Commons:Administrators/Requests/High Contrast (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Delete = 33;  Keep = 1;  Neutral = 1 – 97%. Result: remove. Dschwen (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Contrast (de-adminship)

Vote

High Contrast (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 13:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Following the recent discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, I hereby request that administrator privileges be removed from the account of High Contrast.

According to a CheckUser inquiry performed by @Jameslwoodward, High Contrast has used over 17 different IP addresses over the last 90 days to manipulate several deletion requests discussions, including participating in the same discussions under two different usernames and targeting a user by nominating their picture for deletion out of revenge (please refer to the AN for all details).

It should be mentioned that High Contrast has been asked multiple times to comment on the situation, including an Echo notification at the administrators' noticeboard, and two messages on their talk page. Indeed, two days ago I asked them to respond to the comments left by other users as soon as possible, indicating that I intend to start a de-adminship request if we do not hear from them.

Sadly, High Contrast appears to have decided to ignore the issue and became inactive on June 1. Given the seriousness of the situation and the fact High Contrast became inactive under a cloud of suspicion of sockpuppet abuse, I think it's worth that we consider removing their administrator privileges even in their absence.

In line with our de-adminship policy, this de-adminship request is scheduled to run for one week, and a consensus of over 50% votes in favour of removal is required for the request to pass. odder (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Interesting observation from your side. I too have only good experience with him earlier; and no idea what make him out of control. As an experienced CU earlier, hope you can find the "underflow", if any. Jee 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My account goes back to December 2012 (I did 1 official name change). I stumbled across High Contrast while looking for photos for a Wikipedia article I was writing. I looked at many of the photos and they seemed of no educational value, or were amateur porn. Almost none of them were used on articles, or would ever be, in my opinion. I didn't look first to check if he/she was an admin. I explained that here. I've nominated similar photos for deletion in the past, and after a brief discussion, they were gone. No old grudge here. No multiple IP's or socks. Just trying to improve the project. Finally, If you look at the behaviour of High Contrast, he/she anonymously attacked others besides me, and one IP's behaviour was so inappropriate it was blocked. Your style of argument has always been popular with defence attorneys hoping to create a distracting smokescreen: "look at all the good this abusive spammer has done. Let's forgive them for this because they have uploaded so many photos, and dig deep into the behaviour of the person who reported this." How unfortunate. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You filed 30+ DRs on HC in one day (April 27), all but one of which which was kept! I guess your incompetence ended up resembling sockmaster behavior... INeverCry 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it ended up catching someone else's sockmaster behaviour. Careful not to mix your good guys with your bad partner. And this was one of the nominations. Hey, what does your family think about it? Keep or delete? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see; removing admin powers from a user for sockpuppeting is the same as censorship. Somehow. There's a big difference between COM:SCOPE and "we delete things that offend Magnolia677"; whether you accept the distinction between collection development and censorship, your post demonstrates that your DRs had nothing to do with the rules by which we delete files on Commons. No, "what does your family think about it?" is not a relevant question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove INCs scenario above identifies precisely why HC should not retain admin rights. A user who responds to harassment—whether it is real or merely imagined—by sockpuppeting and opening “counter DRs”, instead of, say, seeking assistance, attempting discussion, or merely disengaging, does not have the judgment or composure necessary for the sysop flag. Jim noted at least 31 actions over 90 days at the AN thread – that is not a momentary lapse (“we're all human”), but instead systematic misbehavior. This is not a banning discussion; admin rights were not necessary for the 200k edits, 544 QIs, etc. and HC is free to continue his good content work. Removing admin rights from a user who has shown serious lapses in integrity, however, is not a big loss for the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 15:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen sockmasters like Wikinger and Jermboy27 perform more actions than that in a matter of minutes. HC will be de-sysopped obviously, so it's a moot point. What I meant about it being a big loss is that HC seems to have retired, and it doesn't look temporary... INeverCry 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there have been more prolific sockpuppeters is responsive to my point or meaningful how? Эlcobbola talk 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I pointed it out because you cited "31 actions over 90 days" as "systematic misbehavior." I consider that to be an overstatement, especially since he performed thousands of constructive actions in the same time period. INeverCry 23:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • INeverCry: It is unfortunate if HC decided to retire; but we are helpless now (unless something unusual is found in between). The best thing he can do now is to take a break and come back as a contributor (not as an admin), later. Jee 02:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove sysop rights – Since we're approaching the deadline of this discussion, I might as well state my opinion now. I've waited for nearly a week before voting in case High_Contrast shows up and defends him- or herself, but at this point, it seems unlikely that High_Contrast will show up and explain his or her actions. To be honest, I knew that High_Contrast wasn't worthy of sysop rights since April 2014. From what I've seen in April and now, I have to conclude Jcb's description of High_Contrast's behavior is accurate. As I've stated at Wikipediocracy, High_Contrast behaved childishly at dewiki, and that behavior led to a block on his or her account. At Wikipediocracy, tarantino concluded that High_Contrast isn't transparent, and I wondered about whether High_Contrast distrusts the community. High_Contrast seems to have a habit of hiding, and perhaps his or her current absence can be explained by a desire to hide. The evidence strongly suggests that High_Contrast engaged in logging-out trickery, and without an adequate alternative explanation from High_Contrast, I have to conclude that High_Contrast did indeed engaged in those activities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove (in my capacity as a regular Commons editor, not as an admin/CU) Missed everything since it happened during my absence, but this looks indeed very serious. CU evidence look clear as well from what I can see from the admin noticeboards etc. Didn't expect this, but we can't ignore it imho. Trijnsteltalk 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove - unfortunately we have had no response from HC, despite several opportunities. Green Giant (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Comment High Contrast has been alerted about this request. odder (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to reiterate my comment made two days ago on the admin noticeboard here. High Contrast has worked hard for this project for a long time, I really appreciate it. I hope they soon return to helping with content. Even if you believe High Contrast has recently misused accounts, failed to stay mellow and ought to no longer hold a mop, it would be nice if in return any criticism here stayed mellow and exemplary. Many find grave-dancing, witch-hunting and soap-boxing tempting sport, but you cannot pretend to hold the moral high-ground and have one foot in the gutter. At the moment I don't feel qualified or worthy to sit in judgement over High Contrast, so I'll not be voting here though this is not a jibe for those that would like to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment – Aren't we proceeding too fast? Perhaps High Contrast needs some time in order to regain his or her composure before speaking. As much as I hate sockpuppetry, I would first like to hear his or her side of the story before taking action. Perhaps this case isn't as clear-cut as it appears. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree with Michaeldsuarez and Fæ that it would be better if High Contrast could comment this process going on here. In the last five months I had several times contact with him/her and there were always times when the person stayed away from the project for a week or getting less active due to RL-issues. Seeing the User also being inactive on de.WP and other projects looks for me not like an escape. Only my two cents. Also do not know were some Users take their knowlege in this case from, beside of the fact, that the situation looks like a clear cut. But maybe I'm just to new for that and do not have enough overview to see the clue. --Druschba 4 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I disagree with the suggestion that this is being rushed, because this all really began on 27 April 2014, when a number of High Contrast (HC) uploads were nominated for deletion. HC's response was to close some of them almost immediately rather than requesting another admin have a look. I expressed an opinion on one of the remaining DR's and the impression I got from HC's comments there and later was that there may be a language barrier involved rather than any bad behaviour. In the middle of that latter conversation HC added a category to one of my uploads, which I find to be positive behaviour. A few days ago HC commented on one of the DR's nominated by one of the alleged sock IP's, and I felt that HC's comments were perhaps slightly brusque but they were certainly legitimate. However, the evidence of multiple IP's is a serious question that needs an answer, although we should allow HC a fair chance to respond. Green Giant (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Sorry to "thicken the plot", but what role did High Contract have in getting User talk:Bunkerfunker indefinitely blocked on June 2, 2014? if you look at Bunkerfunker's contributions to the Commons, that user signed up on May 3, 2014, and added some military photos to which High Contrast and his sockpuppets quickly took exception. When High Contrast's shenanigans were "outed" on June 2, 2014, I left Bunkerfunker a message on their talk page, because since all of the nominations for deletion to Bunkerfunker's photos came from High Contrast and his socks, Bunkerfunker might be able to add some insight to the inquisition. Amazingly, less than 12 hours later, Bunkerfunker was no more; accused of being a sockpupper of User talk:Allesmüller, Bunkerfunker was blocked with "an expiry time of indefinite", and so was Allesmüller. Here's the interesting part. Allesmüller's last contribution to the Commons was on July 14, 2013, and Bunkerfunker didn't sign up until May 3, 2014. I painstakingly looked through each of Bunkerfunker's edits, and found not one which had anything to do with Allesmüller. Yet, both Allesmüller and High Contrast were 2 edits apart here and here on a relatively obscure file way back in 2010. If I'm way off on this one (assuming Allesmüller was an old sock of High Contrast which he was willing to sacrifice in order to gag Bunkerfunker), then please forgive me. But I'd be very curious to know on what evidence User:Martin H. so suddenly gave the kiss of death to both Bunkerfunker and Allesmüller. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin H. is a highly respected admin with checkuser rights. He can see things that non-checkusers cannot see. But those things he is not allowed to reveal. I tend to trust a checkuser in such cases. Jcb (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And Allesmüller was blocked months before. Forgive me. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given CU data only goes back 90 days, and given that Allesmüller last edited in July 2013, there would be no way to ascertain with certainty that the two editors are connected. I will look into this myself. russavia (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
High Contrast had nothing to do with the block of Bunkerfunker (though I found Bunkerfunker when reading about HCs issues at the AN/N) or Allemsüller. Allesmüllers last edit on Commons is from January 2014, aand thats why Commons CU came into play in April 2014. A crosswiki check initiated by me following my observing of de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Centovalli, Schwarzorange, RSAG und weitere shows unambiguous connection of Allesmüller to User:Fqugdvin, User:Schoggibanane, User:Partikelmatrikel, User:User:Lawaschgiri, User:Hobbyschweizer, User:Satnav, USer:Centovalli, User:Orwo, User:Cqeme, User:Schwarzorange, User:RSAG, User:Centovalli, User:Fotikon and more. So a crosswiki check confirmed the suspiccion that all the recents sockpuppets are related to the very old 2010 de.wp case of user de:User:Allesüller and de:User:Fernrohr blocked following de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Archiv/2010-3#.2823._August.29_-_Alles_Allesm.C3.BCller. Sorry for writing off topic here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what may have triggered High Contrasts actions the trust in him to retain the admin bit seems to be lost. --Dschwen (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow. I'd like to extend my thanks to User:High Contrast for many years (five) of service. I hope we can get past this and retain HC as a contributor. --Dschwen (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/High_Contrast_(de-adminship)&oldid=126601961"