Commons talk:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (de-adminship)

Proposal to close, then start anew after an one-week recess

After discovering that Russavia operated a sockpuppet called "Snitches get stitches", I've come to the conclusion that this discussion has been flawed from the start and needs to start afresh. This discussion doesn't do INeverCry justice for the following reasons:

1. Odder, as an avid supporter of Russavia, neglected to mention Russavia's role in the events concerning INeverCry's behavior in any capacity.
2. Odder neglects to make any reference to what INeverCry is responding to. The events that provoked INeverCry's actions aren't mentioned at all.
3. If people had known that Russavia had uses an username that implied violence / retaliation against whistle-blowers, they likely would've voted differently.

In essential, the lack of information in Odder's proposal created an unfair playing field for judging INeverCry's action. Due to the amount of votes already cast, I believe that the only recourse is to close this discussion and start a fresh discussion. In order to allow reflection, I propose a one-week pause from any INeverCry discussion aimed at creating consensus via voting. To clarify, a vote regarding the future of INeverCry's sysop rights should occur no sooner than one week after the closure of this discussion.

In order to avoid another desysopping proposal that lacks adequate information, I also propose the following requirements for the leading paragraphs of the next desysopping discussion:

1. The next discussion should start provide an brief summary of INeverCry's history with Russavia from Russavia's ban by the WMF to just prior to July 2015.
2. After the above-suggested brief summary is made, the discussion should start delving into details of the incident, starting at the point where Russavia creates the "Snitches get stitches" account.
3. The next discussion should mention the confrontation between INeverCry and Russavia ([1], [2]) that occurred just prior to INeverCry lashing out against Fæ and Stemoc.

If we owe INeverCry just one thing, it's fairness when judging him, and that can only happen if the implete story is made available to everyone from the very beginning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support It is not fair to vote without all the facts MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I feel that this is too abrupt and per Morgankelvinj. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 02:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - this is clearly a contentious issue and we need the full background before !voting. Green Giant (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Ater a week or a month! -- Christian Ferrer 04:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I already commented on the Admin noticeboard that creating a de-adminship request was hasty as we lacked the information to comment wisely -- leading to unhelpful and unkind speculation. However, I don't think the end-result was ever in any doubt and indeed consider the method of retiring to be one where INC is burning his bridges in order to prevent becoming an admin again. So I repeat my plea once again that our 'crats collectively discuss short-circuiting this unnecessary process and make the appropriate request that admin privileges be removed from INC. We are not robots and this is a wiki so let's be adaptive to circumstances rather than slaves to bureaucracy and procedure. It is abundantly clear that should INC return the community will not simply give the admin bit back again. Why, therefore, have all this drama where his "crimes" are endlessly re-stated in people's votes.

I don't think the "Snitches get stitches" sockpuppet information would change votes significantly (though it may change people's comments). An admin should deal with personal threats differently than taking revenge, though we are all human. I also don't believe Odder missed-out this information deliberately. Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought Odder's request statement above was as respectful as it could be in the circumstances, though I disagree with him about the necessity of going through this drama to achieve the obvious. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose This isn't about Russavia's substantial (and surely continuing) socking, it's about INC's past reactions to that and the world in general. INC has demonstrated they can't hack it. Sad, but there it is. For whatever reason (and the more one knows the more one seems to find sympathy for INC over this), it went wrong and INC behaved in an inappropriate manner. So they should lose admin privileges, based simply on how they've behaved so far. That's not going to change. It certainly should not change if they return tomorrow and promise to behave, we've heard that wolf before.

Also, as Russavia is unlikely to stop, they're also likely to present a continued provocation to INC. That is not going to improve matters, making it less appropriate that INC should be left in such a position. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose This isn't about poor administrative actions in relation to Russavia, if it was, then a small amount of additional leeway could be given, but INeverCry went and indefinitely blocked two users for sockpuppetry when they're entirely unconnected with Russavia (though known to be unhappy with the WMF global ban) and are known not to be sockpuppets - indeed, the physical identify of one account is well known, as a former chair of WMUK. The block log entries are perhaps understandable if wholly unacceptable, but the blocks themselves were abusive and out of process, with no reason to have been made. That does need to be discussed. Nick (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment As I said above, this de-sysop vote was a bit too fast. Now I don't expect a new vote to have a different result, even if a few users change their mind. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I already said this at user problems, please wait untill everyone is cooled down a bit. There is no hurry. Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose - uhm what? this isn't another INC/Russavia thread, we are dealing with a mentally unstable user who has a habit of getting into fights with other users. No one is denying that INC has made a great number of contributions to this wiki but this isn't a new thing, INC has a habit of getting angry, doing something stupid and then requesting his rights be removed and then come back a month or 2 later and requesting his rights back. I believe users on this wiki are actually 'enabling' a user who has issues and I'm honestly against it, infact it sickens me to see that INC still has his sysop bits which shows that people are not taking this seriously. As i said above, this is not the first time and it surely won't be the last. His personal grudge with Russavia is none of our business but if he abuses his rights to make a point (even though it was a very poor one), then his rights should have been removed there and then. This de-adminship just goes to prove that Commons is broken, something WMF have been saying for years but unfortunately i refused to believe it so...Now i know its so. The right course was to de-admin him straight away and block him for a year. This person needs medical and mental help and the more he is allowed back, the worse it will be for him and the community as a whole...Lets not sell the standards of our admins short..--Stemoc 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that INeverCry shouldn't be desysopped; I just feel that INeverCry deserves a fairer (for lack of a better word) trial that presents all the facts. There are things voters should know and understand before voting. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  To the point where a majority of editors might change their mind? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Would you allow a mistrial to stand and end with a verdict? --Michaeldsuarez (talk)

  This is not a trial. There is no intention to prove any sort of verdict. There is only one question to answer, and that's whether INC should have admin privileges or not. There are many things that just aren't important to making that choice, and INC's reasons for acting as they did are some of them. All we need to know are their actions, that those actions were incompatible with admin status, and that there's no credible excuse otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Amen. It doesn't matter how a needle got broken--if you continue to sew with it, it will rip holes and cause jams as it goes. Removal of adminship is not a punishment nor does it mean the person did something "wrong". --Pitke (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Addendum: my metaphor is not perfect and I do not mean to imply that INC is "broken" or that losing adminship at one point indicates suitability in future. --Pitke (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. This is a matter crats need to discuss as a group and seek CU help for clarifications. In my last discussion with crtas, I asked them whether they seek any opinion from the CUs about matters what they can't see. But unfortunately they didn't replied. Instead one crat suggest to handle individual socks, case to case. But see what happened at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alissa Edwards. One crat made a request and another crat declined it saying "For me it appears obvious that the global ban for the affected user Russavia is valid itself and valid for Commons, so this user is not allowed to participate here in any way, and additional evidence to support a local block or ban is not required.". @Crats: This is not a place to paly your foolish game. EOD from my side as I'm not interest in this ...ing politics. I'll continue as a media contributor; but no more interested to muddle with. Jee 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Regardless of what lead to the blocks, INC performed out-of-policy blocks on established users for apparently invalid reason, accusing them of being sockpuppet accounts. If they are sockpuppets, it must be confirmed. Admins cannot be allowed to go rogue, INC has history with dubious conduct as an admin, and my vote will not change in a week. --Pitke (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Taivo (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Snitches get stitches

I also looked at INC's recent history and like Michaeldsuarez also concluded it was likely instigated by the "Snitches get stitches" russavia sockpuppet. Will this threat of physical violence convince one of our 'crats to start a community ban of russavia on grounds that our Terms of Use do not permit "harassment" and "threats" and our Blocking policy makes this a clear reason for users to be community-blocked. Odder, MichaelMaggs you are both experienced enough to start this process. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic FYI --The Photographer (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol; Dear Colin, always looking for an angle to put one over Russavia. The 'Snitches get stitches' account created by Russavia was surely not targeted at INC but he "took an exception to it"..that is the right choice of word no?--Stemoc 12:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So is there another user that russavia was threatening with physical harm? Does that make a difference? Why do you think this is in any way a laughing matter? Your comments in the section above make me think you also think the Internet permits you to abuse and mock other users at a safe distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Crats playing game without touching actual problem

What is the actual problem here. A WMF banned user is editing here "ignoring all rules" and so many meat puppets supporting him. He uses whatever user name he seems fit to him like User:Come on baby just party with me to make Commons a pig's home. So all the crats, especially AFBorchert who refuses to take any action even after my last request are ultimately responsible for this poor situation. Do grave dance and celebrate the fall of INC now. You people are never going to learn anything. Jee 17:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not helpful in maintaining a productive discussion.

I am absolutely certain that Russavia is mentally ill. I am grateful that he is not with us as he would have abused our children. Russavia is the cause and reason for all the problems of commons. Russavia please, when are you going to leave us alone ?. Russavia, we need to continue our life but you're not helping. Russavia, I understand that commons is a vice for you, but you must continue your life and understand that WMF has blocked a perfectly logical reason. My I not surprise me because Russavia personality disorder, he forget what he once did against WMF and so he has been blocked. This is an example of a typical comment of absurd drama which'm tired of reading. Colin and Jee will cease someday rest in peace Russavia soul?, So...wait....or perhaps you need a demon to keep creating more drama because drama?. And of course, this comment will be used to generate more drama, I see it as the viscous molasses drama is now coming from the monitor. --The Photographer (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to simply close

Commons:Administrators/De-adminship: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status"
routinely is not the case here, INC is a good administrator and a great contributor, so I suggest to close this and to wait until he manifests himself, if he does of course. As he is blocked he can not use the administrators tools. And if he want to come back, it will be time to ask him explanations. The advantages : he can take a big break if he want. And if he never come back there will be a De-adminship process as a result of inactivity. As he was a great contributors, that let to him a chance to explain and to take a big break. -- Christian Ferrer 11:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a slap in the face of all of us who have raised concerns above, please cease disrupting this discussion and allow the de-adminship discussion to properly run its course, Christian. Nick (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The voting above indicated a 3:1 majority for removal. You don't have to accept this as a fair and final vote if you think that not all facts were presented accurately. That's fair and a valid concern. But it's certainly not a basis for ending the discussion and leaving everything as it is. — Julian H.^✈ 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose INC can take a break regardless of adminship status. Comments have been made about earlier abuse of adminship. It is possible for an admin to unblock their own account. --Pitke (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose No, we want him gone, and we want him gone so that he doesn't come back (yet again) with admin privileges. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)