Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
There is clear positive consensus amongst the community in granting INeverCry the CU right. I acknowledge that there are obviously some issues amongst some editors from the German Wikipedia community, however, a request for rights is not the right avenue to express those concerns; COM:RFC is, and I would encourage those editors with concerns to address those concerns at that venue. However, this is clearly a successful request and is being closed as such. russavia (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

Vote

Links for INeverCry: 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 21:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The rationale - People may wonder whether we need more checkusers. The simple answer is yes. We could use 1, maybe even 2, extra checkusers. We have 7 checkusers right now. We had 8, but our most active CU quit recently (Herby). To illustrate the big hole he left: I've looked at the statistics of the last 12 months & compiled a table which shows the activity of the checkusers. As you can see I'm the most active CU now, but Herby was more than twice as active as me. Martin H. does a lot, but never responded on the request page the past year. Which leaves Jim as the last active CU (& I love his help), but he never checks spambots and stuff & hardly replies on the CU mailing list. The other four are either semi-active or simply inactive as a CU.

My nominee - I've discussed with Herby about CU candidates and a few names came up. But we shared INeverCry in our list of candidates. INeverCry is an admin here since August 2012 and has been very active ever since. He frequently blocks users (in a good way of course ;)) which is very important to me as that's what checkusers do most of the time: deciding whether or not you should block someone. INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets as he requested me and Herby multiple times to perform a CU. He is also an admin on the English Wikipedia so he's also aware of the global overview (cross-wiki) and possible problems. IMHO INeverCry is a very good admin overall and more than competent to be a CU.

Last but not least: CU is all about trust and INeverCry can certainly be trusted imho. I hope the community agrees with me. Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I gratefully accept the nomination. INeverCry 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support as nom. Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support. Strong candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support. Trusted colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support good candidate. --Rschen7754 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Of course! --Didym (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support I may as well voice my support, it's a comparison-based support, I would still like my concerns properly addressed though. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support russavia (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support good candidate--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support, per nom. Savhñ 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support I don't always support requests for higher wiki office, but when I do, I drink Dos Eq..., err I mean, I make sure they are very good candidates. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Alan (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support. Mathonius (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support -FASTILY 01:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support. Érico Wouters msg 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support  Abstain JKadavoor Jee 04:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC) It seems something going wrong here. Why our admins/crats are so intolerable to a few negative votes? JKadavoor Jee 13:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Back to  Support Thanks Toby for your understanding. JKadavoor Jee 03:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support of course. TCN7JM 09:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support --Stryn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support-- We are shorthanded in all advanced tool wielders. I have had many dealings with the nominee and have complete faith in their ability to use the bit well and without any of the abuses mentioned in other areas of this page.Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support Taivo (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Oppose - Commons already has much too much Checkusers. There should be only very few very trusted Authors with these rights. I don't see a cause for a new one. Sorry @ Trijnstel - but only to write we need some is not enough for me.But your Statistics tells me, we should take away the Rights from Gmaxwell and Mardetanha. And we have to talk about the extensive use of this "last to use" tool! About 8.500 CUs is pure horror. I don't know if we can argue against Pipa, Sopa and Acta - and PRISM - and use this tool so unbeleavable often! Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of this reply of Marcus Cyron, I believe I should clarify a few things:
    1) Yes, I believe we should take away the right from Gmaxwell & Mardetanha too. I even asked them both if they would drop the tool themselves: here and here.
    2) Regarding the "extensive use" of the tool; maybe it helps if I say I use it 90% of the time for checking spambots (the other 10% are regular requests etc.)? Also (I know I shouldn't mention it maybe, but still it's important imo), on the English Wikipedia the tool is used even more... So frankly we *do* need more checkusers now Herby quit.
    And yes, we should take it away from inactive ones, but that doesn't mean INeverCry shouldn't be a great asset for the team. Trijnsteltalk 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The terible often use at en:WP is not a cause for me. A de:WP we have only very few uses. I hate the Big-Brother-Structure here and I don't feel safe any longer with you handling this tool so extensive. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry, I have absolutely no reason to CU you (and I never have either ofc). :) Trijnsteltalk 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - but here's my problem: If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry - I never ever use Sockpuppets. But what happens if you think it looks like? You decide to Checkuser. But "I think there could be something" is for me not enough. The possibility "there could be something" is not enough for a CU. We need real good causes - because it's a very hard way into the privacy of the people who work here - in a free project. They are volunteers! Until we checkuser them, really a lot has to happen. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very poor argument. It's like "If you do'nt have to hide anything, you could show us pictures of your bedroom and of your underwear drawer in the closet". If you do not care of another privacy, you should publish your name and your full address on your user page and your usual IP address, otherwise you apply double standards for me. But you did'nt do that all until now. Your privacy seems to be "worthy" than others. Morty (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I don't care about the privacy of others (which I do care about ofc). I only said I won't CU without a valid reason. Trijnsteltalk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support Excellent choice - thanks for helping - despite Marcus's comments the spambot invasion/attacks require continuous work sadly. --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support Trusted, responsive and very diligent user. -- Rillke(q?) 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support I have done some work with INeverCry and he/she seems responsive in deleting clear copyright violations. I think we do need a new active CU after Herby retired and that perhaps Gmaxwell and Mardetanha should resign as CUs--from the very low level of their activity here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Oppose - Until there is no control of his acting. Morty (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get this statement. Are you talking about me or INeverCry? Trijnsteltalk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not personal. But i miss any independent control and/or public accessible log file of the commons CUs. And until there is no check and balance i deny to vote pro to any candidate. Morty (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, well, we're not dewiki which logs everything, but we control eachother. And in case you don't trust us, you always have the OC. Trijnsteltalk 14:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me: Is there a list of provable reasons why a CU is made or is such a decision is commonly based on a simple feeling in the stomache? I am a little bit scared of the enormous amount of 8.500 CUs in a year. That looks to me as if there is no self-imposed barrier to use this instrument of controlling the community. Morty (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you came here because of the post of Marcus on dewiki? If so, yes, I would be frightened too if someone just gives a number without any background. But I'm happy you've asked for a clarification. Yes, there is a list of reasons: see the CU policy. I stick to that. And again: we're not dewiki which requires a consensus to be able to CU. It's a tool to fight vandalism and I use it that way. Here I obviously only use CU to check for sockpuppetry, that is *abusing sockpuppets*. As I said before, 90% of my checks are spambots or attack accounts. The spambots are mostly from China and have a clear pattern. So I definitely don't randomly check accounts. And the attack accounts are pretty clear too (can't go into detail). Sadly Commons receives a lot of spam and an abuse filter alone won't help. I am a steward thus I also cross-wiki check them and afterwards I globally block the IP so other projects won't be affected by the spam from that IP anymore either. I've never checked a regular editor and won't do that either unless I have a very strong reason to do so. I don't understand why people are so scared to be CU'd. CU is just a tool to fight vandalism. It's not something we use to 'control the community' as you suggest. Trijnsteltalk 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Trijnstel. I never afraid of the tools; only those who operates. Honestly, many admins are not very trustable. But here your choice is good. :) JKadavoor Jee 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) as Morty and Marcus. If the discussion about possible excessive misuse of data should begin here, then it is not the wrong place.[reply]
    •  Comment A discussion about possible misuse of CU data is appropriate on another forum. Not on an existing CU request. Besides, if there are not enough CU's, then Commons risks being inundated by spammers and copyright violating accounts. Who wouldn't want to upload copyvios or spam on a highly visited website like Commons or Wikipedia? When a spammer or copyright violater finds one account is blocked, he/she immediatedly creates another. No one can tolerate this situation--unless we want to risk a lawsuit from the real copyright owner. That is why we need a more active Check User in the first place--now that Herby who did half this task has retired and Mardetanha almost never uses this tool. The possible misuse of CU data I cited on another thread was on English wikipedia, not WikiCommons. I respect INeverCry's judgment. He follows Commons procedures. Even when I pointed out a massive copy vio account case on his talkpage, he waited almost 7 days here before acting. To me, this was a speedy delete case. That tells me a lot on this Admin's respect for Commons laws. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support MoiraMoira (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support Can't compare Commons with the German Wikipedia.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support policy has not to be discussed here. I'm sure INeverCry will do a good job. IW 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Oppose Go ahead, Mr. Bureaucrat, refactor my vote to a section of your liking. Stefan64 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just blatant trolling. If you wish to give your opinion on the candidate, go ahead, but this does not contribute to the discussion about the candidate. Savhñ 20:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sachma, wat soll denn dat?!? Es ist definitiv nicht deine Aufgabe, die Motivation der Abstimmenden zu ihrer Stimmabgabe zu "würdigen" und Stimmen zu streichen, weil die von dir der Stimme unterstellte Motivation nicht deiner subjektiven Auffassung hinsichtlich zulässiger Motivation entspricht. Hierzu hast du kein Mandat. Einem Projekt, welches freies Wissen verbreiten will, steht es mehr als gut an, sich an demokratischen Normen zu orientieren. Dazu gehört es, dass man bei Wahlen jegliche Stimme eines Stimmberechtigten akzeptiert, und zwar unabhängig von ihrer Motivation. Und es ist bei einer Abstimmung der vorliegenden Art auch zu akzeptieren, dass eine Kontra- oder Prostimme mit Argumenten begründet wird, die nichts mit dem Kandidaten selbst zu tun haben. Und selbst wenn die Stimmbegründung einen persönlichen Angriff enthalten würde, ist nur dieser zu entfernen, gegebenfalls eine administrative Maßnahme gegen den Abstimmenden erforderlich, aber die Stimme grundsätzlich stehen zu lassen, soweit der Abstimmende durch die administrative Maßnahme nicht seine Stimmberechtigung verloren hat. --Alupus (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC), member of de-wp-arbcom[reply]
    WTF? this is not serious Stefan64. I remember that is the candidature of INeverCry. A little respect please. --Alan (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you mean, please? That we have do vote pro, because it is the candidature of INeverCry? No, Alan, we are free to vote with support or oppose, and our motivation is absolutely irrelevant. --Alupus (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The orientation of the vote is free (support or oppose), but Stefan's comment is out of place. Any relation to the user application? No... --Alan (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Deiner Argumentation dürfte also ein überzeugter Republikaner bei der US-Präsidentschaftswahl nicht gegen den demokratischen Kandidaten stimmen, weil er zu diesem außer dem Argument "ist kein Republikaner" kein Gegenargument findet? Ich hoffe, dass ich dich insoweit falsch verstanden habe! --Alupus (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, únicamente digo que cada uno es libre de votar lo que quiera, pero el comentario está fuera de lugar y no tiene absolútamente nada que ver con la candidatura del usuario. Es más, más bien parece un trolleo hacia los burócratas y por consiguiente una falta de respeto al candidato. Greetings, --Alan (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unter "The rationale..." hat der Vorschlagende oben Gründe in der Nominierung dargelegt, warum es seines Erachtens eines weiteren Checkusers bedürfe. Dass man diese Gründe nicht teilen muß, räumst du aber schon ein? Oder, dass man, wenn man nicht die Notwendigkeit zu einem weiteren Checkuser sieht, den Kandidaten ablehnen kann, ohne dass es eine Respektlosigkeit ist? Oder dass ein Bürokrat falsch handeln kann und man dann auf diesen Fehler hinweisen darf? Solltest du nur eine diese Fragen mit Nein beantworten, so ist für mich eine weitere Diskussion mit dir Zeitverschwendung. Kritik ist nicht automatisch Trollerei und Respekt zeigt sich vor allem in der Art und Weise des Umganges mit Leuten, die die eigene Auffassung nicht teilen. --Alupus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To ja jeszcze dopowiem tylko, że wcale nie jest tak, iż uzasadnienie głosów nie ma żadnego znaczenia. Co prawda mnie również zdarzało się oddawać głosy bez żadnych uzasadnień (zarówno za, jak i przeciwko niektórym kandydatom), ale—jak wszyscy wiemy—większość dyskusji w projektach Wikimedia opiera się na sile argumentów. Jeżeli ktoś głosuje—zwłaszcza przeciwko kandydaturom innych użytkowników—bez podania żadnego uzasadnienia, to nie dość, że utrudnia biurokratom możliwość zorientowania się co do osiągniętego (lub nie) konsensusu, ale także pozbawia kandydata możliwości odniesienia się do uwag i zmiany swojego zachowania.

    Oddawanie głosów przeciwko kandydatowi tylko dlatego, żeby zrewanżować się biurokracie, nie może być uznane za konstruktywne, zwłaszcza w sytuacji, kiedy ten biurokrata wycofał swoje zmiany. Wydaje mi się, że teraz najlepiej byłoby, żeby Stefan64 wycofał swój głos, a jeśli chce go podtrzymać, to byłoby miło, gdyby poparł go opinią odnoszącą się bezpośrednio do INeverCry, jego dotychczasowej działalności na Commons i ewentualnych predyspozycji do uzyskania uprawnień checkusera. odder (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  34.  Support --Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Support -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Oppose --Geitost diskusjon 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I wish Commons wouldn’t have any checkusers anymore. So, are you checking me now also, cause you think I would be the same person as another German user, such as there has also been checked the Commons and de-sysop User:Saibo last year because someone who was harrassing other users on an external blog (which is well-known for its harrassing character) claimed Saibo would be the same person as User:Niabot? Or will Fastily now just block me, because discussing wrong checks on Commons are leading to blocks here? Please, no checkusers anymore here. I don’t trust them in any way and I don’t trust the lots of checks here, since I’ve seen how easy it is to check a longtime user just because of a rumour in an external blog. If this is the way, that checkuser tools are used on Commons and the Community thinks it’s all ok, even if the Commons rules itself are another way than the tools are used, then Commons shouldn’t have checkusers at all. And perhaps the only active checkuser Jim who performs such kind of checks which are against Commons rules lays down the tools.[reply]
  37.  Oppose -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support I am his nominator on en.wiki and I regret not making this CU nomination--Morning ☼ (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Oppose --Alupus (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC): As nomination, da diese nicht erkennen lässt, inwieweit der Kandidat sorgfältig und datenschutzrechtlich einwandfrei zwischen angeblichen Interessen des Projektes Commons und den Persönlichkeitsrechten der Mitwirkenden abwägen wird.[reply]
    Der Kandidat ist an eine Policy gebunden und muss seine Identität der Wikimedia Foundation bekannt geben.--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nur weil irgendwer Regeln ("policies") aufgestellt hat, werden diese befolgt? Nein, Steinsplitter, dass ist bereits im realen Leben realitätsfern und kann daher auch hier nicht zwingend vorausgesetzt werden. M. E. kann man daher von einem Kandidaten für die Checkusertätigkeit erwarten, dass er in seiner Kandidatur darlegt, inwieweit er sich mit der spez. Policy inhaltlich auseinandergesetzt hat und welche Überzeugung zur Hauptproblematik der CU-Arbeit, eben der oben erwähnten Abwägung, er innehat. --Alupus (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Auch nach Kenntnisnahme des Kommentars des Kandidaten unten weiterhin kein Vertrauen in ihn als Checkuser. --Alupus (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)--Alupus (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Oppose --sугсго 07:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC) (Spricht faktisch nur englisch, für eine so herausgehobene Stellung in einem multilingualen Projekt ungeeignet)[reply]
     Comment Commons needs good active CUs because there are only 7 CUs here but 2 of them aren't using this tool--so in fact there are only 5 CUs today. We have to protect Commons from lawsuits caused by copyright violaters since many court trials in the US can award damages in the millions of dollars against media organizations caused by such issues. And Wikipedia is based in the state of Florida. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Kommentier keine Hinweise in Sprachen, die du nicht verstehen kannst, wirkt sonst peinlich bis lächerlich. sугсго 08:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Magister Mathematicae today has requested removal of all his Wikimedia rights: [1] including CheckUser on Commons. --Rschen7754 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is still ilrelevant for syrcro’s point. --DaB. (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Oppose --K@rl (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support trusted and active user --AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  Oppose --Gereon K. (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Support Trusted user. If some want to change the way CUs are made on Commons, this is not the place. Pleclown (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support Compensating vote. Though I share my German colleague's concerns about a lack of privacy protection, intransparent processes, and insufficient CU guidelines - this is nothing that should be turned on a single candidate. --Martina talk 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Support OK, -jkb- (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC) (although I have the same questins to the CU policy here just like my friends from the German WP; but I do not think this is the right place to discuss it and to change it)[reply]
  47.  Support Trusted user, and a good statement by the user himself.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support - the statement sounds reasonable to me and I tzhink I can AGF on this person concerning privacy issues -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49.  Support Seine Stellungnahme unten überzeugt. --Don-kun (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50.  Oppose It looks like adding even more checkusers at the moment is not a good idea, sorry. --DaB. (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  Oppose Nothing against the candidate, but pls create proper guidelines and care for a transparent process BEFORE you gain CU-rights to more and more users. --Ms Anna Nass (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52.  Support I have been taking my time to see how the vote turns out, and decided that I should support INC. From my experience in working with him, I find INC a very responsible user who knows how to deal with delicate information. I'm sure he will be a net positive to the CheckUser team and will perform his actions always in accordance with the policy. And as far as the number of CheckUsers is considered, I think we need them to be more active (perhaps it's time for some people to resign?); having watched INC's actions until now, I'm sure he will also be able to take over these responsibilities in addition to his regular admin duties. I also feel that he should not be the victim of people's dislike for the current policies or the lack of guidelines used by other projects (points to the German Wikipedia). odder (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53.  Support I agree with Achim Raschka above when he says "the statement sounds reasonable to me and I think I can AGF on this person concerning privacy issues". Béria Lima msg 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, because this user is clearly trustworthy and this is not the proper avenue to advocate change of existing policy, to do so is an abuse of the process and very much akin to what is sometimes attempted with confirmations in the US Senate, tho at least there the people have some connection to the issues, while this user has never had any involvement with the CU policy and to attempt to block CU nominations because you disagree with a policy is a POINTy abuse of the election process. Snowolf How can I help? 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  Support Candidate is trustworthy and well suited to the task. Legoktm (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56.  Oppose i think more CUs are not the right way at the moment... --Shadak (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Oppose Commons had not a problem with sockpuppets, but with ceckusers. Therefor no. --Steindy (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  Support Auch ich bin erst durch Marcus Beitrag auf diese Wahl aufmerksam geworden und bedaure, dass eine allgemeine Frage (die ich so nur unterstreichen kann und bei der ich die Bedenken vollumfänglich teile) auf dem Rücken einer einzelnen Person ausgetragen werden soll. Einer Person, die mir hier als Admin und User nur positiv aufgefallen ist (was nicht bei jedem der Fall ist), die Bedenken teilen kann, auf Fragen eingeht und wenn nötig auch selbst nachfragt und nicht nur mit einem "Basta" oder "Kraft meiner Wassersuppe" antwortet. Ich sehe auch die "Einsprachigkeit" als keinen Hinderungsgrund bei einem User, der bei Verständigungsproblemen immer nachfragt und im Notfall auch dritte als Übersetzer und Vermittler heranzieht. Soweit ich das beurteilen kann, geht INeverCry sehr verantwortsvoll mit seinen Knöpfen um, und ich kann mir keinen besseren Kandidaten als CU für Commons vorstellen. --PigeonIP (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59.  Support I think it's OK now. --A.Savin 09:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60.  Support With the encouragement that INeverCry and others who have commented that having alternative accounts is not the same thing as malicious sockpuppetry, might think about improving the guidelines so that the wider community might be educated on this point, including the administrator community, and we might have fewer of the obsessive sock-hunting campaigns that appear to have become a damaging blood sport. Fæ (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  Support I trust INeverCry to act well, he is a very reasonable user and admin. --Funfood ␌ 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62.  Support as applicant appears to be trustworthy and per his response below. To the other voters: I have been a CU for a few years now, and I can tell that now is the time we really need CUs with the severe attacks of spambots. Elfix 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63.  Support — M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64.  Oppose wer jeden Commonsbeiträger für einen potentiellen Störer hält ist als CU absolut fehl am Platze Liesel (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65.  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66.  Support --High Contrast (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67.  Oppose pjahr @ 15:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68.  Support nihil obstat. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69.  Support - imho a good candidate and the oppose reasons are rather weak for my taste. -Barras (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71.  Support --Shivanarayana (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72.  Weak oppose I feel that it is possible that INeverCry will help with some of the workload of CU. However, there are two reasons to oppose this request: 1) INeverCry has stated that providing justifications for admin actions would take too much time, and therefore is not needed (which suggests that CU actions will also be left with no justification) 2) Currently way too many CU actions are performed anyhow, so much better way to lessen the load of CU users would be to limit the number of CU actions rather than expanding their group. I realise that the second reason has nothing to do with INeverCry and the first one all by itself is insufficient to merit opposition to the nomination, therefore if another CU user will want to step down, then I would consider INeverCry a good candidate to take that other user's place. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC) /  Weak support per clarifications below. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Two checkusers already resigned this month: Herbythyme and Magister Mathematicae. We went from 8 to 6 checkusers. Trijnsteltalk 13:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also on the first point the quote is "adding a rationale for each simple close could mean hours of extra work each week for closing admins". Justification has a far different meaning than commenting. It is the same as reverting a vandal edit with no summary. It is justified but no comment is needed. I assume that CU need to comment on their actions as well as justify them. Just to state 'user blocked' without a reason should have a user unblocked rather quickly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment As Canoe1967 says, my comment referred only to simple DR closures. Other admin actions and CU actions are much different. Checkusers have to provide a good reason when performing CU, and I would definitely do this myself. As for the number of CU actions being performed, most of these are on spambots, which are unfortunately very numerous and persistent. INeverCry 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73.  Support INC has my trust as CU. --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74.  Support I trust INeverCry with CU tools. thanks for helping.  ■ MMXX talk 15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75.  Support good work! --Unterstrichmoepunterstrich (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76.  Support - You are trusted, so I can't see why not? --Simeondahl (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Trijnstel suggests that "INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets[...]", perhaps can you tell me did you see anomalies in the contributions of this editor ? If so, why were you silent, if not, why would you be good at the job ? What does 'turning a blind eye' mean to you ? Penyulap ☏ 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting about Moogsi (don't know much about him), but having sockpuppets itself isn't forbidden. *Abusing* sockpuppets is wrong. Trijnsteltalk 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't spot them in the first place it's a moot point isn't it. Ditto being happy to vote them into positions of trust without knowing who they are. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moogsi indicated that he hasn't edited with any other accounts. I see no indication that Moogsi has done anything but constructive editing. I assumed good faith in regard to his RFA, and so far I haven't seen him do anything but good work as an admin. When looking for sockpuppets, I look for direct evidence of disruptive editing, as can be seen in cases like this, or this, or with most of the cases brought to COM:RFCU, COM:AN/U, etc. If somebody comes to me with credible evidence of disruptive socking, or if I see it, I have done and will continue to do my best to deal with it in the appropriate way, through discussion with other editors, and with blocks when necessary. INeverCry 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I won't give my own thoughts on that editor in public, and I won't call you particularly great at spotting socks, but I will commiserate with you that you'll be doing the lion's share of the drudgery in both the CU and DR departments. Say it with me, "Woo Hoo", come on, say it with me, give me a "Woo".... just a "Woo" erm, yes, never mind.
    Let me be the first to say "Sorry to hear you got stuck with even more work to do". hmm. Wait a sec, I know something I can say that is sure to cheer you up ! "I'll shut up now." Penyulap ☏ 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are one interesting person. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any experience in networking? CU requires basic knowledge about IP and such, especially if you are planning on hunting spammers. Elfix (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have basic knowledge and experience in dealing with IPs, spammers, etc. I'm certainly not any kind of an expert yet though. If granted the checkuser right, I'll start off cautiously and study the information and guidance available at the checkuser wiki, and look to learn from experienced checkusers by observing what they do and by asking questions here, on meta, or on the checkuser mailing list. I started off the same way when I first became an admin and began closing deletion requests; I had a basic understanding of copyright, and handled simple deletion requests at first; now my knowledge of copyright is much more substantial and I feel comfortable handling more complex cases. INeverCry 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Good luck with that ;) Elfix 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

general discussion about CU/Commons:

  • User:Marcus Cyron wrote the following at de:Wikipedia:Kurier (the de-Wikipedia equivalent for the Sign Post). I think everyone here, and especially the candidate has a right to know what he wrote there, thereof, here is a rough (and possibly not always correct) translation which Marcus is welcome to improve:
    • Currently there is a Checkuser-election at Commons. It is arguable whether the writer of these lines is right with his demand keeping the number of people who have access to these sensitive right low. He is more interested or even alarmed by the statistics of the eight checkusers at Wikimedia Commons during the past year: About 8.500 check user actions were performed. Half of them during the last half year. Especially two collaborators — of which one just threw in the towel (retired) — excelled with a four digits number of actions, each. And it doesn't grasp to the author [of these lines] how such a thing could happen. Are there really so many violations that have to be treated with a CU (where there is hardly a Community with “socking”) – or are the buttons carelessly used? And how can we then complain about spying by ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and PRISM, if we ourself created such a surveillance structure in our project. A comment by M.C. //
  • Note by the translator: The checkuser policy at de.wp is stricter. Also, I am going to add a translation of Trijnstel's reply to the Kurier. -- Rillke(q?) 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I support INeverCry's request to be a CU because he is reasonable and looks at the evidence before acting but I agree with Trijnstel that a user with 2 accounts should Not be blocked unless there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry/spamming. So, I think I understand Marcus Cyron's concerns about the CU process. In this English wikipedia case, a user was temporarily blocked for 1 week because he had 2 user accounts, not because of any abusive sockpuppetry. The user appealed the block and it was lifted Later on, the person who lifted the block Admitted/Admitted 2 that he didn't know why the user was blocked in the first case when there was no evidence of abuse on either account. (just something to do with English wiki policy) That is why I believe Trijnstel's standard should be Common's standards here--act only if there is clear evidence of abusive sockpuppetry or spamming. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of vote refactoring (which has now been undone)

Bureaucrat Note: I have refactored this section to highlight that the rationale used in these votes is not about the candidate, but is explicitly about the position in general or external factors. If any of you wish to make comments about the candidate, you are welcome to add them and move your vote back into the other section. RfX is not the place for policy reform, nor is it for attacking those currently or formerly serving in the position. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply suppress an opposition in the community. If a part of the community does not wish more CUs, they also do not wish to have INeverCry as a CU. Besides, since when does an opposing comment need to fulfill criteria, for being counted as valid? Vogone (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. @99of9, please revert your changes to the votes, they are just as valid and valuable as all the supports that had been cast. odder (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "suppressed" these votes. I have divided the votes into two sections that are categorically about two different things. Please note that I did not only split oppose votes. I'm sure the closing Bureaucrat will consider them for what they are worth. --99of9 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one category: INeverCry's request for CU permission. Vogone (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or shall we start to sort them into sections like "votes without comment" etc.? Vogone (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99of9, how can you say Stanzilla's vote is not related to the candiadate? The comment can be just an add-on opinion plus the vote. (It is like that in most cases; unless specified.) JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. I suppose 99of9 is a bit unclear about how he manipulates this RFCU, at the moment. Currently, it looks like the opinions below are wrong and unrelated to the RFCU and one more result of this change is visible in this diff. I fail to see what justifies this overreaction to a few comments. Vogone (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby strongly  Oppose this refactoring. A very, very bad move, especially for a bureaucrat who should always be neutral upon elections and thus should abstain from any editorial change. Please revert it immediately. Thank you, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone the refactor according to the feedback above, and an IRC discussion with some of you. My general warning at the top of this section stands. RfX is not a forum for policy change or to bash current practice or users. If your vote is based on a disagreement with existing consensus policy, you are likely to be ignored by the closing bureaucrat (not me). I was hoping to give some voters early warning, so that you could adjust your vote and stick closely to the topic. But I understand that it created a perception of manipulation, so to ensure the integrity of the vote, I have reversed it. I will also not get involved in the closure of this RfCU. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When was the last time you read the m:CheckUser policy? Must be a long time ago, I bet. It pretty clearly says that Checkusers must have "at least 70%-80%" consensus. It says nothing about the validity of votes, and given that Checkuser status is granted by stewards, not by Commons bureaucrats (I am so glad!) no bureaucrat has the power to discount votes just because he feels like it. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But stewards won’t close discussions about user rights here on Commons. They only will grant the rights or not. --Geitost diskusjon 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards are not retards. They will notice if a vote has been falsified. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said, that they would be. If they will notice that votes will not have been counted, then the whole voting will be invalid. And then the stewards can’t grant any user rights according to an invalid voting, especially not, if the 70 % would not be reached, if every vote would have been counted. So then they shouldn’t grant the rights. It should be clear also to the bureaucrats that this is a voting (according to the policy) and not a discussion, where only the (right) arguments are counting. If votes will not be counted in a voting, then the voting will be invalid in the end. And that should be clear now. Cause it is not possible not to reach 70 %, if the opposing votes just aren’t counted, just because the arguments for their votes don’t count. It’s completely ok not to count the arguments of the votes, but that can’t change that the votes themselves still have to be counted, if the voting shall be valid in the end. --Geitost diskusjon 14:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ 99of9: It has always been said that these kind of requests for user rights (sysop, bureaucrat rights especially) would be discussions with arguments and not votes (despite the fact that 70 % of support must be reached at least according to the policy). So, if the arguments are going to be ignored, because they are about checkuser tools use on Commons, and e.g. I just don’t want the only really active Commons CU to advise any new checkuser to use the tools the same way as he himself does cause I fear that there will be more checkuser misuse in the future than it has been in the past, I think that should be argument enough for opposing. I’ve no other chance to oppose the current CUs and the current system here, have I?
    I’ve got one more question about refactoring and accepting or ignoring "votes" – I understand the intention of the refactoring thing, but not the result of the refactoring or the criteria for accepting/ignoring "votes": If all opposers without arguments are to be ignored and all opposers with arguments probably also are to be ignored, because the bureaucrats think that the arguments would not be the right arguments for opposing, then no opposers are to be counted at all (and therefore, you moved all opposers from the above section before, and there really wasn’t left any opposer at all anymore in the first section). So, aren’t opposers ok in such a request and are only supporters to be accepted? Will or would you (or another bureaucrat later) also ignore the supporters without comments or not – why weren’t they also moved away and refactored? And will only those "votes" (with comments) be counted of which the bureaucrats think that these would be ok? In a discussion like this request support votes without comments can‘t be counted at all, cause they haven’t posted any argument for their support. And there are lots of those kind of supporters without comments. Would it be better to oppose without any comment, and then the bureaucrats won’t ignore those opposes?
    This system seems to be really questionable to me, cause the opposers will probably not be seen at all just because of such kind of criteria. If this is the way that checkusers tools are given to users, then I’m not wondering anymore about the results with the use and misuse of the tools in the past. I don’t mean the refactoring thing, but the kind of procedure with which users who comment or don’t comment at all in such a request are taken into account for the closure of such requests, or not. --Geitost diskusjon 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we can stop this discussion now. 99of9 already reacted to this feedback, saw that he made a mistake, and reverted his action. There is no need for repeating arguments anymore. We should start focusing on the RFCU itself and not discuss about something which already has been resolved. Greets, Vogone (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it hasn’t been resolved at all, please read especially my last sentence. --Geitost diskusjon 14:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • I'll reply to a couple of points:
  • "I’ve no other chance to oppose the current CUs and the current system here, have I?" Yes you do. You can seek a policy change at m:CheckUser policy, which governs our CUs. Or if you feel they have violated this policy, you can seek consensus and have their rights removed. Or... and how's this for a novel concept, you could talk to them nicely and see if you can understand their role better, with the eventual aim of agreeing to guidelines which you think the majority of the Commons community will support (bearing in mind that ultimately if your view is a minority view and cannot convince the majority, the community consensus will prevail). --99of9 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding votes without arguments: This has been discussed many times in the past, and the clear consensus is that support votes without comment simply mean that the voter is happy with everything they know about the candidate's suitability for the role, and there is no reason to spell out every aspect of that suitability in detail. Oppose votes without comment are discouraged, because they do not give the candidate or closing bureaucrat any guidance on what the issue is. (Usually in this situation, the voter is asked for further information.) --99of9 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding previous closures: Please do not assume the worst. The records of previous closures are openly available. If you are concerned by any of them, perhaps you should discuss this with the closer? --99of9 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers. The main question is, if this is a voting or a discussion about a user getting or not getting CU user rights? If it is a voting, then every user who gives a vote has to be counted in the end, and then it doesn’t matter at all, if (s)he gives a comment or not. If it’s a discussion, then only arguments should be counted, and not, how many users say, he should get or get not the user rights. But if it’s a discussion, then noone can tell, if the 70 % will be reached or not. Then it will be impossible to grant CU rights according to the CU policy ("After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, […]"), because the policy requires a pro/con voting with 70 % at least (cause this obviously isn’t a multiple choice election). So, I’m assuming, that this should be a voting, and then the arguments of the users who support or oppose can’t influence, if the votes are being counted or not. The arguments can only influence other users who also vote, but not the vote of the user itself.
Maybe it’s another way at admin and bureaucrat requests/discussions about granting those user rights (which is ok), cause there’s no fix percentage of the participating users to be reached. But at those CU and OS rights requests, both have to be real votings according to the CU and OS policies (the OS policy says also: "After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, […]") and every vote has to be counted (as long as they come from different persons). So, it’s impossible to not count any vote of different persons. If votes are not to be counted, then the whole CU voting will be invalid, and no stewards should grant rights according to an invalid voting which wasn’t a voting. --Geitost diskusjon 14:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an attempt to establish the unbiased consensus of the community about the topic we are discussing. It is part vote, part discussion, but not simply vote, nor simply discussion. Bureaucrat discretion comes into interpreting the result of the consensus (especially when the raw vote falls in the range 70-80%), so I cannot give simplistic answers which would always allow you to predict the outcome, but, as an extreme example, if a user voted "Oppose - because I don't like bananas", this would most likely be discounted, because it is clearly and unambiguously off-topic. Do you really believe that should be counted? --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "I don't like bananas" is an incredibly subtle comment you just don't understand. And maybe a "Pro" without further comment is some gullible voter. You simply don't know, and that's why I don't buy any of this "interpreting the result" stuff. Stefan64 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an incredibly subtle comment, and they are actually talking about INeverCry's habit of force-feeding bananas to users he investigates with CU tools, then I expect that they would clarify this when I asked them to stick closely to the topic of the RfCU. "Support - I like bananas" will get a similar treatment. Pro without further comment has been discussed before many times, and the community will is clear. --99of9 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the following purely hypothetical case: A candidate once deleted category:bananas accidentally. Since then I think that he's a moron. But because I'm a nice guy I don't want to embarrass him by mentioning a stupid mistake he made a long time ago. I just want him to know that I haven't forgotten. So, would a comment like "I don't like bananas" be legitimate or not? If you expect that I explain my comment to a bureaucrat: Why? Would you explain your vote to somebody at the polling station of your country's parliamentary elections? Stefan64 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99of9 und seine Kameraden dahier werden wir wohl nicht überzeugt bekommen, Stefan, dass wenn eine prozentuale Mehrheit gefordert ist, es nicht einer Clique von Amtsträgern obliegen kann, darüber zu finden, ob die Stimme "passcht", wie ein lupenreiner bayerischer "Demokrat" zu sagen pflegen würde. Man hat es ja immer schon so gemacht, und dies ist doch auch in deutscher Bürokratie das valideste Argument, welches sich finden lässt... --Alupus (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Stefan64, although the hypothetical backstory means the intent was legitimate, if it is deliberately left unexplained without even a "the candidate knows what this is about" (which could at least be verified by the candidate), then the voter has deliberately left a vote that to the community is indistinguishable from trolling/vandalism/whatever. If you insist on a parliamentary comparison, this is similar to a parliamentary voter who spoils their ballot paper, with or without legitimate intent. Regarding the pollster, as I said before in response to Geitost, this is not simply a vote (as a parliamentary poll is), quoting Geitost: "It has always been said that these kind of requests for user rights (sysop, bureaucrat rights especially) would be discussions with arguments". As you've observed in response to your vote, it's not just the bureaucrat that you should discuss with, it is the community who wants to hear valid on-topic arguments. Now, fascinating as this discussion has been, we are again a long way off topic. Before I get compared to any more German politicians, I will take leave of this discussion, and remind you again to attend to your vote rationale, lest it reflect poorly on you. --99of9 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from INeverCry

The only way I can think of to address the above opposes and comments is to state my intentions if I become a checkuser and why I accepted this nomination. I'm an honest person. I do my absolute best to treat everyone here fairly at all times, and especially as an admin.

At the moment, Commons has a big problem with spambots. These are robot accounts used to post advertisements for Viagra and other products. I think most of my time as a checkuser would be spent detecting and blocking spambots.

I understand that users are people just like me. When it comes to checking and blocking users, I would only do so under the following circumstances: if there were valid evidence that someone was using multiple accounts to vandalize Commons, upload copyright violations, or to attack and harass other users. I would not check users lightly or for minor reasons. I would only do so if there were a serious problem.

If granted the checkuser right, my actions will be open to scrutiny and questions. When anyone has questions about my actions as an admin, I try my best to address the issue and make sure that the outcome is right. I would do the same if there were any questions about a check or block made by me. I hope that anyone voting here will consider what kind of a person/contributor I am, and how I would perform as a checkuser. I'm here to help the Commons community. Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 15:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this statement. Let's speak about cause and effect: The multiple use of checkuser-tool is justified by the spam bots. I think it's normal if an often used tool is used with lesser hesitation than a tool that is used once in a week f.i. Is it really impossible to prevent the actions of these spambots technically, so that the checkuser-people don't have to use their tool so often? --Emha (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that the danger or risk in trying to technically prevent these spambot accounts from editing (with some kind of automated program/bot rather than checkusers doing it manually) would be that new users/accounts who aren't spambots might also be negatively effected in some cases. INeverCry 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are basically 3 ways how you could stop spambots more effectively with technical implementations: 1) is collecting and combining more data and doing excessive tracking or even joining abuse data with other web services 2) is adding difficulties to the account creation but this may harm accessibility and 3) requiring to personally identify everyone who wants to create and account e.g. by a phone number like google sometimes requires for new accounts. I think none of them will solve the issue for a long time. If you find a reliable and easy method to stop them, you can become very rich! -- Rillke(q?) 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, violating a person's privacy in other ways just to prevent revealing their IP address? --Rschen7754 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider any of the methods, except 2) more serve than a human, someone trusted from the community with whom you worked together for a long time, doing these checks. Especially because these sensible data will have to be stored somewhere and there is no security, really. It is all just a matter of efforts, power, knowledge and money to get/steal this information. The more human intelligence is used and the less information is stored at the servers or shared between services, the better for privacy. I would be too lazy doing this tedious job by hand. I am glad volunteers do (otherwise we would have to implement a "technical method" as mentioned above; with AbuseFilter we already have a technical method, BTW, but we can't predict all kind of vandalism). We should not forget that Checkusers are confronted with vandalism and bad characters every day. Expecting that this job makes someone happy [as expected by some of the commentators] is somewhat … astonishing. -- Rillke(q?) 14:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry&oldid=99166186"