Commons:Administrators/Requests/Daphne Lantier (desysop)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Remove = 68;  Keep = 0;  Neutral = 1 – 100%. Result: remove.

There is unanimous agreement to confirm the emergency de-sysop that has already been put in place. INC and all his currently known sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked: see Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry. Should more come to light, or if any further action is needed, please open a new discussion at COM:AN/U. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Lantier (desysop)

Vote

Daphne Lantier (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 07:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

In the course of a sockpuppet investigation at en:wp, Courcelles confirmed Daphne Lantier to be a socket of INeverCry. Daphne Lantier herself confirmed the connection by blocking INeverCry, deleting INeverCry's user page, and by marking both accounts as sockpuppets of each other ([1], [2]). During the time span from 01:53 when Courcelles confirmed the connection and 04:44 when admins rights were temporarily removed by Matiia, Daphne Lantier deleted thousands of files prematurely from recent deletion requests without closing the requests. Short discussions were held at COM:AN/U#Daphne Lantier has been determined to be a sock of INeverCry and COM:BN#Daphne Lantier's admin rights. Another thread was opened at Meta by INeverCry which states

@Billinghurst:, @Trijnstel:, and to whom it may concern. I just want to let stewards know that while I was an admin at Wikimedia Commons under the sock account Daphne Lantier, the 80,000 log actions I performed were all legitimate and conscientious. I followed policy and didn't do a single log action that was bad or questionable in any way. If someone can let Commons admins and crats know this, I would appreciate it. I don't want to see anybody there wasting time looking for something that isn't there. They'll have plenty of work cleaning up my actions of tonight, but that was just a sendoff gesture. It was the only time I abused the tools as Daphne. I'm telling you this for the benefit of the admins and editors I like at Commons. Good night. Take care.

As the emergency steward action is of temporary nature it seems appropriate to determine in a regular community process whether we want to desysop Daphne Lantier in the light of the recent events. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Votes

  •  remove. I have absolutely no trust in a socking administrator where one sock nominated the other as admin, who also participated twice as OTRS member under different names ([3], [4]), and who finally leaves us plenty of work cleaning up. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove We could have discussed the sock issue openminded, but leaving the scene by burning bridges is definitely beyond anything I could accept or apologize. Abusing the admin tools leads to removal of the admin tools, undoubtedly. --Krd 07:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block indef INC lost their admin rights "under a cloud" and promising to never again seek adminship. When they later broke that promise (Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2017#Return of my sysop bit..again...) the community made it very clear the answer was no. I know a few admins wanted them to continue as they are useful when they behave themselves, but many were tired of the whole thing. Then INC nominated their long-term sock account Daphne for adminship. Once this was achieved, INC stopped editing Commons. The Daphne account has been around for two years. That's long term mistrustful behaviour, not a "clean start" account newly created. This dishonesty shows such disrespect to the community. I don't believe INC/Daphne has any longer a place on Commons, either as admin nor user. I'm also very disappointed in those who appear to have known of this and kept it secret. Their participation at OTRS is also a matter of concern. No matter what one's views on the various issues facing Commons, an open wiki like this needs to be built on trust and honesty among participants. INC appears to be neither trustworthy nor honest. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove per Krd. --Magnus (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove due to the mass damage caused on Commons and subsequently across multiple projects as a result. - Cameron11598(talk) 08:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove - not for being INC, but for the damage of last night. I knew this desysop was coming one day and I was on my way to vote keep, but what happened this night made that impossible unfortunately. By the end of March it must have been clear to dozens of active users that Daphne was INC. It was pretty obvious. I think the community as a whole is partly to blame here for creating a hostile environment in January. I find it very weird that first we allow them to keep our backlogs under control for 4 months and then out of the blue someone reaches out to the CUs to ask them to say what we all have been knowing for several months. INC/Daphne used to be a good admin, who did a huge amount of work. I find this a very sad situation. I urge all fellow admins to have their share in compensating the 500-700 daily log actions they used to do. Jcb (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb, not all of the community hangs out on IRC and the DR forums. The January event was mainly caused by INC's broken promise and a 'crat making an unwise decision, so don't go blaming the community. It seems some admins are willing to turn a blind eye in order to get the backlog down. I think you need to place "trust" a little higher up the requirements for admin than "highly active". Any admin who knew of this "pretty obvious" situation and permitted it should IMO resign. You've all let us down and demonstrated remarkably poor judgement. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've never seen Jcb on IRC, and I know a few admins who knows about DL == INC, none of them filed a RfCU, except that one. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I'm not sure I'm looking for actual resignations, but I find the "Oh, I thought everyone knew" responses pretty disgusting. I guess it's sort of darkly amusing that offline, I'm probably the most cynical person I know. Clearly online, I'm a naif. I've lost a lot of trust with this revelation, and not just in the person concerned in this desysop. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think every active administrator who did not recognize them months ago may be naive. Did you really think that a new administrator may start with a daily 500-700 log actions rate and maintain such a rate 7 days a week, week after week? I think even most of our most experienced admins cannot do this rate. Do you think that I should have come to a noticeboard to tell the community what everybody could see, but without being able to provide any proof for my observation? As long as they were a nett positive admin (which they were IMHO), I saw no priority to take any action. It's mainly because they double voted in two EN-wiki RfA's that the CU request was accepted and executed. Jcb (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It took me by surprise. But I had very low levels of activity in the recent months that I did not even notice that Daphne Lantier took over the workload of INeverCry. In hindsight I see that Daphne Lantier/INeverCry did not really hide their socking. Just compare the combination of user boxes at en:wp (1, 2). The similarity is quite striking. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that what I saw "Daphne" doing was pretty much exclusively robo-closing, making easy decisions, and leaving the default rationales and messages, I did not think it required a great deal of experience, no. Just a strong mouse-clicking finger and an inclination towards repetitive tasks. I do see the user/talk page similarity, but put that down to the fact that people often take other's user pages as templates. Anyway, yes I was naive... Storkk (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It took me by surprise as well. I know we have some active admins, and some vey active dmins around, and was not that surprised that a user could close simple DRs in a fast pace, since....I only see the onces closed for the once I myself have started. I joined IRC on the ay of the SPI when the "socks" were being discussed, but without any evidence. This was the first I ad hea of it, or noticed. SO I decided to do some minor digging and try and get a CU check on enwp, since that is where ost CUs are, and where both users were still active. It's sad to see. I was telling a CU on IRC yesterday that I wuld oppose a desyops/vote keep on this vote, however the "chaos" they left us with is inexcusable, sadly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Auch wenn wir einen sehr aktiven Admin verlieren. Das Löschen von mehr als 1.000 Dateien in einem Rutsch, aus welchem Frust auch immer, ist ein No-go. Mit der Aufarbeitung sind etliche Mitarbeiter auf Tage beschäftigt. Und diese dünne Entschuldigung von INC reicht mir nicht. Hystrix (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. —MarcoAurelio 08:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove We cannot rely on admins who become unstable. Especially if it happens so often. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and indef block per Colin and AFBorchert. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove; but considering the health issues he had mentioned earlier, I wish if everybody keep this discussion as gentle as possible. Hope he can recover soon. Jee 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove; per Krd--Praveen:talk 10:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, block the account indefinitely, as well as the INC account, and ban the user. Pleclown (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block all INC's accounts indefintely. The user should be considered banned from Commons. They also gained access to OTRS through the second account, so I will be asking the WMF about placing either a community global ban or WMF Office ban on INC. Nick (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Fuck. I can't believe that Daphne is in fact a sock of INC. They lied, and an admin must be honest. No matter how many good actions they made, honesty is still the best policy (as a lot of us say). I also support a community + WMF global ban (why not just WMF you say? of course, two is better than one. no seriously, a community + WMF global ban is a sign that the community supports the ban, so there is absolutely no reason to doubt it). --★Poyekhali 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Main+Page. This is just bizarre, coming from a longtime admin who did great work, and when I ran across en:WP:AN#Rouge Commons Admin, I thought it was some sort of a joke or massive mistake/misunderstanding, but you can't give me a better idea of a rogue admin than someone who deletes the Main Page without doing an instant "oops, wrong page!" restoration. And that's totally unrelated to sockpuppetry; having been shown the en:wp checkuser results and this edit here, there's no room to imagine that it's not abusive sockpuppetry, and abusive sockuppetry to the point that an indefinite block is needed. And indefinitely blocked users mustn't be admins. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per Krd and Nyttend. Jianhui67 T★C 11:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Nobody had more chances than INC. Nobody is forgiven more for their mistakes than INC. Even really severe once like a rogue blocking spree. But yet again this user betrays this community. Yet again this user lies to this community and yet again this user has damaged our community greatly. Will we have to look at every new person who wants to become admin with suspect because this person might be one more sock? Hours of volunteer time stolen from those who had to clean up the last rogue spree.
This user managed to gain access to the OTRS-team with a sock. A position which requires great trust. No, there no coming back from this. This is not the first time that INC burned his bridges. Burning bridges is an act which you commit when you want to close a chapter. I suggest that is what he does. Leaving and not coming back in a really long time. I would also support and indef ban for both accounts and any other sock that might be left. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove basically by Jcb above. I would have accepted a fresh restart, but events last night prove that INC/DL is definitely not fit for adminship. :( Yann (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove I can be lenient about many things, but someone who flippant states "No worries. I've got other accounts I can use." and make a big mess on Commons for no good reason, that is not someone I want as an admin. --cart-Talk 12:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove admin bit The user has from a position of trust (following being in previous positions of high trust) abused the community in a multiple ways, and most importantly deleting images through spite. Deletion in that way is solely sufficient for permanent removal of rights. I would also think that checkuser records should be taken and recorded for any future cross-check, and the checks should be coordinated with stewards, or other wikis. We know that the user will most likely try again to get rights, that is their level of fascination with the project. I believe that an extended block is also required, though it should not be permanent, there is no value in perm block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block indef I'm shocked. I simply can't believe what I'm reading here. May God be the judge of this liar. --A.Savin 12:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I do not support admins with clandestine, multiple identities. The position of a Commons Admin is a position of mutual trust and respect. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block indef - I'm absolutely shocked with all this, as I've ever had INeverCry as a trustworthy editor and admin. But even if this Daphne "I'm a lady! I do lady things!" Lantier had not misbehaved, it should be desysoped and indefed for the mere fact that it's a sock, produced and used to deceive the community. Having such an account acting as a sysop here, even if they had not misbehaved so egregiously as they did, would turn Commons into a joke.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove A. Savin and I have been the only 2 users for the last 3 years that have disagreed with INC still being allowed to contribute here and I hope (i have said it a few times but it did not change anything) that this is the "final nail in the coffin", lets just bury this and move on..--Stemoc 13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and permaban both accounts It is sad to see this happen to someone that i respected and tought highly of, be it in each account, but his attempt to go with a bang is pretty bad, to say the least and put it very mildly. Abusing multiple accounts is even worst. Tm (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Je ne sais plus quoi dire … — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, per AFBorchert and many others in the same vein. Random thoughts:
    • I’m floored.
    • I never noticed it was the same painting on both user pages (duh!).
    • Both accounts do good work 99,99% of the time: the 0,01% is the problem.
    • Cannot be trusted with any kind of tools.
    • Self reported bipolar disorder and other health issues: How can the community help, at all?
    • I was a DL fan till 4h ago.
    • I was an INC fan at the beggining and moved away only very slowly and reluctantly; by the 2nd readmin request, however, I had no illusions.
    • Tranquilizing claim that disrupting edits were made “only” in the last hours of activity, but then again discloses that there’s more (dormant?) accounts that can be used to do the same again and again?!
    • Bummer.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per so many above. I am concerned about the more accounts claim.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove As stated by so many above and for all the ways they said, with great sadness for the person involved, but this sort of rules-breaking has no place at Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and indef. I was shocked to see this. I'm an SPI clerk at en.wiki, and I had stayed away from endorsing a check because it all seemed too far-fetched. But the level of deceit - plus the outright admission of intent to continue socking! - requires the community's condemnation. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and ban from Commons for socking that affected both en.wiki and Commons: the information in the en.Wiki SPI is damning, and this has greatly impacted the community's trust. My main actions on Commons these days are tagging for deletion copyvios or improperly licensed images used on en.wiki, to which I was always impressed with this user. The amount of deceit here really is bad: I agree with Nick that a global ban might be in order due to the statement by INC on en.wiki acknowledging an intent to keep socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove per so many above; and its absolutely shocking. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove only -- WP:ADMINSOCK, can't be trusted. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per above, can't be trusted no more. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 19:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and indef - I'm not only shocked to hear of this but I'm also very very saddened - INC & Daphne were quite honestly my best friends on this place and it turns out both were the exact same person!, I'm very disappointed and as I said extremely saddened, I would never in a million years have guessed they were the same person and it's a deep deep shame they chose to sock - INC was the best admin on this place by far .... I'm just so so disappointed, The community unfortunately cannot ever trust INC again so indeffing is the best option. –Davey2010Talk 19:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Daphne Lantier's adminship cannot be considered valid in light of the deception used to obtain it. INC has done more valuable and tedious work than almost anyone, and I'm sad that it's come to this. I do think calls for an indef ban here are inappropriate and should be taken to a different forum. Frankly, the deadminship outcome is a certainty, while bans and other sanctions deserve serious deliberation.rem Guanaco (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Obviously. Go ahead and close this vote, globally lock the Daphne account, and block INeverCry on every wiki with only editing his talk page on en.wp. This is ridiculous to even discuss. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove The emergency action was clearly justified, and thanks to Matiia for removing the account's admin rights. This should obviously be made permanent, and the editor banned from all Wikimedia projects. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove I long supported INeverCry, but now he crossed over a line. My line. Unacceptable behaviour. Trijnsteltalk 22:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC) PS. Because of this and this, as mentioned by Jee but I knew this for years already, I must admit it feels bad to vote against him. Especially knowing INC will never return to this project. But due to the sockpuppetry and the deletion spree I have no choice.[reply]
  •  Remove, with global lock and ban (and any other sleepers). All Wikimedia projects are the same family and such a massive deliberate breach of policy is a clear indication that the person behind these accounts is absolutely not to be trusted anywhere. Whether they have done any 'good' work or not is immaterial. Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove, the RfA was clearly invalid.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Words cannot express how perplexed and saddened I am by the whole situation right now. INC did so much for Wikimedia projects for years. I don't know why he chose to deceive the community, but since he did, I have no choice but to support the removal of all sysop bits and a block of both accounts. Unbelievable. Sportsguy17 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I read this and I can't believe it. It is a real shame that a user so active and who could have dedicated his positive knowledge to the project has ended up being a abuser. To be a administrator in a project as huge as Commons is difficult to achieve and requires a lot of experience in various fields, and this situation is a lack of respect and betrayal for all administrators who spent years in the project to become what Are today. I hope that this user in the future will be able to reflect on his actions, for now support that is globally locked. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 04:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Hum. Explains some of this [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove He had many chances to recover community trust and the recent actions let clear that is actually dangerous to the project to have him with the tools. I hope you stay better after this and think about other places where your volunteer capacities can also be useful.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 13:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove It is a great shock but a clear and strict message must go from here so it won't be repeated by anyone in future --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I feel I ought to show some compassion for the health issues, but the scale of deception prevents even that. Hugely disappointed at the feet-of-clay of an apparently productive admin. Cabayi (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Since INC nominated DL, and the connection between them was hidden, the RfA was illegitimate to begin with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Global lock, global ban (and obviously remove OTRS and any other trusted access if there is any). Despicable duplicitous behaviour, can not be trusted again with anything, not even editing. (I know Commons admins do a lot of hard work which is largely "behind the scenes" to most of us at en.wiki, and you definitely don't need someone like this tarnishing it.) Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just seen an explanation that the deletion spree was down to a bipolar episode. While I can possibly accept that, it's not a plausible explanation for the lengthy socking and fraudulent RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove, sadly. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block indef per Colin. I am shocked at the level of deliberate deception here, particularly in the light of previous promises by INC. The calculated and deliberate breaches of community trust should and I think must result in an indefinite block/ban. We should not accept editors here who systematically lie to the community and who, if not blocked, will very likely do this again as a type of game. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Wow... Daphne Lantier has handled many of my requests on Commons and I trusted this user. But we mustn't accept any destruction or unacceptable behaviors. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I thought this person was doing a good job...but I was fooled. Trust is clearly lost with the abuse of Admin tools. Sorry, INC/Daphne. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove obviously after the "goodby greeting". But I'm curious how some admin backlogs will develop. --JuTa 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to have a very large backlog, rather than have a sockpuppeteer which halves the backlog every day. I think this de-RfA is a slap to Commons for relying in just one admin like INC. It is time to have a "call at arms". ★Poyekhali 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove INC has deliberately deceived the community into thinking that DL was someone else and then went on a deletion rampage for what ever reason (to be honest, there will never be a good reason for it). While I think INC/DL should be blocked indefinitely, I don't believe this is the place/forum to do so. Bidgee (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove the Sockpuppettery is here not the main problem. It's the deletion orgy. Do we really need this request? Here's I think is a fast solution OK. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the result of this request would be obvious, but communities are required to make a desysop request lasting 7 days (or for other wikis, an ArbCom case) for a permanent desysop to take effect. Daphne's desysop was just temporary, since it is a steward action. ★Poyekhali 10:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the issues are so immense, that a simple Desysop is an obligation. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You can delete this comment if it is absurd. With the same painting on the user page, I was always thinking that I Never Cry had changed name to Daphne; I never suspected of this kind of activity. I was so sure they were the same person I didn't even bother to check it. As regards the sysop issue, I have no idea about admins' affairs, but of course I would like to see her/him working here. Given the situation, better not as an admin. --E4024 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA."
Obviously that's an en:wp policy and not Commons (though our policy pages link to it). I think it time that Commons adapted some en:wp pages so we can have our own definitions using language and attitudes appropriate to Commons. Admins who knowingly hid INC/Daphne from the community, not because they couldn't raise an CU and wanted to, but because they were happy with this deception as it kept the backlog down, should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The community did not appoint you admins so you could collectively deceive us. "trusted by the community" is what an admin is. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not much of a contributor here at Commons, but I'd like to point out INC's response to being blocked at enwiki: "No worries. I've got other accounts I can use". —DoRD (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, since the Daphne account has joined the OTRS, and the OTRS requires applicants to submit a confirmed identity to the WMF, I wonder how INC managed to circumvent, or differentiate INC and Daphne to the eyes of the WMF. Maybe INC made a different identity? Or the WMF is part of INC's plan? This needs to be investigated (of course not here in Commons). ★Poyekhali 11:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, it's signing a legalpad document. You don't have to send your ID to wikimedia, but whatever signature used in that legalpad document should be truthful or the signer would probably be in legal trouble --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After some reading, it seems that the INC account never joined OTRS, that's why the Daphne sock can join the OTRS. Therefore, my questions would be considered invalid. ★Poyekhali 11:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] I believe that they've said that they retain the identification only long enough to confirm it, so it's not good for preventing sockpuppetry by high-up functionaries unless the person who checks the confirmed ID happens to be the same person both times and happens to remember. And unless INeverCry also had to confirm an identity, that wouldn't be an issue anyway. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    INC is a former Commons CheckUser, so he would have identified for that position. —DoRD (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a IP 209.249.5.140 have make the request for Global lock for Daphne Lantier and INeverCry at Meta:SRG in certain past on today, but the situation seemed to be not deserves a lock, at least for now on. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know en:user:Kristen Eriksen case in en.wiki and I noticed, that Kristen Eriksen and Daphne Lantier are somehow similar names. I suspected from very beginning, that Daphne is not a woman. But this is not prohibited, you may very well work under self-invented identity and that's why I supported Daphne in RfA. After that I noticed similar pattern between INC and Daphne and I started to suspect, that they are same person, but as Daphne was a good admin, I did not complain (and I was not totally sure too). Now I understand, that this was a mistake, I did not believe, that he would run amoc. I promised in Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (readmin) in comments never to support INC again in RfA. INC decieved me (and of course others too) and naturally his rights must be removed. I thought about letting him work as ordinary user, but after deleting main page he should be indefinitely banned. I thank MichaelMaggs very much for letting the request be open whole week for everyone to comment. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation statement by Daphne Lantier

In response to my notice about the desysop process, Daphne Lantier wrote on their talk page:

@AFBorchert: You can go through that and have some fun with it, but if a resignation from me would help, than I resign as an admin. I did my 80k actions , and I consider the account scuttled. I've also contacted WMFOffice to assure them that I never once mishandled any OTRS or CU private info, and that I have no such info saved on any device that I own. I would also remark that 1989 is not a sock of mine. Trijnstel may be able to confirm or at least comment on that, though I would think CU comparison between Daphne and 1989 here should prove beyond doubt that 1989 is not related to me in any way. I don't want to see someone else get in trouble for my actions. I don't regret a thing I did as Daphne or INeverCry, I had a good time with it overall, but the whole thing is my responsibility. I say this because it's been brought up that others may have had an inkling that I was using the Daphne sock. Never once did I tell any other person what I was doing. All anyone else could have had was guesses, but nobody had direct evidence of the socking. Good night. Daphne Lantier 05:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DL admits guilt, resigns as Admin

See this edit for details. I move to end this process as moot.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection, but there would need to be a statement from the bureaucrats here that 'Daphne'/INeverCry has no entitlement to the administrator toolset and cannot simply ask to have the toolset restored (I can't believe I'm even having to say that, but past behaviour suggests this is a risk). There would need to be a recognition that the resignation happened 'under a cloud' and that the de-RfA request had the virtually unanimous support (and clear consensus) of the community to remove the toolset. I would also like recognition that a deceptive RfA (or any other deceptive request) is illegitimate and grounds for immediate removal of any permissions gained, but that will probably require community discussion and I would expect there will be a desire to handle things on a case by case basis, which might mean leaving the de-RfA open for the full 7 days would be a sensible way to establish a precedent for such things. Nick (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, At this point, yes, this is quite moot. Admin right has been removed, and is not going to be restored any time soon (euphemism). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Since January of this year it has no longer been possible for an ex-admin to recover sysop privileges without going through a new RFA. The old unwritten rule whereby bureaucrats had discretion to restore rights to ex-admins who relinquished their rights in good standing has been abolished: see the current policy at Commons:Administrators#Apply to become an administrator "All intending administrators must ... submit themselves to RFA, including all ex-administrators who are seeking to return to their previous role. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Although it seems that this process will inevitably result in community approval for the de-sysop, I would recommend that it should continue for the full seven days in any event. It relates to a really serious matter, and editors ought to have full and proper opportunities not only to !vote but also to comment, both specifically and generally. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

 Comment. This is not a judgment on the quality of his past work. INeverCry has been respected and admired by almost all who know him (me included). Regardless of whether or not he was a good administrator, there are no words to describe what happened here on Commons in the early hours of 11 August when he spiralled out of control leading to an emergency desysop. Moreover, sockpuppetry should be grounds for automatic desysop in any Wikimedia project, imo. And it goes without saying he concealed a clean start by nominating himself for adminship. At this point it became more than obvious he is never going to return as an administrator at anytime in the future. That is utterly out of the question. I therefore suggest we move forward by closing this request for de-adminiship as the outcome is pretty clear already. RadiX∞ 21:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that Daphne Lantier is to be desysopped; but it's not clear yet if INC should be banned. Several users including myself are in favor of full ban, but many others apparently do not support it. --A.Savin 22:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
INC can be sanctioned for "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances." But it is not in scope of this discussion. It should be discussed at ANB or ANU per our blocking policy. And we have no existing policy for a permanent ban. The existing indefinite block is always eligible for an appeal (after some time). Jee 03:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a simple user, and the last statement confuses me. Does that mean, that the sock-puppet will be banned but the sock-puppetier can walk away? In my opinion anything, what is decided here, should apply to both. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the circumstances. For example, if the sock master offers a statement with a sincere promise not to sock again and the community is convinced, the sock master may be given what I would describe as "second chance ". Wikicology (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the case for normal users. But for admins? Also, I am not really deeply involved in Commons drama, but I recall, that INC had been several times severed his connctions to the projects with big tam-tam and suddenly was re-installed in his position. For my taste, there had been a lot of "second chances" before. And "No worries. I've got other accounts I can use" does not lock like a sincere promise ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "No worries. I've got other accounts I can use" is worrisome. Wikicology (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CEphoto, I share the same opinion of Wikicology. Every rights of INC is removed now. So if he is allowed to edit again, that will be as an ordinary editor without any additional privileges. Little chances that even a "License reviewer" right can be gained again in near future. Jee 11:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for clarification. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - as Jee already pointed out, we have no such policy as "permanent ban" on Common but if anyone feels INC/Dl behaviour is eligible for a global ban/lock, they can start a RfC at meta. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

 Comment As discussed here, another sockpuppet was recently discovered which vandalized Commons and posted offending material on user pages at other projects (deleted sample which is accessible with admin privileges at de:wp). --AFBorchert (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sock was made only some days ago. It looks like a scorched-earth policy to turn-down all remaining sympathies and destroy every good remembrance to his work. I do not feel any pity but feel totally disgusted about that user. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Is having 5 Checkusers on WikiCommons enough for this project? This is just an inquiry....and nothing more. I just wonder what happens if there is a backlog to check on potential sockpuppet accounts. Thank You My error, it looks like there are more than 5 CU's on Commons after all as this shows. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has five checkusers but in this case the analysis was done at en:wp as INC continued to be active there along with DL. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Another sock of INC had a short appearance at Commons tonight. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Daphne_Lantier_(desysop)&oldid=358742544"