Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/INeverCry

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/INeverCry}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 09:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Obviously a duck for CoCo, please help to find the sleepers. --B dash (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

INeverCry

[edit]
[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Quite a duck for Reefer Wolfowitz. Please check for sleepers. Yann (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple more obvious socks. Sro23 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Porky Puppetshenko [1] and User:Kidira [2] were added to the list by Sro23 at 01:02, 16 November 2017 and 18:37, 3 December 2017 respectively. seb26 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: I believe this is INC's new good-hand account. Like past sockpuppets, the focus is on categories; this user is already proficient with HotCat and Cat-a-lot. Can a CU please take a look? Lately, a lot of INC socks have been making it to autoconfirmed and causing more damage. Sro23 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: This new user is already proficient with Cat-a-lot & HotCat, which INC was well known for. For a brand new user, they have already racked up nearly 500 edits, consistent with the activity of other socks. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked for a day for vandalism. Waiting for CU evidence before indef-ing) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is pretty damning.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added SnowflakeMAGA based on these two edits.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have blocked this account. As for anyone else, I don't mind if INC edits quietly, and nobody sees him. But this, no... Yann (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Цыгане. Yet another high-speed new user proficient with categories. Sro23 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is User:INeverCry, have you checked if this user has edited on other projects? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Global contribs shows the account only has edits on Commons. This deletion request by Цыгане uses exactly the same wording as this one made by Kyrle Daly. It's a little too much for a coincidence. seb26 (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a lot of people know it's INC, but hesitate to block as long as he's editing constructively & not vandalizing. He's threatened to sock "for a long time" ([3]). My question is, when I notice one of these socks (that isn't doing outright vandalism), what should I do? Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sro23: In my experience on Commons this really isn't too regular an occurrence. I think you are taking the right course of action by bringing it to the attention of others. It is also only a matter of time before the community has reached its patience and arranges a ban on the person behind the INC accounts. Until then, it is a very reasonable interpretation of Commons' blocking policy (but also my opinion) that regardless of the good/constructive perception of their edits, they have been and still are a user who is not in good standing anymore (they deleted the main page and hundreds of images as a dummy spat) and so their use of multiple accounts is not permitted, i.e. it is abusive. Note as well the uncivil comments made only this month under the account Kyrle Daly and the vandalistic undoing present also in the page history of this case, is behaviour that would warrant blocking just for that alone. There have been strong contributors to featured picture candidates that have been blocked for uncivil comments before, constructive edits cannot reasonably considered to save or protect people whose continue with atrocious behaviour at the same time. seb26 (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that INC can have secondary accounts if he does not vandalize or do unconstructive edits, like how PumpkinSky has a secondary account. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added User:Begging bowl. New user, knows about Visualfilechange and how to use it. Also very efficient with Hotcat. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here's an edit similar by Begging bowl that is very similar to that done by Kyrle Daly: [4]. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now he's undoing all my edits, check the history. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also knows how to use Cat-A-Lot. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also check here. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kong of Lazers: INeverCry cannot currently have secondary accounts - his original account is blocked (ironically it's a self block imposed via the Daphne Lantier account) whilst the Daphne Lantier account carries the community sanctioned block which would need to be overturned to allow INC to return to editing. This means INC may not edit under any account until the block is rescinded. The process for INeverCry returning to editing (as Yann should know) is for INC to appeal their block (that is, the block against Daphne Lantier) and for the community to agree INC can be welcomed back into the fold. There's no possibility of this occurring whilst they continue to intimidate, harass and threaten members of the Commons community, but if they stop socking right now, apologise for their behaviour and deception right now, it's definitely something we could review in six months to a year from now. We need to demonstrate that INC's decision to sock, block evade, threaten and harass users (in short, generally undertaking anti-social behaviour) has consequences, but similarly, that behaviour should not necessarily result in permanent sanctions (unless genuinely required). Nick (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Kate Collins. Claims to have sleepers waiting. Please block. Sro23 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Indef. block as per [5]. Threats are not acceptable. Yann (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding SHURAM1212, first edit was with HotCat. Also, this gem.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Blocked, as self-acknowledged. Yann (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Personally I must note that this is a very sad end for an user like him. Don't know why they must be that self-destructive. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Indeed, this is sad. :( Yann (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added IKW-CV70. Please see User_talk:Blackcat#Sro23. Sro23 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion to spare people unnecessary effort: when a sock account is blatantly obvious (e.g., explicitly signing as INC - [6], [7], etc.) there is little useful purpose in listing it here. The existence of disposable IPs/open proxies generally precludes the CU tool from providing meaningful information related to sleepers. If the goal, alternatively, is tracking socks, adding {{sockpuppet|INeverCry|blocked}} to the user page will populate the category. I thus encourage all only to list new accounts here iff there is a modicum of doubt or otherwise a genuine belief that a CU will be useful. Consider also the spirit of WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Continued activity here gives INC more attention and "validation" than he deserves; better to block and carry about your business. Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the used proxies being blocked?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also if someone could rangeblock the Nevada IP's INC likes to use, that would be great. One of them tried to password reset my account today. Sro23 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Sro23, I had the very same issue yesterday, it was this Nevada IP: [8] --A.Savin 02:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to me as well. Even if they succeed I still have 2FA, idk why they are even trying... --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment. --A.Savin 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Does writing "F*** you" and adding an image of a middle finger count on your userpage count? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually yes as well, but I'm not sure why you're pinging me because of that. If you see further INC sock(s), simply report it at COM:ANU and that's all, there is no need to cite them here or to pay any further attention. --A.Savin 00:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Doriforth (talk · contribs) (indef-blocked on behavioural grounds). I do agree with A.Savin immediately above, but I would also prefer we double check self-claimed socks to make sure we don't have more than one person causing trouble under the auspices of 'INeverCry' or indeed, INC having stopped socking but someone claiming to be them continuing to cause disruption. I think a belt and braces approach to dealing with this would be sensible, and it will hopefully throw some proxies out into the open that our CUs can block. Nick (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: This could be true, possibly another Sockpuppet master. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick above. A CU might avoid some fool-play. I also blocked IExistToHelp (talk · contribs), see [9] and [10]. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry is still socking on a daily basis. The latest sockpuppet is User:Nikolai Verkhovensky. Sro23 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked. Guanaco (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Fairly new account, requested Filemover rights and uploaded 29 valued images while calling themselves a amatuer photographer. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 06:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: New account, high-speed editing with HotCat, knows how to file DRs, and left me a message about categorization (not the first time INC, as 'Daphne Lantier', has done this). Please investigate. Thanks, FASTILY 06:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've added Jessy Walters. It's a new account, claims to be from the same area INC is from, and is proficient with cat-a-lot & HotCat, which I believe INC was known for. Sro23 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also technically Unrelated which, to clarify and reiterate from above, should be interpreted as neither confirming nor disproving a connection. (The CU tool has its limitations and those highly familiar with it, such as former CUs like INC, can take measures to reduce or nullify its usefulness. By all means, request a check when there is evidence suggesting a connection, but understand that it, unfortunately, cannot always provide meaningful results.) Administrative actions, if any, will need to be based on behaviour in this instance. Note, also, that I realise these comments are belated, as Jessy Walters has already been blocked as a duck sock. Эlcobbola talk 02:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added Con Creegan. New account, already proficient in HotCat, and also has made a bunch of edits like this, picking up where the last sock left off. This person never gets tired apparently. Sro23 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Self disclosure in the user page. --B dash (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already confirmed at enwiki. —DoRD (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Declined per DoRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 02:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale, discussion and results

[edit]

Reason: Please see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been confirmed at enwiki, and INeverCry is stale at Commons anyway. --Krd 07:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please check for sleepers per this edit by INeverCry at en:wp: “No worries. I've got other accounts I can use.”   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added 1989: This account took over Daphne's role of doing a large number of license reviews, shortly after INC/Daphne was exposed on enwiki. User and user talk design is very similar. 1989 uses INC's shadow text effect, both in signatures and in the user page. Like Daphne, 1989 makes pointed use of OneClickArchiver on both enwiki and commons. User rights were granted by INC to 1989 "per email request"; see Special:UserRights/1989. Guanaco (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989 has been a good editor I’ve followed with joy since they started. It would sadden me if this too is true. However, I will add that he did write on IRC to me about the SPI almost faster than I did myself when the results came in. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the behavioral evidence, this has to be called Unrelated. --Krd 07:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/INeverCry&oldid=696661023"