opinion seeking. I feel it is inappropriate for such a comment to be made by you in this section. Have your vote, express your opinion if you wish, not appear to disparage a voter's opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    billinghurst, I asked a question, not made a statement, nor intend to. What I did intend additionally to asking the question itself though was to provide with that comment a link to the criteria for any further voters as given the broad invitation I think it is needed. --Base (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Base: Yes. The user engaged in serious on-wiki fraud on Commons by obtaining adminship for DL while INC was effectively unable to pass RfA there again after its final desysop (as performed by a Steward). Also, please note that my Commons userpage has already been vandalized by a suspected sock of this user, presumably because I created c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/INeverCry and c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#Community ban of Daphne Lantier / INeverCry.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Support. After the recent socking at en.wiki (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry) shows the latest, the archive page shows the previous one, both since INC was indef blocked at that project) I was considering suggesting a global lock. But I'll support this instead, even though it does not look like it's likely to pass. INC is not a problem for Commons only - there are indefinite blocks at en.wiki and at Wikidata too (though I do agree it's mostly been at Commons, so the opinions of Commons regulars should carry more weight than mine). What we have here is someone who has turned troll in an avowed and unrepentant way, and he needs to be told where to go as firmly as possible. Should he go away and come back in six months or a year or so, express some kind of genuine regret and make a convincing case for leniency, then I could support some possible way back. But until then, I support a global ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Support Russavia was a commons problem too, he got globally banned, why is INC any different? This user has not only abused his OTRS access, but CU access as well as his administrator rights many many times. There was also the issue of using false identity to identify to the Foundation which is a violation of the ToU. The user has no intention of stopping his editing and now seems to be trying to compete with another globally banned user in the number of edits and accounts he can create so trying to "game the system" should be another ToU violation. This user has blocked many users over the years, some usually out of anger, including myself with an attacking block reasoning (which was oversighted by another admin to protect this user, something admins on commons have been doing for the last 3 years). I have been around for 11 years, i have seen editors getting banned globally for much less. This user is likely to again "game the system" with another "fake account" and thus why he should be globally banned to ensure if and when (when actually) he does do it, there is no way those pathetic admins we have on commons who have been defending this person for the last 4 years can do to prevent him from getting banned, this is basically my main reason for supporting this even though i do not agree with some of the support reasoning above. Commons is overrun with idiots (some with badges), they are incompetent when it comes to making decisions like this, WMF has to "drop the hammer" cause they can't...sorry are incapable of doing so--Stemoc 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Support from INC's comment below "I realize I've done some things that are completely unacceptable." and "When I started socking on Commons..." He is certainly admitting a long-term problem and saying that he will probably do it all again. We have to have some standards. Smallbones (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Support likely to create disruption again, and this is dangerous for his health. See this comment. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Support: Should me startup my comment with "what is your f*****g problem with Russavia? Is ironic how he claimed Russavia es the evil while he done actions Even more disruptive actions, with his admin tools and also a sockpuppet admin.
    Altrough I agree the Russavia's sockpuppetry is bad and a violation of the WMF TOS, Me, like some users considered his block as unfair. Unlike Russavia, INC has been blocked and desysoped several times for REALLY disruptive actions, and, ironically, acused several users like Fae as sockpuppets of Russavia. The ammount of sockpuppets does not matter, but the intentions (Aka. Assumming bad faith, and I don't see Good faith when he created Daphne Lantier and when "she" became an admin).
    Also, he blocked me once (actually two times, the latest by the sockpuppet account) for good reasons (Ellin Beltz), but IMHO also for "political" reasons (my "support" to Russavia -notice the quotation Marks), and this is more evident by the use of the sockpuppet admin. Then, this is not the best user ti block me but that is other history.
    Despiste the good contributions of INC, this (years of) sick behaviour should end, and the only way is a global ban. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    PS: I haven't political reasons for voting (as an involved user), but the evidences presented of disruptive actions un Commons and other WMF proyects, a global ban is aplicable. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

(start your !vote with "# {{oppose}}")

  1. Oppose Oppose due to wikiwide canvassing and forum/IP-hopping. The Banner (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose This IP claims that "I do not use my account here because I would like to continue to live & edit in peace". If you ask the banning of someone assume who you are and dont hide behind an IP. This, together with your attempts at vote canvassing and forum shopping, gives you zero reputation to ask for a global ban. This smells as pitty revenge and grudge. Tm (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Please read Global ban#Obtaining consensus for a global ban: It's not canvassing, but obligatory to "Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited". But I already stopped this now, anyway it would have been near impossible to do so in all wikis INC has contributed to. --78.53.71.61 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose The evidence presented above (a simple statement from INC that they intend to continue evading their ban on Commons) doesn't come close to demonstrating "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse". As far as I can tell, INC is a Commons problem and can be dealt with locally on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    We've also had two sock accounts on en.wiki since INC's indef blocks on both projects (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry for the latest), and there's an indef block at Wikidata on the Daphne Lantier account, so I'd say it's not just a Commons problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    oppose}} "confessions" by SPAs not connected by checkuser to the primary account can easily be created by an enemy of the user. INeverCry is a tragic case, to be sure, but beating him when he's down is not going to improve one single project, and the IP is clearly seeking some kind of revenge. Commons and enwiki can handle this, and are. Right now, INC should be given time to reflect, and to communicate with friends, and should not be pressured by the extreme process of a global ban. As I argue below, with Fae, this should be speedy closed. --Abd (talk) 12:49, 2017 October 5 while the principles remain, I am changing my vote to support the ban, to reflect what I express in this comment. INeverCry is very likely to fall into disruptive activity again, he is not taking all this seriously, and makes promises without understanding his own behavior, which is flat out foolish, and only a way of attempting to avoid consequences. How could he honestly promise to not do what he's done many times and doesn't understand? --Abd (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • as noted above, the high-contribution Commons admin sock was blocked on WikiData for "vandalism." Commons admin activity can look like vandalism, easily. Daphne Lantier was indef blocked without warning. INeverCry is not blocked on WikiData. INC requested unblock on Wikipedia. The decline expects an appropriate delay, not a permanent ban. Yes, INC screwed up, royally. I have no opinion on whether or not he should have another chance, only that shutting it down from meta, while no local wiki has decided on a permanent ban, is way premature. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Do any projects actually do permanent bans? The harshest en.wiki does is indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, and my words at this decline did not say I expect a permanent ban for the simple and obvious reason that en.wiki does not do them - but I would not expect the current indef block to actually be lifted for a very long time at this point, if ever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose Lots of edits in es:WP are minor; the few interactions with other users have been always respectful. No reason to ban in es:WP. Problems in 2 o 3 project don't need a global ban. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose no reason to ban on vls.WP Lotje (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Oppose - such a global ban has no purpose. I don't see how this would help us achieving our project goals. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose Seems only to be a local problem with some Users. That's why a global ban is not necessary. --Schlesinger (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Oppose My opinion is that a Global ban is not appropriate in this case. It is mainly a Commons issue and has to be dealt there. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Oppose Firstly, I do not like hastely prepared proposals for global bans that were posted anonymously by an IP. We do not know even for sure that the quote is indeed coming from INC or if it is the work of an imposter. Overall, the opening of this RfC looks to me as if someone wanted to start this and watch it for fun without risking their own account. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that this will gather sufficient support nor that it will help to find a solution. INC states in their recent comment at en:wp: “I realize that my behavior has been unacceptable here and especially on Commons.” This is indeed a moment of truth, a lot of bridges have been burnt at Commons. However, in a recent discussion no resolution was found except that we do not want to allow INC to return at this time. But there was also no consensus yet for a hard ban. For the moment, I think, we should keep it this way. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Oppose ACK Neozoon and AFBorchert. As a Commons issue, it should be handled there. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Oppose Obviously not a global problem but a Commons one. --ArdiPras95 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Oppose The Commons community is not dealing wtih this situation effectively, but that's for Commons to figure out. I see no evidence of ongoing off-wiki or cross-wiki abuse. Guanaco (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose Oppose The IP is German? There is a Commons Russian user who is regularly staying in Germany... a user who is bad as a ringworm... from that to see a common point, there is surely only me... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    This may be a kind of trap, all the more serious according to who did it. I don't vote in such possible thing. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Oppose - Sure he's probably edited on other projects but for the most part he's always stuck with Commons so IMHO this is more or less a Commons problem, The other issue I have is that he plans to constantly evade detection so is it really worth wasting stewards time in constantly locking his accounts ?, Essentially people are going to try and fight a losing battle which really ... isn't worth fighting for, Anyway it's Commons issue so should be dealt with at Commons. –Davey2010Talk 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Oppose - as per my comment below --Tiven2240 (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Oppose - this is a problem on commons, not on all wikis. --Donna Gedenk (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Oppose a global ban but not oppose an attempt to find a global solution. How about a fresh unique global account assorted with a commitment to refrain from using socks on all projects ? — Racconish ☎ 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Oppose It seems like a local problem rather than a global one. Banfield - Reclamos aquí 16:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Oppose Unless edits by INC on Wikidata are vandalisms, there is no justification for a global ban. This can be dealt on Commons, with blocks and filters. --Ruthven (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Oppose 1. No reasons for a global ban and 2. Like Rschen, anonymous IPs must be discouraged to start such requests. -- Blackcat (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Oppose - No global bans for users who only cause troubles on local projects. De Wikischim (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Oppose – There is no ongoing pattern of cross-wiki or on/off-wiki abuse. The differences started at the Commons alone and I am optimistic hope that time will heal them. INC's recent comment also give confidence. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) updated - NitinMlk (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Oppose Per Requests_for_comment/Improvement_of_global_ban_policy global ban requests should not be submitted by IP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

  1. I don't want to encourage IPs to start global ban requests. That being said, there is some precedent for a ban for this user, see Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister. --Rschen7754 18:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, there is little precedent there (I was very involved in that RfC, know it well). Poetlister had deeply offended many, on many wikis. The similarity is that Poetlister was highly privileged, including being a bureaucrat, and had socked at the same time. However, that did not lead to his global ban. That happened later, and was a highly political issue, I won't go into it, but it's all in that ban discussion and Talk for it. There was an accumulation of claims, and there was only one wiki, at the end, where Poetlister was editing, and that was Wikiversity, and consensus there was to allow him to edit. When the ban closed with a lock, it appears that he may then have returned to socking, whereas, if allowed to edit openly on Wikiversity, global checkuser would have been more fully enabled. The WMF, in the end, took over the case, and why has never been revealed. Global ban policy had not yet been written at that time. But he would easily have qualified for a ban by the policy as later written. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. The persistent crosswiki abuse is there and likely to continue, as Jeff G. opined, but the proposal is currently lacking at best in that it doesn't state how a global ban is going to benefit wikis beyond the two which have already banned him. Nemo 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Request for speedy closure[edit]

It should be noted that threads about INC have now been repeatedly created by different IP addresses in multiple forums. I find this especially disturbing as it appears to be an anonymous drama creation/flamebait campaign by what may well be the same individual appearing to be many, and attempting to game the system. The IP contributor that has created the above request has canvassed 9 different projects on this today, and made several unrelated edits on Commons before doing so. Refer to https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=78.53.71.61

It may be sensible to automatically reject proposals or RfC's which are not put forward by long term named accounts with a persistent history that can be easily examined.

If an established contributor wishes to make a proposal, I would encourage them to do so, using their own words. -- (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fæ, for your opinion and suggestion. I am an experienced long-term contributor, my first edits were long before INC made his first. Just in numbers of edits I am far behind. I've seen enough on Wikimedia projects to know how my future editing would look like, if I would have made this RfC with my account. No other edits I ever did via IP towards INC, please checkuser me on any global wiki. If this is rejected just for that single reason that would be sad. --78.53.71.61 11:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You are socking and gaming the system by default. Comply with basic policies on how community votes work, or do something else. -- (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope, that's neither "socking" nor "gaming the system". --78.53.71.61 11:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You have admitted to using an IP address as a sockpuppet account to obscure your other account(s). Doing so is neither a legitimate use of sockpuppet accounts, and manipulates the consensus process. There is no way of checking your statements. If you were so fearful of INeverCry, you should not be writing here, instead you could have emailed an administrator you trust to suggest making a proposal.
From this point on, I am not going to interact with you on the presumption that you may well be a banned or blocked user looking for lolz by trolling and creating drama. -- (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The rules do not prescribe starting a GB RfC logged-in. If I were "looking for lolz by trolling and creating drama" I knew many better ways, but I am not at all fond of doing similar things like INC, Russavia and the like. They are all purely disruptive, thus a GB will be appropriate and to the benefit of all positive and peaceful contributors. --78.53.71.61 12:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Fæ, please provide difflinks of the other IPs/forums that you are trying to link with me, so everybody can check if there are any similarities. --78.53.71.61 13:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
continued argument, not relevant to the RfC, moved to Talk. --Abd (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The IP undid the removal but the Talk copy is still there and Fae replied briefly. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Please read Global ban#Obtaining consensus for a global ban: It's not canvassing, but obligatory to "Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited". --78.53.71.61 11:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
To me it looks like canvassing to get someone kicked out that you do not like. The Banner (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like canvassing to me too. Besides performed in random places, for example in ukwiki "Help" Forum was used while the proper place for such notification would be "Miscellaneous" Forum, "Help" is for getting help. --Base (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I just tried to follow the mandatory procedure, although I don't speak all those languages. I now see that this is a trap in the guideline. --78.53.71.61 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Second request for speedy closure. INC does not meet the criteria for Global bans.
  • Criterion 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse. INC has allegedly confessed to massive socking. However, the confession was by the sock puppet, and we have seen a recent case where the enemy of a user created socks that then "confessed" showing defiance, leading to cross-wiki consequences. So far, on en.wiki, checkuser only confirmed two socks, and a user may also lose control of an account. As well, "Ongoing" should mean more than transient insanity.
  • The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. INC is a sophisticated user and would know that socking is contrary to policy, so INC is informed. But "fair opportunity" must allow time for a user to realize what they are doing -- and for the community to sort the issue. Emergency desysop was allowed on Commons, with unanimity, and that was reasonable -- and could be undone if developments warranted it. The community's reaction to INC's enforcement of the Russavia ban may have destabilized him.
  • The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process—clear explanations and considerations for local rules and practices must be evident, decisions must be independent of a block or ban on another project, and the blocks or bans must be clearly intended to be indefinite. The commons and en.wiki processes were more or less coordinated. Each was proper within that wiki. However, these were not "broad support" as contemplated. One could argue this, but marginal qualification is inadvisable. It leads to increased conflict.
  • The outrageously defiant edit attributed to INC has not been checkuser confirmed as actually being INC. This could easily be a Joe Job. --Abd (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Criterion 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse. Is ironic how he acted even worse than Russavia, and using Russavia to justify his disruptive actions. He has been already desysoped at Commons several times, and used his tools to shut up rather than keep an harmonized environment (when he accused Fae as sockpuppet ofd Russavia and blocked him). Then, what is his motivation to done the last actions?
  • The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. This happened previously: He done disruptive actions and has been desysoped and blocked, he rectificarted and we forgiven him and accepted as an admin (aty Commons) again. But, this has been repeated over and over the time. ¿Is there any reason for forgive him again?
  • The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. Yes, we know that, but keep in mind he has been blocked at Commons more than once, for using his admin tools to do disruptive actions, that is even worse than doing sockpuppetyry (Russavia) and insulting users (Me).
This is why I voted for a global ban, because his actions affected several projects and Me (like several users) lost his trust again, and should not be part of the WMF community anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • declined speedy close Comment Comment I was tempted to speedy close this as it should preferably be brought by a community, not an unidentified IP address. There is, however, evidence that communities are running blocks and checkusers against the identified accounts. One can haggle whether active management at two wikis qualifies for xwiki abuse, however, that is the scope of the discussion, not an administrator to pre-determine. Further, it would be expected that communities where the named account is active would be notified of the global ban discussion, so notification is appropriate, I cannot comment on whether the selection of wikis notified was correct.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    Pages at Commons where action is taking place

It does not take an administrator to speedy close a discussion without a ban conclusion, and this is snowing Opposition and Close (i.e., Fae obviously opposed, but commented to speedy close). The discussions linked are both closed and did not decide on a Commons ban, only the pending maintenance of a block for socking. Nor has any community decided that. If INC is still continuing to sock on Commons, that is a Commons issue. The only other INC block is on Wikipedia, and discussion on w:User talk:INeverCry does not indicate a long-term ban intention, only block pending other possible resolution. --Abd (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Commons does not have community ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I'm sorry, I thought it did when I created c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#Community ban of Daphne Lantier / INeverCry.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I think the situation we have now on Commons is equivalent to a community ban on the English Wikipedia and other projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
en.Wiki definitely has ban process, and INeverCry is definitely not banned on en.wiki or anywhere else, even if we want to think Commons has banned. But I don't read those discussions that way. In particular, the discussion Jeff G points to was his ban proposal, shot down quickly (as this should have been, for even stronger reasons). So ... ban proposal fails on Commons, go to meta and attempt -- or vote for -- a global ban? That's backwards. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Please go back and reread the global ban policy, it clearly states "indefinitely blocked" or "banned", so the INC account meets that criteria for a discussion. Arguing for a speedy close with the argument that a user is not community banned may support your reasons for how you vote, it does not support the case for a speedy close. It is especially did not support the case for a speedy close when there was just three votes in place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Comment There are several mentions that Daphne Lantier is indef blocked for vandalism at Wikidata. The Daphne sock made these edits automatically when deleting pages on Commons. The deletion spree should of course be taken seriously, but its consequences are not cross-wiki abuse. Guanaco (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment: Fæ, despiste INC apologized for his behaviour, I don't see any change in the future. Did you remember when you as sockpupet of Russavia? We already forgiven him and accepted as admin again, but... well... see who applied my latest block in Commons (Daphne Lantier). The worst of this is how he, again, used Russavia to justify his actions, and this should be unnaceptable for everyone, specially for you, IMHO. This is why I voted for a global ban (too many local blocks not just in Commons), and I know you why you're opposing it, but I see that a the best solution to refresh him, totally away from the WMF communities. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by INeverCry[edit]

I realize I've done some things that are completely unacceptable. The majority of my sock edits on Commons are constructive, but, yes, I've also made some that were completely inappropriate. Two mitigating circumstances that I would point out are my very real issues with mental illness, and how important Commons has been to me for a long time. I love Commons. I've enjoyed 99% of what I've done there. I'm a disabled person and Commons offers me a good outlet for my energies since I'm basically confined to my house. As for any vandal edits I've made, and negative behavior that led to my being blocked, I regret all of it, and I don't plan to repeat it (but, in truth, "the best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a-glay" as Robert Burns writes).

When I started socking on Commons, I had two editors who were stalking my sock accounts. One of them, Sro23, told me he was unhappy with a block of him that I had done in 2016 as an admin, and that he was basically getting revenge [3]. He has since stopped after mistakenly tagging one of Russavia's socks as a sock of mine [4]. The other person, Kong of Lasers is now CU-blocked indefinitely on Commons and en.wiki for socking [5]. I don't know what, if any, IPs these people used, or what they did with them, or if they used other accounts.

Another serious concern is people impersonating me, which I was informed of here on my talk [6]. I have no idea who is responsible for that or what else they've done.

Commons is important to me, but sometimes my bi-polar disorder gets me worked up and I do foolish things that hurt others. In future I don't intend to do any more vandal/harassing edits. I don't know who 78.53.71.61 is, though a German IP is a bit strange, as the two people I've messed with on Commons are from Russia and Scotland. No matter, to whoever the IP editor is, ban or no ban, you have my sincere apologies for any distress I've caused you. In all honesty, with my mental instability, I sometimes do things without full control of myself. I will continue to fight this disease.

I do intend to continue socking, but only for constructive purposes. This isn't intended as a threat. I'm just being real with everyone. I'm a Commons addict. I wish I hadn't fucked up and got myself blocked, but the idea of staying away from Commons for months or a year is simply painful to me. I wish I could start again at the end of 2012 or so, before I burnt the bridges mentioned above. The community at Commons, and in general have been very patient with me, and I'm thankful for that. I don't know if I deserve it or not. I hope it's not decided to ban me, but if that's what happens, I'd have a hard time arguing that I didn't deserve it after all the shit I've pulled. Take care everyone. This will be all I've got to say for a long time to come. I'm just going to do my best and take things as they come day to day. lNeverCry 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

i would have more sympathy if you did not sock and block people, and delete items. and given the broken unblock and fresh start process, cannot blame people for socking any longer. maybe you should try doing other tasks like fixing metadata, and going to a meetup. wikipedia is not therapy. regretting is not sufficient, rather you should make amends.Slowking4 (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
(Personal response) On seeing on an overview Inc is an addict to Commons. There are sometimes in which he might gets disorders. I too am sometimes engrossed in Commons editing so much that sometimes i get the wrong options. Same as an enthusiasm I was blocked on enwp. Inc as personal nature is a person that never says no this is the problem for which we are discussing here. Whether he is block he will edit Commons that he even dosent cares he is becoming sock puppet. As far as my personal opinion I think Inc must not be an addict to Commons and take necessary steps to overcome it. As Daphne he made a lot of works and which were numerous so Atlast I would litterly use that I assume good faith in INC. I don't request a block for INC but I request community prayers that all may go in a systematic way henceforth. --Tiven2240 (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't buy this at all. The Daphne account was a long term planned and persistent lie to the community. Again and again we were told "I'm a new admin", and asking for advice like they were newbies. I have, to be honest, little confidence that the repeated claims of mental illness are not a similar elaborate lie to the community in order to excuse outrageous behaviour. Daphne was not an acute episode of some mental illness but the consequence of a corrupt dishonest individual who seeks the power they gain from being admin on Commons. Yes, they like Russavia and other sad individuals are addicted to being here and are struggling to find new hobbies. But that is what they must do. INC makes no mention above of persistent harassment of others, some of it most unpleasant, needing to be revdeled. Frankly, anyone who spends this much time on Commons, making good edits or bad, is having serious life issues they need to sort out, and the best way to sort them out is to find another hobby. Commons will do INC no favours by permitting him to continue editing, either officially or via socks. I see above some nonsense about "assume good faith" wrt Daphne. What planet are some people on? The Daphne account was a lie to the community. Good faith went out the window and flew south a long time ago. Enough pandering to this liar. -- Colin (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Since you doubt my long-term fight with bi-polar disorder, I've uploaded a photo of my medications to the Russian Wikipedia with all ID info blacked out: ru:Файл:My Bi-polar medications.jpg. The Quetiapine (Seroquel) is my major medication, supported by 60mg of Duloxetine (Cymbalta), and 3mg daily of Clonazepam (Klonopin). You can do a simple search on Google and see that this is a classic combination of medications for someone with bi-polar disorder. I've had serious mental health issues for more than 30 years. They started when I was about 15/16 in the early 1980s. I've taken Trilafon, Xanax, Elavil, Doxepin, Remeron, Nortriptiline, and a dozen or more common anti-depressants. I hope that satisfies you that I'm not lying about my mental health issues. As for Commons, I'm proud of the huge amount of constructive work I've done there. I'm not at all proud of the huge disruption I've caused. I wish I hadn't done any of it. I've had my differences with you and A.Savin (and others), but I have no bad feelings toward either of you, and I don't intend to bother you again. You're both professional-level photographers, and I think Commons is very lucky to have you both. As for the Daphne account and the Rosario Berganza account, I originally created those to edit without the weight of INeverCry on my shoulders. Once I lost adminship completely on Commons, only then did I come up with the idea of a Daphne RFA. I did that simply because I love handling deletions and blocks. I did 100,000 log actions with the Daphne account, and, except for my ridiculous theatrics on that last night, I stand by all of those log actions. They were all carefully and properly done. As regards the socking of Russavia and I on Commons, most have been constructive. I've done some dumb shit with a couple of socks, but mostly I've categorized images accurately and done simple scope-related DRs. Another concern that has been voiced here and at Wikipediocracy is my OTRS involvement and checkuser status. As I've told James Alexander (WMF), I've never abused either, and I've never kept a shred of personal info from any OTRS ticket or CU that I've run. I don't expect to be unblocked on Commons or the English Wikipedia, any time soon at least, but, as I get better with my Russian language studies, I do intend to be more active at ru.wiki, where I'm an autopatrolled rollbacker, and have nearly 2,000 edits. I think a global ban would be inappropriate in that 99% of my problem behavior and sock activity is at Commons, with only a few socks used at en.wiki. lNeverCry 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: You introduced yourself the idea "a German IP is a bit strange, as the two people I've messed with on Commons are from Russia and Scotland", idea which automatically made me think "but one who is Russian, seems to spend a lot of time in Germany..."; One know the continuation. It is a disturbing coincidence... far too much disturbing for my tastes, I do not like to be potentially someone else's instrument. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Christian. I've seen some impersonation of me, and I've had two suspicious accounts and an IP following me at Commons, one tagging a Russavia sock as mine (User:Sro23) a week ago, the other a blocked sockmaster. As an admin and CU I've pissed of a lot of sockmasters, including a WMF-banned German sockmaster, Messina. I have no idea who's behind any of this, but my sock accounts on Commons are easy to see for checkusers like Trijnstel, as I never alter my user agent string, and my string is highly likely to stand out for those who know what software they indicate. lNeverCry 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
for what it worth, I am inclined to believe he INC said here, if he is being honest with us, I would happy if we could give him second chance, specially if he can prove his illness to someone from WMF in a proper way. Mardetanha talk 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
If the image of my meds isn't enough, then I really don't know what would be. My doctor is a busy and very serious man, he's not going to release medical info to anyone unless it was an emergency situation, which this is of course not. All I can say is that I'm a good guy, but I do things on impulse due to my issues. I've done stupid things and I've been nasty to people at times, but I'm committed to working on that. I've done a million edits on Commons, and 500,000 log actions as an admin there and at en.wiki. Can anyone doubt that I love editing Commons? I was surprised to see this ban request, and Nick's request for a WMF ban. I hope I'm not as bad as all that. lNeverCry 21:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
On a personal level, I'm concerned that this is unhealthy. What if you are globally banned? Or something else happens, like Commons ceases to exist, or it is banned in your country, or you lose your Internet access/ability to edit? Then what will you do? --Rschen7754 02:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I'm house-bound except for doctor visits and going to the pharmacy. I used to work as a photographic printer in the 35mm/medium format days, so I've loved photography for a long time. My internet access is a pretty sure thing (I've had the same ISP for 10 years now); I'm in the US, so a ban doesn't sound like a threat, and I have a free and a paid VPN that I can use; if Commons ceases to exist that would be hard on me, but I've got a massive collection of study programs, history programs, Rosetta Stone Russian, and a personal paperback/hardback library of about 800 volumes of classic literature, so I'd have to make do; as for a WMF ban, I think that would be unfair, and so I would continue to edit using proxy socks, though probably not on a daily basis - probably more like two or three times a week or less. If I had an issue with my paid VPN, there are plenty of others available. I don't want things to get to any of these extremes though. I really do feel that I have more to offer Commons in the area of sorting through uncategorized images and doing simple scope-related DRs. I know I'll never be an admin again, but 500,000 log actions is enough for anybody. I had my day, but change is inevitable. I intend to work more on the Russian Wikipedia as my Russian gets better. I have nearly 2000 edits there, am an autopatrolled rollbacker, and I can already add images to articles with simple captions. English/French/American/German literature articles there especially need this treatment. We'll see how things go. lNeverCry 04:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Promise to discontinue all socking by INeverCry[edit]

I do not intend to use socks on this project or any other WMF project again. My apologies to everyone for the trouble. Maybe someday I can edit Commons again openly, but I doubt that will be any time soon. I've enjoyed my 8+ years there, and I've met a lot of good people. I realize how childish and stupid my socking has been, mostly on Commons, but also a little bit on en.wiki. I don't blame my actions on mental health issues directly. I don't know why I act the way I do sometimes. And it's the actions that matter anyways, the rest is my responsibility not anyone else's. I would ask that this ban request be closed. If any account claims to be a sock of mine on Commons or any other project, they should be checked by Elcobbola, Trijnstel, or another CU familiar with the socking I've done. It won't be me. My concern is with impersonation of me indicated at my talk here by The Devil's Advocate. I give my word to the WMF community that I will not sock on any project again. I may do some editing at the Russian Wikipedia, as I'm currently studying the Russian language, and I have a clean record on that project. Thanks, and sorry again for the headache. lNeverCry 02:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

From these edits, I believe the intention, or you would not likely given away perfectly clean socks. However if you do not know why you act as you do, promises about future behavior are worthless, and you could make more of those socks. You are correct about responsibility, but actions have roots in how we think, and until you address those roots and assert true responsibility, you will remain helpless, and the helpless are not actually responsible except in the sense that they will suffer the consequences of actions. The helplessness and the not knowing are actually lies (though you might believe in them.) To deal with your condition is both easy and very difficult or even impossible. It is easy if you allow yourself to transform, but that would be a loss of identity. So if you want to remain the same person you created with your past, it's ridiculously difficult. So I linked to a good sign of intention, but then there is this, on your talk page, where you evade a sensible and clear question, about Commons socks, and just the other day.
You are not taking your condition seriously. You think that half-way measures, and easily-empty promises will be enough. After all, it worked before. It actually has not been working for many years.
And then there is the next section, where you have identified something you can do to keep your Commons obsession alive. You can report Russavia socks, and you think that this is "helping the Commons community without editing or socking." And it would be except that the Commons community doesn't seem to want that activity. But they cannot stop you. This intention now also amplifies you as a target for Russavia or friends, should they be vindictive. It is maintaining involvement in activity that essentially made you sick or sicker. Spending significant time each day figuring out what is wrong is the opposite of what you need. You can do it, it is not contrary to policy, though you might end up irritating the Office, It is probably a job for checkusers. I don't know, and you could be trolled into false reports. I doubt that the Office would want to be caught dead encouraging this. Bottom line, this is not at all how to return to collaboration with the community, nor to sanity. While it probably will not make a difference, I'm changing my vote. Best wishes for your full recovery. --Abd (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
INeverCry has already returned to socking on Commons once again. Sro23 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the accounts username? SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
See here Sro23 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
If Sro23 believes that Leonard Reeves is INeverCry, appropriate action would be a checkuser request on Commons or on meta. There are people who create fake socks, imitating the behavior of another user. Distinguishing these can be difficult, but it clearly happens on occasion, and blocked users are blamed, then, for the behavior of someone else, intending exactly that.
INeverCry was a checkuser and administrator, who became dedicated to enforcing the WMF ban on Russavia, which was very unpopular, he'd make enemies, who then could take advantage of this ban proposal to attack. This is not an opinion that Leonard Reeves is *not* INC, though I rather doubt it. It is pointing to the lack of evidence, here or on Commons, other than Sro23 says so. There are two revision-deleted edits on commons:User talk:Leonard Reeves. Keeping in mind the possibility of impersonation, perhaps a Commons administrator can review those.
commons:User:Leonard Reeves was tagged as a suspected sock puppet of INC, and at the same time, that admin tagged commons:User:User:Проступок as such; this user could be included. "Suspected" is reasonable, I'd think (but I have not reviewed the contributions in depth). I see no sign that either administrator discussed these actions. However, the first admin was likely responding to a vandalism report by Sro23, because Leonard Reeves revert warred over that. There is no question but that Leonard Reeves was disruptive, but stating as a fact what is only suspicion is itself disruptive.
Likely the same vandalizing user is today commons:User:Death approaches. I'd think it better if a commons admin files the commons checkuser request, because they can see the rev-deleted activity. A global request, however, could also look at INC's activity here for comparison. ICN also admitted certain socks on Commons that would not be stale. Commons should know. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If anyone still actually believes this promise to stop socking, INeverCry has already explicitly reneged on it when requesting an unblock at Commons here. For example, "I enjoy editing Commons too much to stop socking." here and "I will avoid socking while this request is open, unless it's open for an extended length of time (just being honest)." here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A note about Russavia[edit]

I haven't been reporting Russavia's socks for quite a while now, but as a way of helping the Commons community without editing or socking, I will now be returning to my daily monitoring for Russavia socks on Commons and reporting them to WMFOffice to get them blocked as quickly as possible. I've reported probably half his blocked socks (1000 or so) and it will feel good to be helping in this quiet hands-off role again. lNeverCry 08:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)