Jump to content

Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment has been resolved by enacting a global ban.

I appreciate that there was a similar RFC, Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry, closed 10:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC) with the result "no consensus to impose global ban", and that clearly was a correct reading of the consensus. But I think there were two key factors that strongly guided that consensus:

  1. Some opposes were based on the RFC being requested by a logged-out IP address. That does not apply this time.
  2. Some opposes were based on suggestions that this is only a Commons problem, but that was arguably not correct then and is clearly not correct now, in the light of recent events:
Using the latest sock account, Special:CentralAuth/Maria Matveyevna, INeverCry ("INC") embarked on this sockpuppetry attack on en.wiki, involving the mass addition of actors to categories like "American sex offenders", "American people convicted of child sexual abuse", etc. You can see the extent of the rapid, presumably automated or semi-automated, attack - and it took a fair bit of work to unravel it.

To assess INC's current intent, please see this comment.

In this case, the sock Maria Matveyevna was quickly given a global lock by User:RadiX. After my suggestion that the global lock might be extended to all of INC's socks at User talk:RadiX, RadiX suggested (rightly, I think), that a new global ban request would be needed.

My view is that INC's ability, at any time he chooses, to use his multiple socks that have not been globally banned/locked on multiple Wikipedia projects to wreak havoc needs to be minimized, and he has clearly demonstrated his willingness to do as much damage as he can whenever he feels like it.

Concerning the requirements at Global bans#criteria-for-global-bans:

  1. I think it is clear this is not simple spam or vandalism, especially with the abuses of admin powers we've seen and the apparent commitment to future sockpuppetry and destruction.
  2. The user has clearly been made aware of the problems, on multiple occasions.
  3. The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects, en.wiki and Commons (and one of his socks is globally locked).

According to Global bans#Obtaining consensus for a global ban, I must:
  1. Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans prior to opening a request for comment - I believe I have done that.
  2. File a new request for comment on Meta - that's this here.
I hope you will consider my request, and I will now go and do the notifications required by:
  1. Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active - I will do that shortly.
    Done, on major Wikimedia projects - I can't manage every language Wikipedia he has any activity on.
  2. Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited - I will also do that shortly.
    Done at Commons and en.wiki, I presume this here is sufficient for meta?
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support all of INC's claims to reform have been proved to be disingenuous. There's no reason we should allow our trust to be hurt further. Let's throw away the key and ensure INC never shows up here again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support - I have supported this user much longer than most of the Commons community, but their last edit to my user page (and the user pages of the whole Commons admin team) has closed the door for me. I am not prepared to accept somebody accusing me of child abuse. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Strong support as the en.wiki admin who handled most of the revdels from the last round, enough is enough. They also have taken steps to prevent CU from being that useful on many of their socks. Clearly this is cross-wiki and major. A global ban is appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Make this strongest possible support per the statement below. No acknowledgement of the serious BLP damage the caused on en.wiki and a promise to continue socking on other projects regardless of the outcome here. I'll say it again: enough is enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support To go from "I'm very sorry, I was wrong, please let me back" to "Ah-ha, you can't stop me, neener neener" in less than a month, as this user has done shows that any protestations of reform are hollow. Eggishorn (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support otherwise this game will never end. Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support I think it was just last month that INC said they were very sorry and would not be disruptive anymore. Clearly those were just crocodile tears. Enough is enough. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. INC said made it clear that do not intend to do any more socking on any project at here? He's lying! SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support - I'm honestly still flabbergasted by the whole thing. GMGtalk 21:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support What drives INC to do this is cannot be commented upon. Nonetheless, there appears to be been significant disruption cross-wiki. My name is not dave (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support The antics on Commons and totally glib block appeal on en.Wiki are sufficient evidence why this user cannot be allowed to edit Wikimedia projects. Kudpung (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support Just what would INC have to do to justify the banniest Banny McBanface that we're capable of issuing? I cannot think of any other editor, simple vandals, Russavia and Betacommand included, who has been quite so thorough in trying to humiliate the community's trust. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Sro23 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support per Jcb and Andy Dingley. 78.26 (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support - INC indicated to me that he would only sock [on enwiki] for good purposes. I wasn't particularly happy with that, but I didn't see a need for banning at the time. With the recent mass BLP-violating vandalism, however, he's clearly thrown that out the window. I doubt that a ban will slow him down, but it's a step that needs to be taken. —DoRD talk 22:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ed [talk] [en] 22:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support INC is very good at deceiving the community with empty promises but enough is enough. Continued mass vandalism, blackmailing, socking and abuse is enough for a global block from all projects. Bidgee (Talk) 23:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support - The sad part is on his talkpage I recommended he takes a break for a few years and come back refreshed .... Instead his obsession with Wikipedia has now multiplied in the thousands and now he's wrecking havoc across EN - This isn't a local problem anymore and as such as per everyone above global blocking is the next best step, It's sad it's come down to this considering he was such a great admin but he's ruined it all by himself, Anyway support global. –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support I believe this malicious sockpuppetry is a long-term problem, and he's responsible for "Playtime is over". He clearly has no intention of contributing to Wikimedia projects in good faith. This is a long term abuser, and I would be glad to have the stewards' support in cleaning up. Guanaco (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support as, sadly, necessary. --Begoon (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support A real shame that one of the most active established administrators in Commons has become a long-term abuser. I hope that for a few years this user can consider thinking about the seriousness of their actions. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support I don't like this, but I think it would be best for all parties involved, including INeverCry. --Rschen7754 01:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support In condensed format; get rid. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support, The community has already given him a chance, though he has contributed a lot before, this is not a reason for abusing sock. Sorry for this. --B dash (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support This a long-term problem from an editor who turned quickly, and cannot be trusted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support Strong support as another en.wiki admin who wound up on mop duty after the sex offender category clusterfuck. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support per above. -FASTILY 05:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support unfortunately, this is no longer a local issue. I abstained from voting in the previous RfC because I was hesitating if I should support a global ban. In order to prevent INC from harming the projects, this is unfortunately the only option. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Regretfully, but I think it's for the best. --Eurodyne (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support The unrepentant ostensibly-useful socking on Commons was bad enough, and the user-page categorization worse, but the recent highly offensive trolling is simply intolerable. I’d like to think my previous impression of this user as a friendly and pleasant personality, albeit troubled, was not entirely wrong, and that these posts were merely calculated to offend, but regardless all these behaviours represent s liability to the projects that no amount of good work can balance.Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support Maybe one day INC will return to useful editing again, but for now this will be the only method against their persistent cross-wiki deceptive disruption. Alex Shih (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support Taivo (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support Strong support Believe me, I think that no-one who wants to contribute positively should be banned, but things like this just prove that they’re clearly not mature, and not to mention this, this, claiming to be Russavia (who only socks positively, and doesn't troll, but that’s a different story), more harassment (that image should be blacklisted to only be used on appropriate wiki-pages at this point), just look at how many edits had to be supressed here, this, this violates the biographies of living persons policy, just like this and this. Just look at the entire list of contributions here, they’re all suppressed, and the next page, and the next, and the next, Etc. This account is also all trolling with multiple suppressed edits. Also note that they’re oldest blocked socks are from 2015, and they’ve been trolling Wikimedia Commons with names like 500 socks and you still can't even slow me down! and then they were doing stuff like this, which is worthy of a Foundation ban by itself. Not only has INC used racist usernames, this entire page of “contributions” is suppressed (again), and another one mostly suppressed, and another one, and another one (mostly harassing User:A.Savin), and another one. More trolling, harassing @Kong of Lasers:, harassing more people, calling Sro23 a Nazi (a reference to a highly problematic German political movement from the 1930’s and 1940’s), and if calling someone a Nazi isn't suppressed but other edits of this account are it makes me wonder why people are still making excuses for him, also note that very often accounts are not blocked because of socking but because of “intimidation/harassment”. More trolling, bullying Guanaco, at this point they’re even admitting that they’re 2015 globally locked troll Playtime is Over, the community sends a clear message that they want to ditch this troll and INeverCry replies by making vandalism-only accounts, again with this weird obsession with Russavia, bypassing abuse filters is a game to them, the last edit is suppressed and was only a few days ago showing that he has no intent on behaving. I sometimes wonder if we're dealing a grown (wo)man here or a child, pasting pictures of middle fingers on people's user pages and highly visible public pages.

    I couldn't even respect them as an admin, most of the time they were looking around for abandoned accounts and just delete their personal pictures 📷 from their user pages, basically saying that Wikimedians who were once active contributors should be forgotten (which is something they’re still obsessed about), or the fact that they’ve committed identity fraud to the Wikimedia Foundation and that there’s an ongoing investigation to have them Foundation banned, yet this user is obsessively trying to enforce Russavia’s ban while admittedly pointing out that Russiavia’s sock edits are good edits which they said in the last global ban discussion which was done anonymously solely because that person didn't want to get trolled and harassed by INC, instead of the community seeing that this “veil of anonymity” existed for a very good reason, the request was shot down because of it and a lot of trolling by INC persisted. Or maybe they just want to get Foundation banned, and as someone with a severe personality disorder using bi-polar disorder as an excuse makes us all look bad by proxy, in fact this was explained to INC. (such maturity)

    Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: INeverCry posted a legal threat to Guanaco on November 4th, 2017. This is beyond trollin’ and calling Sro23 a Nazi, this could have real life consequences.
    Comparatively, I can’t find anything even this remotely negative from any Russavia sock. 🎭
    Drafted on my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too worried about a lawsuit or WMF action. Truth is a defense to slander/libel, and  It looks like a duck to me. But legal threats have no place here, and I am concerned about off-wiki harassment if and when we effectively prevent INC from editing. He had access to OTRS-wiki as recently as August, with a list of real names for OTRS agents (including many Commons admins). This access was apparently gained by signing a legal document under the fake Daphne Lantier identity. Guanaco (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tangent, but I think it needs to be said: it is a really bad idea to use your real name on OTRS if you are concerned about outing. There are just too many people who have access to that wiki and OTRS can't screen them all and make sure their passwords are always secure and never get hacked. --Rschen7754 20:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support--It's time to show the outer-most door.Godric on Leave (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support The Daphne account was not a "clean start account" but six months of deception to the Commons community to regain their admin badge. In addition to the widespread and unacceptable tagging of admins with libellous slurs, this user has targeted several people on Commons with serious harassment. The community has no choice to show such people the door, and make it very clear it isn't ever going to be opened again. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support I've probably got some sort of conflict of interest after INC put this rather unpleasant oppose on an en-wp RfA I started, but meh - he seems to have gone completely off the rails, and it's not like we're that desperate for editors. I'm also disappointed to see that diff is far from the only time he has accused another editor of being a Nazi without foundation :-( Ritchie333 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support This is clearly beyond any tolerable line. In regards to the one oppose below from Russia, the level of abuse outweighs any positive contributions. Either RuWiki has already suffered unnoticed sock attack, or it is at imminent risk of severe attack at any moment. Alsee (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support But of course the harassment will not end. As INC & socks did several criminal offenses by now, including public slander of several users (including real-name accounts like me) as child sexual abuse offenders and putting Nazi symbols on their user pages, the WMF Legal (@Jalexander-WMF:) should seriously consider criminal prosecution against the person behind the INC account. --A.Savin (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support. This person has made his true nature eminently clear. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support. The first time such ban got proposed, INC "promised" not to sock again. Now I'm only seeing more socking from INC. Can't really trust him based on this, he said he's clean on ruwiki but nobody really knows if that's actually true. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 03:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Strong support.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support for three gazillion reasons mentioned above. -ArdiPras95 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support, very harmful for Wikimedia projects. Stryn (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support as this has gone on over multiple Wikimedia projects. --MRD2014 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support nowadays and clear (i.e. with the help of well explained reasons and in fact, my recently VKontakte spam got), unfortunatelly this user still provides "his contributions" with his army of socks. To those Russian oppose users below: Пожалуйста, не доверяйте поклоннику сокета! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support Wholeheartedly. THey have gone beyond the pale with the accusations of child sexual abuse for editors. This behavior across multiple projects needs to stop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Support with great sadness. I understand this is a very difficult time for INC and I don't know if this is likely to have a real life consequence but asking WMF legal to prosecute INC is far from what I would consider a civil comment. INC, I am sorry that you have to go through this and I regret to support your ban. I wish you all the best in your new engagement. Wikicology (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If Nazi symbols and child abuser categories on user pages are not reason enough for you to ask for legal prosecution, then I suppose one cannot help you anymore. --A.Savin (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal action is a blunt tool and should be restricted to serious offense. Unless, you have evidence that INC is a child abuser, WMF will never take a legal action against any user. BTW, I will be glad to help you when you need help. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice that you have all the competence to judge, where is the red line between serious and unserious offense. I'm so stupid that I didn't know by now that this red line is child abuse. Wow. --A.Savin (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was perpetration of abuse by INC as alleged? Wikicology (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support enough of this. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support - I got inactive here because of what happened the last time, people have to realize INC is a global problem, not just a Commons problem.. time for the nail in the coffin--Stemoc 04:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support Time to move on. Legoktm (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Upon reviewing this case, all I can say is "wow". It's nothing short of stunning, that a once-respected, cross-wiki member of our incredible, worldwide community has been exposed as one of the most repugnant persons ever to disgrace the WMF. INC has quite simply been exposed as never having been a true member of the community. Their comment in regards to this RfC makes the stomach turn. They fundamentally have no respect for these projects and to the degree that they'll continue a dedicated LTA crusade for years to come, and random good natured people who only want to contribute to something greater than themselves will have to expend time from the one life they're given just to deal with it. It's disgusting. It's pathetic. It's one of the most repugnant, abhorrent things I've ever witnessed. Contrary to the good faith suggestions offered above, no WMF community will ever again be able to buy assurances of good faith from this person. They've cemented their position as one of the dark stains in our history. Swarm (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's avoid dramatic language. Keep in mind this is a page for comments about a global ban in response to persistent trolling and vandalism, not sedition. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fæ here. This is still a real-life person and the worst they have done is disrupt an online thing. We should strive to be as objective and unemotional as we can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ, lets be quite clear: "persistent trolling and vandalism" never got anyone a global ban. You have repeatedly attempted to downgrade and deliberately misrepresent INC's crimes in a manner that anyone reading the news these days would associate with the friends of disgraced Westminster MPs, etc. No, INC is guilty of serious and persistent harassment, of which the admins and oversighters are well aware, as well as long-term deception towards the community wrt the Daphne account, which resulted in admin powers granted to an individual the community had already made clear should never be an admin again. It these crimes against the community, not some vandalism or trolling, that warrant a global ban. Anyone appeasing such behaviour should examine themselves. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be so quick to dismiss my commentary as "dramatic" or "emotional". My commentary directly reflects the severity of the situation. Look, we're all real people here. Real people with real thoughts, feelings, emotions, and real mental illnesses, who are expending real time from our really short lives to work on these projects (ergo, it's a bit ridiculous to instruct us to be emotionless, but that's neither here nor there). I spend a lot of my time dealing with trolls, disruptive editors, vandals, and overall miserable and malicious "real people" who just want to sew petty chaos. This goes beyond that. This betrayal is, Fæ, the equivalent of sedition, but that would be an unnecessarily dramatic term to use. The words I chose were strong, but realistic. This is one of the most malicious editors this project has ever witnessed, they've lied to us, they've manipulated us, they've threatened us outright, and they have the audacity to claim that they shouldn't be held responsible because they suffer from mental illness. That is borderline evil. Apparently it's not enough for this user to conduct abuse within our community. They must also contribute to the stigmatization of mental illness. That is something that actually affects, and harms, "real people", and that is why it won't fly with me. I'm not going to relegate myself to an unfeeling, robotic position in response to such egregious behavior. Say it with me: mental illness is not a convenient copout for malicious behavior. Swarm (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to agree with you that we should not blame mental illness for disruptive behavior. Ban is not uncommon on Wikimedia projects, users get banned, including veterans for good reasons and to protect the project. Many have returned in good standing after sometimes. I was banned by ArbCom myself and it's my hope to return someday. Should I see my ban as a reason to vandalize the project from which I was banned and other Wikimedia projects, consider people who supported my ban as enemies,then use army of socks to lunch attacks and subsequently blame my actions on mental illness? This is crazy!! I respect INC for the good work they have done in the past but I am sad that they eventually chose to lunch attacks on Wikimedia projects after they were blocked on Commons. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being robotic doesn't mean letting your emotions run wild and get the best of your reason. A lot of room exists between those two extremes. There seems to be a lot of people here who are being overtaken by their emotions and not taking time to contemplate things more carefully.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one, myself included, would disagree that being irrationally overcome by emotion is any better than being robotically devoid of any emotion. However you seem to be implying that I'm overcome with emotion and thus am somehow being unreasonable in some way. That is not the case. I've come to this conclusion and have chosen the language I have chosen because I've reviewed the facts—I'm not being hysterical, if that's what you're implying. I understand I've chosen strong language, but it has been calculated to reflect my genuine view on this matter. If there's something specific you're disputing regarding my interpretation of the situation, by all means, let me hear it, but if it's simply my strong expression of emotion, well, sorry, but I stand behind it. Swarm (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Devil's Advocate: Wait, you're banned on enwiki. You yourself have been ostracized from our community for disruptive behavior in excess. Why the hell should we listen to you? Please, I'd genuinely love to hear your reasoning as to why you're credible. Swarm (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should listen because what I am saying is the truth. My ban is not relevant here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you are the holder of the truth. It's no wonder en.wiki banned you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is self-evident that people are letting their emotions get the better of them here, whatever they may say to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support Agree per others that this has gone well beyond tolerable limits. Aggressive socking and ban evasion is apparent, as is repeated disruption on multiple WMF projects. There is nothing left to say that hasn't already been said. That this was from a former admin on one of the projects is even more embarrassing. If this is not a case of global ban, I don't know what is. Wikimandia (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per [1]. Unbelievable behaviour. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support: Enough of this criminal behavior. KGirlTrucker81 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support Stop this behaviour. Lymantria (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Support Yes, absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Support I consider myself very familiar with INC, we bumped heads once, then I supported his ENWP adminship, accepted my own part in our bumping heads, we talked and we became wiki-friends. He added a bit or two on Commons for me, knowing I wouldn't upload junk, we would chat from time to time and usually agreed on matters of policy and content. I thought he was a nice guy, essentially. I'm betting his in real life as well. After that first encounter, we never had ill words with each other, even when he dropped his admin bit under a cloud. Still, however you define it, he has truly gone off the deep end and is so unpredictable that I feel the best interest of the project is served if he is banned. I hate it, but his actions dictate that we do not trust him on any wiki here. Whatever demons INC is fighting against, I truly hope he wins eventually. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Support Sadly. However I think that Fae made a several good points below. First I am not sure how a global ban would help potential vandalism by INC. Second I don't doubt his health issue, and accusation on this aspect should not happen on any Wikimedia projects. Ever. Third, there is obviously tentatives by Russavia and others to use this RFC as a revenge. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support We do not need another user vandalising Wikimedia sites, especially if they were a former administrator. Zaenon (talk | contribs | CA) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Support. Sad, but necessary. Had many opportunities to recover trust, but failed on them.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support Get him out of here. Goodbye. (Also while I'm here: mental health issues are no excuse for disruptive editing - that's assuming INC isn't lying about having them, of course - but the fact that he tried to use this as an excuse really bothers me.) Patient Zero (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support No comment. Just. Wow. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Support Hurry up with this RFC. Being a locked LTA sockmaster is so much cooler than being just a plain-old blocked one. lNeverCry 20:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Support. I also support blanking this page and deleting all of INC's userpages (master and socks) on all projects to deny recognition. ~ Rob13Talk 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my support on that. My name is not dave (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how things are done with any bans, including global bans. Projects may blank the pages and replace them with a ban notice at their own discretion and in keeping with local policies. Deletion of user pages is an empty gesture that creates unnecessary work for people who would be better spent directing their energies elsewhere. Imposing such a measure here would also be overstepping and needlessly punitive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike TDA, who pretty much reflexively rejects whatever other people are supporting, I also agree with Rob. Blanking the user pages of banned editors is a way to deny recognition to them, something they have earned through the behavior that got them banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want it to be standard practice to delete user pages then you should propose that change locally on whatever projects you frequent. Making a special case for INC only makes it seem as if people here are acting out a grudge rather than trying to prevent disruption.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Support. Trijnsteltalk 23:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Support: Is ironic how INC always blamed Russavia for sockpuppetry, and now, he acted even worse, and in bad faith. Since the problem extended beyond Commons, a global ban is clearly applicable. Also, altrough there are valid reasons for my block at Commons, the fact that INC blocked throug by his sockpuppet account Daphne Lantier is a clear abuse and a violation of the WMF TOS. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Категорически против. Нет нарушений в русской Википедии, имеется положительный вклад и технические флаги. Недопустимо накладывать глобальный бан на основании нарушений в паре-тройке проектов. Глобальная блокировка приемлема только для участников, злостно нарушающих правила в большом количестве проектов и не имеющих никакого положительного вклада в других. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Translate: "Strongly against. There are no violations in Russian Wikipedia, there is a positive contribution and technical flags. It is inadmissible to impose a global ban on the basis of violations in a couple of projects. A global lock is acceptable only for members who are violating rules in a large number of projects and who do not have any positive contributions to others." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll bite. This sort of argument has never made sense to me. So he likes ru.wikipedia now, but what happens when he no longer does? Do you want this sort of person editing your wiki then? --Rschen7754 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement "It is inadmissible to impose a global ban on the basis of violations in a couple of projects. A global lock is acceptable only for members who are violating rules in a large number of projects and who do not have any positive contributions to others" is incorrect, as Meta policy does not say that at all - I was careful to link to the actual qualifying requirements for a global ban in my statement, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose The main submission seems to basically be arguing a bare minimum case for a global ban. A bigger problem is that the more serious evidence regarding harassment and defamation appears to be based off suspected socks rather than confirmed ones. I still can't get why he was banned from the English Wikipedia in the first place and the only account on there to engage in any misconduct aside from evading the block is only a suspected sock created afterwards. More importantly, a single account making a flurry of edits over the course of ten minutes does not meet the criteria for an "ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" and without having that it doesn't work even if we assume the suspicions about that account are correct. INC is already banned on Commons, which the overwhelming majority of this evidence concerns, and evidence has yet to be provided that a similar problem exists on the English Wikipedia. This is even assuming the suspected socks are all, in fact, his socks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry/Archive shows the reason for his block on en.wiki - originally two weeks for socking with the Daphne Lantier account, and raised to indef because he kept on creating more socks while blocked. As you say, it's for socking, but also for threatening to continue (see this comment), and that is certainly abuse of editing privileges. As for why the latest sock on en is only "suspected", that's presumably just because he knows how to evade CU checks (which is not difficult) - this comment is probably as close to certainty on behavioural grounds as we can get.

    As for the flurry of edits over the course of ten minutes, the reason it was only 10 minutes is that it was clearly an automated or semi-automated attack, and it actually amounted to approximately 600 (yes, six hundred!) libelous BLP violations - and he made it clear in that comment that he intends to continue such attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how that rules out the possibility of the sock being someone else. Anyone can create a sock and claim to be another person. The account was created once it was fairly clear the last global ban wasn't going to happen and the vandalism happened a few days after the previous request failed. Should this be someone pretending to be INC, then it would seem the intention is to make the global ban happen. After all, the previous request was filed by an IP user clearly informed about Wikimedia processes who declared INC "evil" so there is no reason to exclude the possibility of someone evading scrutiny putting in some effort to make INC go away to the point of framing him for vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Devil's Advocate: If I'm not mistaken, Maria Matveyevna was blocked as CU confirmed to INC on Commons. Pinging Elcobbola. Sro23 (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the block log, on the user talk page, or in any other location that suggests this is the case. The account on Commons was not tagged as being associated with INC until after this discussion was opened on Meta.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm that there is technical evidence connecting the account to INC. I won't go into more detail, since he already takes effort to make CU results useless. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Devil's Advocate: Every stewards got the check users privilege at login.wiki project site, they have the ability to deal the LTA sock accounts, let me tell you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I don't see it meeting the bare minimum criteria even if the account belongs to INC. There are a lot of claims being made without clear evidence being present. I don't see anything compelling regarding the "playtime is over" claims and several of the claimed socks are claimed to be a WMF Banned editor by the WMF Office account, which obviously would not apply to INC unless we are suggesting INC is a sock belonging to one of the other editors banned by the WMF Office and I find that unlikely. Either the Office is banning these accounts falsely or the accusations of INC being the one behind the accounts are false.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that the en.wiki BLP violations were very bad and required the revision deletiin of both edit summaries and the text @Alex Shih and Premeditated Chaos: were the other to en.wiki sysops who helped clean it up and can also give their thoughts on how this action impacted en.wiki. It was 600 gross BLP violations at the best and 600 occurrences of libel at the worst. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the fact that in 10 minutes this person created 600 gross BLP violations, which took 3 admins approximately 30 minutes each to clean up - that's 90 minutes of admin time to clean up a mere 10 minutes of vandal effort. Now consider what happens if he repeats this attack, maybe extends its duration. What if next time we're unlucky enough that this doesn't get caught right away? During the whole time we were cleaning up the first attack, I was worried that somebody would notice and tweet about it and cause a huge legal shitstorm for us. The chances of that increase with every attack. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ban on all wikis except Russian is the solution. Is there technical restrictions to make such ban? --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban is not itself actually a technical restriction, but if it passes then what I understand will happen is that all of INC's accounts will be globally locked. A lock is a technical thing, and it is not possible to apply an exception for a specific Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is more of whether it is likely that INC will one day turn against ru.wiki and launch a sock attack there. I think it is likely because as of this typing, 2/3 of the projects he has been involved in have suffered major disruption, and the attack on en.wiki at least had very real implications outside of Wikipedia: it could have ruined people's lives and also was libelous. No Wikimedia project should be subject to this kind of constant threat. A global ban is not a technical measure, so he will likely continue to try to evade it (as he has promised below), but it will give stewards the foundation they need to go ahead and lock all the accounts the instant they pop up so that more WMF projects are not harmed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeAbstain The pile on for a global ban is understandable, so I feel my oppose is a pointless gesture. However, I would like to highlight that the procedure followed for this RFC is problematic, so we could do better, and list my points in this paragraph. Hopefully the fact that I ceased all communication with INC after they abusively blocked me in 2015, causing another admin to unblock my account moments later, gives some credence that my concern is not based on a personal friendship or private communication.
    (A) The ban is unnecessary nor will it be effective in stopping current vandalism: Global bans should be seen to be done in necessary cases, with serious and/or significant evidence from affected multiple projects. Though vandalism at Wikimedia Commons has persisted, for the most part this is schoolboy stuff of the "admin is a pedo" type, and is unambiguous rubbish which is easily identified. It does not seriously disrupt the project, nor is it the type of pernicious disruption that can remain unidentified for months or years (best not to provide examples). Stopping this vandalism may be more effectively managed by continuing to attempt to talk with INC about their issues, rather than trying to create stronger locks. Certainly the rules for how Checkuser rights should be applied would be no different, nor (I presume) would a global ban mean that new people would be doing the checks or account blocks.
    (B) The process followed is challengeable: This RFC is far too soon since the last one closed. Commons has a norm that all actions should be done in a "mellow" way, which maintains a long term non-hostile environment. Had this RFC waited for a month to give plenty of space since the last one, there would have been new evidence and maybe INC would have taken a proper break. The evidence for this RFC has not changed since the last one, neither has INC's type of disruptive behaviour which has a clear locus of Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia and there is no suggestion that having a global ban would change the way vandalism on those projects would be handled.
    (C) The previous RFC contained what I call "disruptive" assertions about INC's mental health. This was a tangent for the RFC and sadly is still visible on the current page. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. If the community accepts INC's own assertions about a serious health problem, and this is the underpinning reason for their actions, then other processes should have been explored before a public "trial". A special review with WMF employee/advisory support may be a good way forward to understand how Wikimedia projects should both respond to stop vandalism in an effective way, that is appropriate for a contributor who has repeatedly advised trusted users of their health problem(s). I do not support secret WMF blocks, but this particular aspect of discussing details of a user's health and treatment feels entirely inappropriate, when it could be first done confidentially and we could instead say that there has been a review of a given scope performed against a published governance procedure, and make public the recommendations for further action.
    --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence actually has changed since the last one - the rapid fire 600-edit libelous BLP vandalism spree on en.wiki is new. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretfully, changing my vote based on the additional cross-project evidence. Sticking to abstain due to procedural concerns already expressed. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Fae, I think your rationale for A) is sound. My initial reaction was to oppose this, because you're right that it won't do anything to prevent further disruption. I'm less convinced regarding points B) and C), but overall I hope you feel comfortable expressing a dissenting opinion - especially one so well thought out and articulated. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclined to Oppose Oppose per Fæ, regardless of whether or not he deserves it; ban will be completely ineffective against socking and will probably end up worsening his mental health. Jc86035 (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I have stricken my !vote. @Wikimandia: I apologize if I have misrepresented INeverCry's situation. Jc86035 (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first count is false: it will give stewards cover to globally lock any and all accounts, which is neccesary for what will be the inevitable first sock attack on ru.wiki or another project. To the second point, INC's mental health simply isn't our problem, and we are not medical professionals so attempting to diagnosis it online is inappropriate. What we can say is that if INC wanted to, they could have pretty easily created a major PR nightmare for the WMF the other day. Remember only 600 BLPs were slandered in 10 minutes. This has become cross-wiki and major and has very significant legal and real world implications. My very last ounce of good faith for INC was gone around the 75th revdel out of the more than 300 I did that night, so I'm not inclined to have a wait and see approach for INC launching an attack on ru.wiki or some other project. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Hi, please don't edits other user comment as you did at here, if you think there is a issue about the sentence, have an discussions which the editor to make change on that. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SA 13 Bro, I don't mind people correcting typos, and BMK and I get along well from en.wiki, where I encourage people to fix any typos on my userpage, so I don't mind. In this case, however, it wasn't a typo. The point I was trying to make was that while 600 is quite a high number, imagine how much worse it could have been, and what all the accounts that are not globally locked can unleash upon ru,wiki or any project other than en.wiki or Commons, right now. It honestly is terrifying to think that 600 could be on the low end. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: The reverting BMK of correcting your typos was did by Sro23 when I reviewed the diff. He combated this INC sock account at Commons on 25 October, condemned INC disruptive behavior about his vandalism spree and tried to convince INC that "it's not fair that everyone else follows the basic rules while INC get to do whatever he want", which commented at the talk page, and yet the INC was still lying. Sro23 has a enrichment of experience on dealing any users of sock-puppet accounts than other patrolling editors in English Wikipedia, the community may appreciate him! SA 13 Bro (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035: Speculating about the status of a user's mental health should never be a thing anywhere on Wikipedia. Unless you know someone personally, none of us are in any position to be judging anyone's mental health status any more than their physical health. Also, I'm willing to bet there are more than a few people with "mental health problems" who are valuable contributors to Wikipedia and never create drama. While it's good to be sympathetic to other people, this is totally irrelevant when it comes to a ban, where the pattern of behavior is the only issue. Wikimandia (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: I hesitate to reply any more than this once, as my taking part in this RFC appears to be a reason to subject me to an abusive character assassination, and as a very long term unpaid contributor to our projects I am tired of being a personal attack punchbag for having a non-majority viewpoint. However it is worth underlining that INC's abuse is on en.wp and Commons where they are already blocked, monitored and have been for a few months now. Despite protestations that a ban must happen, in reality a global ban makes no practical difference to how INC socks will continue to be handled on those projects. Your concern appears to be a fear of what might happen on other projects. This is fine to raise as a concern, and may be a good reason to ask for SPI cases on those projects as a precaution. However global bans are not done as a precaution. INC has been seen to reach the minimum for a global ban, however there is nothing new about their activities and as yet, there is no evidence that disruption is spreading to other projects. If INC is globally banned at the end of this RFC it will be correctly for their disruption of two projects where they have been blocked for many weeks already, nothing more than that, as nobody wants to extend the scope of global bans based on precaution rather than evidence of misuse. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ, I respect you and your opinions, I would have been inclined to agree, but this has never been "a local problem", INeverCry was blocked on French Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia, and Castilian Wikipedia for attacking others in August. Those contributions were supressed, and believe me I don't want anyone who can contribute positively to be banned, but BLP violations can get the Wikimedia Foundation sued. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Imagine if you were reading 📖 your own Wikipedia article and find the category "American sex offenders" or worse, an accusation of being a child rapist? Some people would sue the Wikimedia Foundation over this if they were aware of this if just one editor didn't discover it. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Donald Trung, I hadn't noticed that. So one of INC's socks (checkuser confirmed at en.wiki, en:User:Herbert Delvig), is indefinitely blocked on no fewer than six projects (and subsequently globally locked), so it is absolutely not true that INC's abuse is only on en.wp and Commons or that INC has reached only "the minimum for a global ban". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ, there is evidence of misuse and that is why it is necessary to take steps for a global ban as a precaution against further disruption: that is the point of all sanctions, to be preventative. As Boing! said Zebedee has pointed out, there are a large number of socks that are not globally locked and neither is the main account. Each of these is a liability to other WMF projects, and as Donald Trung has pointed out, it is clear that they have projects other than en.wiki and Commons in their sights. Indeed, a global ban for any reason other than a precaution would be against policy: we have evidence they have been majorly disruptive in the past on multiple projects, and evidence they plan to continue this in the future. A global ban would be preventative in this case, which is why it should be enacted. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose This is so unnecessary, and by the way what good does this achieve? Mahveotm (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is quite necessary to protect WMF's projects from INC's unacceptable behavior. What would you do? Just hand him the keys to the place and let him do what he wants? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Abstain: Quote Kurzgesagt: "the opposite of addiction is not sobriety; the opposite of addition is connection." INC's behavior can largely be explained by hormones and psychology, and there are many natural human emotional actions that cannot be simply controlled by one's own logic and reasoning. While there are certainly alternatives to a global ban that are better for both Wikimedia and INC in the long run, chances are, these alternatives require too much assumptions to even be considered remotely practical. I may lean towards supporting the ban, but it is a result of many uncontrollable factors, and I certainly do not like it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We aren't psychologists. It isn't our responsibility to make diagnoses here, and especially not our responsibility to prescribe courses of treatment. If a user is disruptively editing, especially to this scale and extent, then all we can do is tell them to leave. I also expect a large portion of the behavioural issues we deal with on these projects are due to psychological issues. But again, it's not our job to be dealing with that side of things. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to that, w:WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Rschen7754 17:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, if we based our banning policies on "...behavior can largely be explained by hormones and psychology, and there are many natural human emotional actions that cannot be simply controlled by one's own logic and reasoning", we'd never be able to ban anyone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment After reading Guanaco’s arguments that INeverCry is Playtime is over which would indicate that desyssoping is a highly stressful situation for them, my advice to INeverCry would be to join Guido den Broeder’s Wikisage website where other banned people like Graaf Statler and Die Vandaal are daily contributors and do a great job. Maybe INeverCry can even set up a “Wikisage Commons”, there are other alternatives and I don’t think that he’ll find Russavia on Wikisage. Guido den Broeder is a wonderful and amazing person and Wikisage is a nice alternative for Wikimedia projects, just try it INC and maybe you don’t have to waste everyone’s time (including your own) with edits such as this. After the previous ban discussion is was clear that if you only kept editing Russian Wikipedia and confined your edits there that a global ban would be unnecessary, but this sock is from today, and a lot of the edits done weren’t constructive. If the problem was that INC had only socked positively the results of this discussion would’ve been identical of the previous RfC, but harassing users every other day and adding inappropriate categories to the Wikipedia articles of living people was the drop that overwhelmed the bucket (a Dutch proverb). I really don’t want anyone who wants to edit Wikimedia projects to not be able to, but as far as I can see no other person has solicited this much irritation after their ban with such immaturity. And I know that there is a real person behind INC, there’s a real person behind every banned user, for example here’s DCoetzee skiing with his mother, and empathy is something that lacks on Wikimedia projects, but INC equally has to see that their behaviour insulting other people often tagging them as sex offenders may also cause stress to them. (the last part is mostly a response to Zhuyifei1999), but the general jist of this comment is that there are alternative places to the Wikimedia projects to edit. I hope that they could find peace at Wikisage. Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 20:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've just reviewed Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry again, and I count 16 of the 22 Oppose !votes as essentially opposing either because it was an IP making the request or that it was only a local/Commons problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also message 3 users that may familiarize about INC issues case on English Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see notifications of the communities at Commons and at en:wp. I think that ru:wp should be notified as well (1,906 contributions, currently not blocked). --AFBorchert (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Except, not really per below. [2] —DoRD talk 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoRD, thanks for notifying them on their ru.wiki account. I think that AFBorchert was referring to alerting the community there. I'd do it, but Russian isn't exactly something I have any competency in at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I didn't follow the links, but assumed that the talkpage notification was what was being referred to. I understand maybe two words of Russian, and can't read or write it at all, so someone else may want to notify them. —DoRD talk 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, perhaps? —DoRD talk 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not edit ru,wiki, my apologies. Would be happy to add in other venues if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Wikimandia if they would be willing to do so on their en.wiki talk page. [3]. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should find a native speaker. What about @Ezhiki:? It seems like you just need translation, right? Wikimandia (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a notice letting the ru.wiki community know that there is a discussion to global ban INC here since he has contributed to that project and is not currently blocked there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for sounding a bit dense but can't we just use Google Translator ? ... I know it's not ideal but surely not all of it would be word salad so thus they'd kinda get the message ? ... Just an idea... –Davey2010Talk 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate can bungle longer pieces of text. It's a lot better for reading than writing. That said, while a note in Russian would be preferred, it's ok to just write one in English with some apologies and a request for it to be translated locally. Such is the nature of cross-wiki work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone gives me a notice, I can translate no problem. I just can not post it on ru.wp.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their admin noticeboard (at ru:Википедия:Форум_администраторов) is semi-protected. @Ymblanter: The notice could just be as simple as "A proposal to globally ban a member of your community, ru:Участник:INeverCry, is currently underway at m:Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2 due to cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppetry. Note: the user is currently indefinitely blocked on both the English Wikipedia and Commons." Nihlus 04:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Предложение о глобальном бане в отношении участника вашего сообщества, ru:Участник:INeverCry, за межпроектные нарушения и злоупотребления множественными учётными записями, в настоящее время обсуждается на m:Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2. Участник в настоящее время заблокирован на неопределённый срок в английской Википедии и на Викискладе.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ru:Википедия:Форум/Новости is a more appropriate venue than the admin forum. A title of the topic can be Обсуждение глобального бана для INeverCry--Ymblanter (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 ru.wiki notified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) Done by TonyBallioni as I had an edit conflict trying to add it... Thanks Ymblanter. (And another edit conflict adding this...) Nihlus 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thaks. On ru.wp, they add messages on top (not on bottom), and it might have sense to transfer it to the top.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the top of that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the supporters are saying that this will help prevent INC from disruptively editing cross-wiki. That is not the case. INC's socks are already locked on sight, and their edits reverted. A global ban would have two effects: 1) make it clear to INC that he is no longer welcome here as a result of his behaviour, and 2) allow us to lock his main account. I think that both effects would be positive in this case, thus I support the global ban. But we shouldn't consider this a magic bullet that will prevent all disruption. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ajraddatz: Actually, most of INCs existing socks on en.wiki are not locked (in fact, I just found one that isn't even blocked on en.wiki - I will address that very shortly). That is part of my reason for requesting a global ban - when I suggested they should all be locked, it was suggested that a global ban was the way to achieve it. Having said that, I do agree with your points - it will emphasise to him that he is pushing himself further away rather than improving his chances of coming back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I need to add that I've only just seen the latest extent of his socking at Commons with commons:Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry - but most of those aren't locked either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll second that "wow". I stand corrected; if INC is still making a combination of disruptive and productive socks, then a global ban will be useful here. No amount of positive contributions can balance out this disruptive behaviour. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Well, as Guanaco said he’s Playtime is Over who is a cross-wiki troll whose socks have been getting globally locked 🌏🔒 since 2015 (see Commons:User:500 socks and you still can't even slow me down!), however INeverCry claimed that they were simply impersonating Playtime is Over (as a United Kingdom Indepence Party member), unlike what INeverCry has ever done in his life I am willing to assume good faith here and say that he’s not PIO, but if he were it would mean that he’s been trolling non-stop for two (2) years while being a Commonswiki sysop, which would basically prove that this problem has been long-term abuse (whatever that may mean) for years, now.

Also, not only is INeverCry the first Sockmaster in the history of the world to have both talk page access and e-mail access (they still have the latter everywhere), but while every other Sockmaster is told to “get out for at least six months” and have every thing they say rolled back on site INeverCry seems to be the exception to this rule, INeverCry was originally only blocked for 2 weeks (a fortnight) for socking for 2 years, even after their mass-deletion spree which included the main page they were even given a chance to retain their sysop-status, a community ban request was closed as “a dangerous kangaroo court” (when the “ban” votes outnumbered the “oppose”.), immediately afterwards as an IP they started accusing someone of being a sock of Beta M, in fact I don’t think that anyone in the history of Wikimedia has had so many chances and blew it, heck they even promised to stop trolling during the last global ban request, but they still continue to this day. I'm not even sure if a future global unban is possible with this person as they’ve clearly demonstrated that they'll blow every chance they get by immediately trollin’, not just once but a dozen times within a very short period of time ⌚.

Also, what is INeverCry’s obsession with reporting Russavia sockpuppets 🎭 to the WMFOffice about? From what I can tell from the history, the first time in INC’s 3 (three) admin terms he indefinitely blocked Russavia to troll him, and after that Russavia got angry and did something that him globally banned or something (from the little information 🛈 we're actually given on the subject), so maybe they’re just enjoying the fact that they’ve gotten Russavia Foundation banned. I mean It's literally a week between INC’s ban vs. The WMF ban for Russavia, it just seems like this person is more interested in bullying Russavia than actually “helping the community” since no trolling can be ascribed to Russavia but the opposite is true for INeverCry, I think 🤔 that this global ban will ultimately result in just mostly him complaining how the stewards / WMFOffice / Commons admins / Sro23 are cleaning up his (trollin’) socks, but that Russavia is still editing (mostly) in peace. Anyhow it just looked so childish how during his previous ban request he thought that “hunting Russavia socks” should be the main reason why we should think that he’s “a good guy”, further INeverCry seems to literally be the only person willing to enforce Russavia’s ban. Also note that the Playtime is Over socks started just around this period, confidence?

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by INeverCry

This will obviously end as a slam-dunk, but I would still like to voice my concerns. My first concern regards the IP who started the last RFC. Who was this person, and how many of my supposed socks are made by this person to harm me and pretend to be me? I was also informed on my talk page here [4] that someone was posing as me on an outside site. Tonight I was trolled on Commons by an IP here [5]. Who is this person? What part have they taken in impersonating me? I also continue to be slandered on Commons by Guanaco and Sro23. They've added Playtime is over to my INeverCry sock category despite there being no evidence of any connection between this sockmaster and me. But I guess it's OK to make false and empty accusations as long as the person can't defend themselves very well. I reverted the tagging by Guanaco, but it was put back in place by Sro23. I would note that Sro23 showed up on Commons out of nowhere with a weak story about my blocking them at some point and this is why this person or persons has stalked me daily on Commons for two months now. Who is this person? Is he a meatpuppet for Russavia or another enemy of mine? Nobody ever liked that I went against Russavia. This IP trolling was how I found out about this second RFC, which is for all intents and purposes over. Did I get a chance to defend myself? Not really. I consider this RFC illegitimate, and I certainly won't stop editing constructively on Commons and the Russian Wikipedia for years to come because of some kangaroo court RFC decision. Now close your phony RFC and start begging James Alexander to WMF-ban me. I'm sure Stemoc has all the false accusations and disinformation about my actions that you'll need. Russavia hasn't won a thing today as he'll soon see. I take it that there's no protection from sockmasters like myself for a WMF-banned user like Russavia. His edits and uploads are against the WMF ToU, so I consider him and any one who assists him as a reasonable and legitimate target for attacks, but not attacks like these nasty attacks that've been carried out by unknown persons likely connected with Russavia. I haven't committed a single attack of that kind. This is all that I'll say here, since the decision's been made, but you guys have done a good number on someone with 1 million edits and half a million good log actions, and you've run it through nice and quick on the railroad. Take care everyone, and hope you don't step out of line... lNeverCry 04:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INC's attempt to divert attention from the current global ban request by bringing up the previous global ban request is nothing less than pathetic. While that previous request may have been suspect, this one was opened by an editor of impeccable repute, and is not in any way connected to, or tarnished by, the previous request. That INC believes that after their execrable behavior anyone would take their word about anything, much less what accounts are and are not their socks, is an indication that INC has absolutely no idea how utterly and totally they have betrayed all the WMF communities by their deceitfulness and outright lies. No matter what any other editor has or hasn't done in the past, nothing can excuse the middle finger INC has given to us all. If INC had any sense of honor at all, they would just disappear from every Wikitionary and WMF project, and never darken our doors again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slandering dozens of users to be childfuckers and Nazis, but legal threats because of suckpuppet accusations against himself. That's all one has to know about INC... --A.Savin (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a locked global account that is insulting of INC which I discovered in not long ago, I'm not sure whether is belonged to Russavia sock account or not. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sock of LTA Incorrigible Troll. RadiX∞ 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take my "dozens" of people who "literally hate" me (out of over 130,000 regular contributors to en.wiki) over your 4 dozen people just above who support your being globally blocked. Besides, I've seen some of that "hatred" on the off-Wiki bitch sites, and since the vast majority of those who express that kind of opinion are net-negatives anyway, I really am not bothered by their misguided opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Everyone: You're on Russavia's side or mine. Take your pick. I've seen OTRS agents working directly with Russavia to arrange OTRS tickets for aircraft photos. I've seen Commons users uploading files from Flickr and tagging them with Template:Aviationcommons, which is Russavia spam created by a confirmed sock blocked by WMFOffice. I'm not going to go away easy because Russavia want's me gone. Your ban will be worth less than a fart in the wind. You all act like 40 people out of thousands is a "community" and can make unquestionable decisions concerning everyone else. This is a delusion that makes you feel important, but you're not. I can't wait to see how many people come directly to to the rescue of Russavia. I get a kick out of the double standard. Have a great Sunday, and don't forget to turn your clocks back. lNeverCry 20:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you make me choose between you and Russavia, then Russavia has never deleted main page, Russavia has never categorized my userpage, I have never mass reverted Russavia's edits, one of Russavia's sockpuppets once wikithanked me. So much about how to make friends and influence people. Bytheway, turning clocks makes no sense, after half of year they are wrong again, I do not turn my clocks. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, nobody is having to choose between anybody and anybody else here. This is solely about INC's behaviour and is not in any way related to Russavia (or anyone else). Might I suggest we stop feeding this line of distraction? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about OTRS by INeverCry

Let's put this to rest. As INeverCry, I identified myself with my license to WMFOffice to become a CU, and then had access to OTRS for less than 1 day. As Daphne, I had a couple day's access. I marked a couple spam emails as spam, and that's it. I never opened or even attempted to open or process a ticket. The whole thing looked too boring and time-consuming so I quit. I gathered no private information whatsoever, I have no such information, and there's no off-wiki threat. I'm not active at all on any Wiki-related site (like Wikipediocracy), and I don't intend to be. My object is to get at Russavia and his people on Commons and maybe settle a few old scores, but I don't intend to try to harm anyone in a real-world sense. My "legal threat" to Guanaco is obviously a joke, as I don't know this person's name, location, or anything else about them. For all I know, he's a she and for all anyone here knows, so am I. Maybe I'm a real nasty Bi%&$@ like Mattisse... lNeverCry 20:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so were clear, you used a false ID in order to gain access to OTRS as the Daphne account. Sro23 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, you don't need to submit ID to sign the OTRS confidentiality agreement anymore. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still have to sing the agreement with your legal name since it is a legal contract/agreement, and using a fake name, in this case, could (worded as to not cause a legal threat) be construed to be (at least) document fraud and/or forgery. Josve05a (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: I'm not OTRS (and I just put the application in so I wouldn't know), but when asked this question in 2015 when the phabricator form came online GVarnum-WMF stated that you could use either your real name or your Wikimedia username. Perhaps it would be useful for the WMF to clarify since that is the last public thing I could find on-wiki about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: (Did not know one was allowed to sign with a psudonym. That shouldn't matter though:) Whatever you put in the field acts as an w:electronic signature (real name, or pseudonym). If however you are impersonating another person, or a person which does not exist, that would constitute fraud (ianal). Since INC seems to have done this twice, I would stipulate that he signed it as two different people (one of which can't physically (or legally) exist). Josve05a (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complicated legal question and one that neither of us are capable of answering. The OTRS thing here is worrisome in that I don't trust INC near OTRS, but we're in murky water as to the legalities, and I think there are much stronger arguments than There is an unresolved legal question as to whether signing as one pseudonym when you previously signed with another but did not still have access to the system constitutes fraud for a global ban. Such as the fact that he has launched attacks that are were gross BLP violations against articles and userpages on multiple projects and promises to continue to sock and will likely do it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify further, I did not write that as an argument for banning (I haven't even !voted, nor am I planning to). My comments were just as responses to previous comments, and I wanted to participate with a clarification of what I thought was a possible incorrect statement. The BLP issues etc. are much better arguments for banning INC than this legal issue is. Josve05a (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify wording as a non-lawyer but someone with commercial awareness, unpaid OTRS volunteers will not be bound by a contract, they have an agreement. The WMF would never have recourse to use any OTRS agreement as a means to take civil action (because there was never an exchange of property or paid services). If the WMF did take action against someone misusing OTRS (whether they were a volunteer or not), this would probably have to be based on their actions being demonstrably criminal, so there would be a case to either take the evidence to the police, or make a claim for damages in a civil court, should they be able to identify a "natural person" to take action on. In short, this would never really happen as WMF legal would examine the risk/reward and at most tweak access policies or drop the OTRS service altogether if it cannot be protected, rather than wasting WMF resources on it. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, they signed a confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information with the WMF and by its nature, its not a contract and does not rely upon any enforceable mechanism. However, this does not implies that legal action could not be taken against someone misusing OTRS, but would not be based on this agreement. Wikicology (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our understanding on what the OTRS agreement means is the same. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playtime is over socks

It didn't seem to get noted above, but I feel this needs to be discussed. Two different people calling for a ban state INeverCry is the sock-puppeteer "playtime is over" and one of those people, an administrator on Commons, had tagged the category for those socks accordingly. However, as I note in a comment above, several of those socks have been banned by the WMF Office account as belonging to a WMF Banned user. Either the WMF has mistakenly banned those accounts as belonging to a different user or a Commons administrator has falsely labeled INeverCry as operating those socks and that false label is being used as evidence for a global ban. There is a third, much less likely, option that INeverCry operated a different account that was banned by the WMF, which would render this whole process moot as INC should already be banned if that is the case. I feel this requires some clarification as the potential that some socks might be getting falsely attributed to INC as part of this discussion is a key point of contention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the primary activity of a number of those socks was to label various accounts as socks of Russavia, and bearing in mind INC's fervid anti-Russavia campaign, I'd say the most likely scenario is that INC was previously globally banned by the WMF Office under another name, and that the Playtime socks are all INC's. But, in a sense, it doesn't really, matter, since even if the Playtime socks were somebody else's we know enough about the behavior of INC and INC's CU-confirmed socks for this global ban to be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WMF Office: Please take notice of the discussion directly above and comment if possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s @WMFOffice: (not tự be confused with WMFMicrosoftOffice or WMFOffice360), and if Guanaco feels like (s)he can adequately apply the duck test 🦆 then this should stand, and this should've been discussed between Guanaco and Sro23 with INeverCry on Meta or another project where INeverCry is inexplicably allowed to edit (Herbert Delvig, an admitted INeverCry sock is blocked here locally, and Daphne Socktier also on Wikidata, but those are different stories, also debunking the claim that this wasn't a real cross-wiki issue since day one). I am skeptical that INeverCry is actually Playtime is over, but tagging Russavia socks is suspicious and not to forget that one of them is named “500 socks and you still can't even slow me down!” which could be a reference to Russavia's sockpuppets 🎭, but only the WMFOffice account can confirm or deny this link 🔗 with certainty, also note 📝 that the name “Playtime is over” could mean “Playtime is over for Russavia” showcasing INeverCry’s vendetta against this person. I think 🤔 that the duck test 🦆 was applied after INeverCry created the account Commons:User:Unkept by my brotherzzz which fully fits within Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Playtime is over.
P.S. (Post-Script) @WMFOffice: Could y’all comment on the above conversation regarding the OTRS or it more of a job for @WMF Legal:?
P.P.S. (Post-Post-Script) the trolling continues. Someone who is almost fifty acting like someone only a decimal of their age. *heist* 😏
Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of "Playtime is over" coincides with INC's 2015 breakdown and resignation as admin. Both are responsible for the same mass pedo-tagging, and the same obsessive harassment of Russavia. Also look at the naming choices of their sockpuppets. I have no doubt at all they're one and the same. Regardless, the deception and abuse via Daphne Lantier and the cross-wiki mass libel would be enough for a global ban. Guanaco (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Daphne Lantier, the block on Wikidata is a product of the admin deletions on Commons cross-posting to that site. However, I didn't notice the Delvig account's blocks on other projects and that is CU confirmed as INeverCry.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of Playtime is over and we were explicitly told by admins and ppl with CU back then that it was a different troll but i always found it fishy but after INC started creating new accounts with a similar 'start up userpage' after his breakdown (i lost count), it was a bit suspicious but obviously back at commons, there were atleast 6 admins that had INC's back so even when you told them what was happening, they were more likely to block you than INC. It tried to make it look like it was an account run by Russavia but a few of us were not fooled by it, now that i think about it, it was very obvious that it may have been run by INC as he has a deep seated hatred for Russavia, not sure what he did to him lol but Russavia is somewhat active on IRC and whenever he started an account on commons, he made it very obvious that it was him and none of the Playtime socks were remotely similar.....was this a long con? accounts like this make it obvious that they were run by INC cause INC had a strong pull on WMFOffice who blocked every account he sent them claiming belonged to Russavia but i won't be surprised that a majority were his cause WMFOffice never performed any CU checks on those accounts, they took INC on his word cause he was an established commons admin...makes you wonder if INC actually did something blaming it on Russavia to get him globally banned cause WMFOffice has claimed multiple times that his ban had nothing to do with the 'Pricasso' incident or the Santa Claus incident ..--Stemoc 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    INC was a checkuser, so it's possible he copied Russavia's user agent string and socked via proxies. Even if WMFOffice ran checks, they could have been fooled, especially if Russavia's string were fairly unique. Guanaco (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Request fails Criterion 3

This is pointless now, and there is no reason to continue discussing this. Nihlus 18:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was planning to restate my opposition as I still feel given there appear to be only three accounts, including this one I found, that have been blocked for serious misconduct beyond socking somewhere other than Commons that this does not meet the requirement for an "ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" as it is more occasional spillover that gets dealt with quickly on local projects. However, I noticed the requirement of criterion 3 is that the indefinite blocks on other projects "must have demonstrated broad support . . . through a prominent community discussion process" and that has not occurred on any other project.

While this discussion may demonstrate such support for Commons even if it isn't the proper place for it, I do not see any equivalent discussion on the English Wikipedia. The original indef was imposed by a single admin who had previously been involved in a dispute with that administrator. It may well be the case that such a process will result in broad support for the block, though I feel the jump to a global ban may have accelerated this process. Both of the accounts that engaged in misconduct on the English Wikipedia that might affirm support for the block came after the initial push for a global ban and the socking on English Wikipedia prior to that was harmless. At any rate, it has not been demonstrated that any kind of community resolution has been sought on the English Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was Wikimedia Commons' first community ban request which was speedily closed by Natuur12 as "a dangerous kangaroo court", however INeverCry posted an unblock request where there was broad consensus not to unblock him. As for English Wikipedia, doing so many BLP violations coupled with the fact that his block for sockpuppetry was only a fortnight (the most lenient block ever made on English Wikipedia), but he still managed to get it ro indefinite, and also note that a lot of "Support" voters here are from English Wikipedia showing that very few don't show support for this ban. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 09:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Note 📝: This is usually how community sanctions are done on Wikimedia Commons, I know that users like @Amitie 10g: have also had such block reviews on their talk page and if it's rejected it's seen as "a community ban" all but in name. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 09:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Devil's Advocate, I honestly don't know why you are wikilawyering to try to prevent this ban - do you genuinely want someone with such a destructive record (and who has promised to continue the destruction) to remain active with his dozens of socks? Anyway, it's a timesink that could have been avoided, but I've started a discussion at en.wiki to ask if INC's indef block has broad support - it is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, The Devil's Advocate, and what does "only three accounts" have to do with anything? The proposed ban is for the person carrying out the cross-wiki destruction, not any specific account or accounts. Your objection makes as much sense as "The suspect has been stabbing people, but only with three knives". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know I find it extremely disheartening that an editor who is banned by the community on the English Wikipedia is trying to Wikilwayer this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't realised The Devil's Advocate was banned on the English Wikipedia - and here is supporting an egregious vandal who has threatened to keep attacking the English Wikipedia. I'm sure whoever judges the consensus and closes this will take that into account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As said elsewhere, I would also support a global ban for User:The Devil's Advocate who is clearly trolling in the guise of a concern for process. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please stick to Meta:Urbanity and assume good faith, INeverCry deserves a fair trail, like everyone should. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Donald Trung is selective quoting me but I would kindly request him to stop doing so. Natuur12 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just replying at a comment by The Devil's Advocate regarding a failed community vote that you closed, please read the entire section before commenting. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire section and your comment still doesn't explain why you choose to quote my comment in a pretty misleading way. Natuur12 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the closing statement you made, Wikimedia Commons doesn’t have a community-based banning process, and doesn't have a banning policy, whom ever closed the discussion is irrelevant, the discussion is relevant and was closed before any vote, what you did was a reaction to the lack of a community-based banning process so by The Devil’s Advocate’s arguments INeverCry isn't “community banned” on Wikimedia Commons, however I pointed out to a rejected unblock request where he promised to continue harassing people like Sro23 and Guanaco and the project overall, there people voted Oppose Oppose en masse. I simply pointed out that Wikimedia Commons doesn't ban people and that you were the closing admin quoting you to give context as to why it was closed. I don’t see how or where this is pro-/anti-INeverCry, it’s simply stating some facts. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 17:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you left out half my statement and therefor important context was missing. This is not the first misleading statement you made at this page. Your comment from 20:22, 8 November 2017 even contains blatant lies. So please stop harming this discussion by inserting incomplete information or desinformation. Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the circumstances of this case are concerning. It does seem people are jumping into this without having giving much consideration to allowing INC a fair shot. People seem to be accepting whatever allegation is made against INC before checking it out. At the same time there are various peculiar incidents taking place in the lead-up to this that cast doubt on what actions were specifically carried out by INC, particularly the actions being used as the primary cause for the global ban. Using suspected sockpuppets rather than confirmed ones as evidence makes this look like it has been rushed without any pressing need. The fact people are suggesting a global ban for me simply for raising legitimate issues with the request says a lot about the impulsiveness of this discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems to have become irrelevant and unhelpful. I propose it is collapsed for this reason. Anyone support collapse or can give a reason the thread must stay on view? --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that Boing's discussion initiated at the English Wikipedia contains a misleading description of events. Stating INC is indef blocked on six projects "via his socks" is misleading as, having looked over all the suspected and confirmed socks, I have only found one that is indeffed anywhere but Commons and English Wikipedia for edits made directly to those projects. I also don't feel his using the Maria account there is proper as the only thing we have is a statement above that there is technical evidence connecting the account to INC, but without any statement as to how strongly it connects the account to him. Unless we can say for certain that it couldn't be someone impersonating him then I don't feel it should be used as evidence. The discussion there was tainted from the start. Also, for the record, since it seems someone above is responsible for this misinformation, I am not "banned by the community" on the English Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia site. My ban was imposed by ArbCom under very controversial circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

In light of this recent comment by INeverCry, I do not see any point of keeping this RfC opened. I think the consensus to ban this user globally has been established and this RfC should be closed now. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, and we don't need to dance for INC here. It will be closed by a neutral steward when discussion had died down and an appropriate period of time has passed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_of_INeverCry_2&oldid=27686973"