Commons:Administrators/Requests/Sealle (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Remove = 50;  Keep = 4;  Neutral = 0 - 92% Result. Successful. --Krd 07:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sealle (de-adminship)

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 16:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This administrator has been exposed yesterday of abusing multiple accounts with the intent of deception by impersonating a real life individual to commit license laundering. Not only that, they abused the admin toolset to close multiple DRs created by their sockpuppet. This situation is enough to cause serious disdain, to a point where the question is if the community still has trust in this person to keep the admin bit, and it seems I'm not alone on that. A discussion was opened over at COM:AN, and to an extent, it is agreed that a de-RfA should be taken place, which is unfortunate for them and Commons, as they were quite an active sysop when they wanted to. 1989 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Remove 1989 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, sadly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and Indef both accounts. T CellsTalk 17:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sigh. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and Indef all accounts. If a chance of global ban exist, let's start it. --Mirer (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove For me, Sealle actually had been amongst trusted and competent admins for years. Now I'm feeling like an idiot: last year in May, his previously quite high activity on Russian WP suddenly stopped for several weeks. After there still was no activity in August, I was worried, and asked colleagues on Forum. Some days later, he came back after letting us know that the inactivity was due to Covid-19 with complications. His sock, as one can see now, had of course edited all the time. Well, what should I say... I wish him not to get truly ill from Covid, but my confidence he doesn't have anymore. --A.Savin 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove --Rzuwig► 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I do not really care about a person having several accounts, neither do I care about them lying about having a disease (it is, of course, in bad taste, but is not relevant here). However, closing Deletion Requests of somebody you are involved with is a big problem, and closing one's own DRs made through a sock is a very serious issue. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove We cannot tolerate this on Wikimedia projects. --Rschen7754 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove (ec) I only have 10 or so edits here, so weigh my opinion accordingly please, but... this won't do. I'm not a fan of desysop procedures in general on Wikimedia projects, but for something this... I think the word I'm looking for is 'egregious'... yeah, too big a breach of trust, sadly. Trey Maturin (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I will reserve the right to remain silent, because silence can sometimes say much more than words. It is an alternative form of the word, considerably deeper and sensual. --Yuri Krestinichev (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove I'm sorry. Indeed, a serious breach of trust. Владимир Меланхолин (обс) 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove We had a conflict previously, but I still think, that community needs few admins of this type: very strict and making no exceptions from rules. He made an exception fo himself, sadly. Красный wanna talk? 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep there are too many of you "righteous" people. It doesn't work like that. I have yet to see anywhere that Sealle's long and substantial contributions have been more detrimental than helpful. So I won't vote to strip him of his admin flag just yet. --NoFrost (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the feeling too, that everyone pounced on admin only when Akela has missed. Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him. Lesless (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hear what you are saying, and the situation is bad. If they would not have acted on their own DRs I would have voted to give this admin another chance. If you do have something to rebut the accusation of closing own DRs I will probably change my vote. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there enough resources at Commons admins to watch closely Sealle's admin actions for the consequent years and mentor him with greatest attention? Or Commons admins have something else more important to do? If not,  Remove. --ssr (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Serhio Magpie (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per above --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove This saddens me, you always were a fair, hard working admin who did an excellent job. Natuur12 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Наверное, больше, чем произошедшее, мне не нравится ситуация, описанная выше A. Savin, но тем не менее, на мой взгляд, не стоит лишать участника статуса админа. --Stolbovsky (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, definitely. Not so sure about an indef for the main account.--TFerenczy (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove --Minoraxtalk 23:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove it was bad enough that Sealle was on the side of the troll on my talk page 9 months ago [1][2][3], giving invalid warnings and blocking me for an hour while I was the one being attacked and harassed. While they hide the block from public view, it still remains on record regardless and never apologise for their actions[4]. Bidgee (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I missed some crucial part of it (seems not) - how that story started and how it continued has absolutely nothing to do with the current de-admin request. Another admin called it a "quarrel rising from nothing" and it seems to be the right wording. Sealle neither initiated nor made that DR. He just was unfortunate to take your side later and to say "deleted after ungrounded copyvio accusations".
      IRL similarity could be you pushed to the mud by a careless runner, some witness would help you to stand up and to clean your coat. And you would completely forget that runner - but would pursue to all extents that witness, because he did not clean your coat carefully and thoroughly enough. --NeoLexx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was in fact not just supporting 1989 de-admin request but also the fact that Sealle wrongfully blocked me (abusing the Sysop tool) for removing trolling on my own talk page and never apologise for it and that they were in the wrong. The actions that this de-admin came about and the actions they did are enough to see the Sysop tool removed. Should the accounts be blocked, sock puppets yes, the main account, personally I don’t know. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per above. — putnik 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove for the abusive sockpuppetry. Support a global ban for the forgery. ƏXPLICIT 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per above, and I echo calls for a global ban. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sealle. nebydlogop (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, of course, and indefblock all accounts. Note that user:Kuull is a shared account between at least 2 people. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that this account is (or has ever been) shared. It is hardly possible to exclude this possibility by checkuser instruments, but there are some indirect (but still strong enough) evidences against that. Biathlon (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Сейчас Кузьме 17 лет. В 2012 году ему было 9 лет и он (а точнее, неустановленный владелец его учётки) создавал статьи типа "Первая ночь". Нехарактерно для пионера, скажем так. Кроме того, судя по дискуссии на форуме, именно он ответил с учётки VLu. Так что, по моим соображениям, как минимум учётки VLu и Kuull являются общими, а по остальным - не доказано. Этим же объясняется результат чекьюзинга: между VLu и Sealle есть лишь эпизодические пересечения, между Sealle и Kuull пересечений сходу не обнаружено, а между VLu и Kuull пересечения тесные. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Я в курсе всего этого. Именно поэтому я и считаю, что все это время контроль над учетной записью был у Сергея, и общей она не является, лишь обычным сокпаппетом. Потому что участие настоящего Кузьмы в возрасте 9 лет невероятно, а с течением времени ни редактируемые тематики, ни какие бы то ни было паттерны поведения не менялись, прекрасно подходя при этом под образ действия Сергея с основной учетной записи. Отсутствие публично известных пересечений с основным аккаунтом объяснимо, поскольку те пересечения, которые есть, проверяющие не имеют права разглашать в силу отсутствия нарушений ВИРТ с учетной записи Kuull, и об этом проверяющие рувики писали при отказе во второй проверке. Пересечения между VLu и Kuull вскрылись как бы случайно ("note that Kuull was not checked directly, but was found in the VLu check"), а об отсутствии пересечений с Sealle не говорит вообще никто. Это не значит, что их не было, а эпизодичность пересечений легко объяснить использованием рабочего компьютера, командировками и т.п., потому как у «Лушникова» стилистических признаков перехода учетной записи в иные руки точно так же не видно, утиный тест там стабилен. Не надо конспирологию разводить. Biathlon (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "You wanna talk Mexican, join a Mexican tank. This is American tank and we talk American." (c) ;-)
            Same to avoid a bunch of Russian text with "конспирологию" in it. The 2nd CU check is as clear as they were allowed by rules to put it. Sure FAITH should be always presented yet it should always have its reasonnable limits as well. Sealle-VLu (the real name is known to some) many times used Kuull account as well to edit Commons. But as long as there are no samples of Kuull being used in sockpuppetry discussion games together with Sealle-VLu - till then it is not so important for this de-admin request, IMHO. --NeoLexx (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I started this conversation in English and tried to keep it short, because I am sure that nobody really cares about the reasons, on which I base my assumptions. But then I got this long reply in Russian and decided to explain everything once more. If someone else had questions about all this blablabla, I (obviously) would not have used Russian :) Anyway, I am ready to translate both passages into English, but I do not think it really makes sense in this particular case. Biathlon (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block associated accounts Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. I'm not sure what caused Sealle to think that closing their own socks' requests, and acting like they are different people in discussions is a thing sysops do. It's a shame really, as they had done numerous good contributions here. But alas, adminship is a matter of trust here on Commons, and I believe that trust has been broken. --pandakekok9 11:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove as per my comment at COM:AN Too long for a full quote here, briefly: 1) do not block Sealle account, 2) leave autopatroller (at least), file mover and rollbacker (maybe), 3) prohibit to create alternative accounts even if not interacting with each other in the project space, 4) in 1 year come back to the question of re-admin (maybe) --NeoLexx (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. at ru-wiki a de-adminship request can be ruled by ArbCom only. The case is supported and being prepared.
  •  Remove and block. We cannot tolerate this on Wikimedia projects. —— DePlusJean (Talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove and block. -- Geagea (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Unfortunately, it isn't a first such case. But often such people continue to work for the project, so there is no need to block. Pavel Alikin (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't think this - "with the intent of deception by impersonating a real life individual to commit license laundering" - is true. More likely that Владимир Лаушкин either sold or gave his account to Sealle --Devlet Geray (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devlet Geray, I wrote to real Lushnikov (Лушников, а не Лаушкин), and he denied ownership of the Wikipedia account. Beyond a reasonable doubts. At the same time, I am against what is happening on this page: more like settling scores with a tough administrator (see my speech above). Lesless (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lesless, without trying to attack a real person, but could Лушников be possibly lying (not wanting to tell the truth) on whether he has ever had an account on wikimedia, especially if we assume that he - Lushnikov - sold (or just gave) his account to another person maybe under some agreements, for instance, not disclosing the fact that the account was sold? Devlet Geray (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ну а зачем это ему? Мы уже обсуждали на ФА, что такое враньё никому не выгодно. Если б Лушников сказал, что владеет аккаунтом, он всех спас бы, и себя, и Sealle, и файлы, а так он всё теряет. Значит, он не знал вообще ничего, и его никто не предупреждал, как лучше отвечать мне (если б был сговор). Lesless (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transl.: Well, why would he? We have already discussed at FA that such lies are not beneficial to anyone. If Lushnikov had said that he owns the account, he would have saved everyone, himself, and Sealle, and files, otherwise he would lose everything. This means that he did not know anything at all, and no one warned him how best to answer to me (if there was a conspiracy). Lesless (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Скорее всего, вы действительно правы, тем более что вы писали Лушникову. Но для меня непонятно одно: какой рациональный смысл участнику Sealle, очень хорошо знакомому с правилами Викимедиа и, что важно, с авторскими правами, с другой учетки загружать фотографию Ольги Васильевой, выдавая себя за Лушникова - автора этой ничем не примечательной фотографии? Единственное объяснение, которое я нахожу, — попытка уменьшить подозрения в том, что аккаунт VLu принадлежит ему, участнику Sealle, поскольку есть реальный человек — якобы владелец этой учетной записи. Но, по-моему, это наоборот лишний риск - всегда была вероятность, что кто-то из проверяющих лицензию решил бы подтвердить истинность того, что участник VLu (тогда еще подписанный как Лушников Владимир...) действительно является реальным Лушниковым. Я думаю, что в 2016 аккаунт VLu все же принадлежал указанному Лушникову, а позднее он либо совместно был использован и Лушниковым, и Sealle (о чем косвенно говорят результаты проверки - совпадения есть, но периодические), либо только Sealle. (это лишь мои предположения) По крайней мере, у нас нет 100% уверенности, что аккаунт VLu в 2016 не принадлежал Лушникову, значит, это обвинение (выдача себя за другого реального человека для своих корыстных целей "the intent of deception by impersonating a real life individual to commit license laundering") можно снять и рассматривать только тот несомненный факт, что в определенный период участник использовал виртуала(-ов)--Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Насчет того, зачем Лушникову, возможно, врать о том, что он когда-либо владел аккаунтом в Викимедиа, я не знаю. Не исключено, что таково желание участника Sealle, договор при покупке аккаунта (если такое имело место) или же просто спонтанный ответ Лушникова, который не думал по поводу того, что написать, и возможных последствий того или иного ответа --Devlet Geray (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
В этой правке [5] Лушников/"Лушников" пишет, что кроме русского он никакими языками не владеет, а уже через некоторое время VLu свободно пользуется английским (так же, как и Sealle). Что это? И зачем сначала создавать образ человека, не понимающего в авторских правах и не знающего никаких языков, кроме русского, а потом демонстрировать знание как английского, так и АП на высочайшем уровне? --Devlet Geray (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Гм, интересно. Правда, стиль не Лушникова). И я, например, тоже всегда говорю, что не владею языками. I just write with some mistakes and shy a little. Viso) Ačiū! Dzięki! Lesless (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I agree with ssr on this. Those who demand "Remove and block/ban", please consider that what Sealle did undoubtfully was abusive sockpuppetry, but very probably no contentual damage to Wikimedia projects. At least not deliberate and not systematical. VLu's deletion requests, most of them on NoFoP Russia/Ukraine, are nearly all fine. Yes Sealle never should have closed them himself, but any other sysop most likely closed them as deleted as well. To ban a long-term user in formerly good standing, is a very severe step. It should be reserved for exceptional cases with heavy damage to Commons, such as obvious vandalism, intimidation/harassment, etc. Remember also that blocks are not punitive. I have no trust anymore in Sealle, but this does not make it impossible that one day he decides to return to productive work as non-sysop. We have users who are doing very much more damage to Commons, but they are still far from being blocked, and some of them even claim good community standing. In comparison, to block Sealle would be highly unfair and disproportionate. Thanks. --A.Savin 11:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not blocking Sealle for their deception towards the community would be considered double standard as former admins like Edgar181 and PumpkinSky was blocked indefinitely for it. 1989 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edgar181 was worse, as he used multiple socks and had clearly shown no regrets. I'm not sure about PumpkinSky though, as I haven't seen their de-RfA. pandakekok9 15:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They didn't have a de-RfA. They resigned before it even got to that. Doesn't matter who did worse. My point still stands. 1989 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No opinion on Edgar181; but I think the difference in case of PumpkinSky is, that they abused the FPC process via socks to overrun consensus, which had succeeded several times (resulting in removal of the FP status of these images after the sockpuppetry was revealed); whereas actions by Sealle on RfD's had the same effect as out-of-process deletions, but the files would have been deleted anyway, albeit probably much later. I'd like to add that there is no such guideline on Commons that any sockpuppeteer had to be indefinitely blocked (COM:Blocking policy only says that the socks are to be blocked, whereas the master account "may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances") -- so both PumpkinSky and Edgar actually have been indef'ed, just because in both cases an admin went ahead and indef'ed them and there were no notable objections by others (including myself, admittedly). Still they are not banned AFAIK, which means that they may request unblock at some point in future and any sysop might grant it, if there are no concerns. The other two well-known cases, where one sockpuppeteer has been globally locked and the other even has been banned by the WMF, are of course much more severe, with long-term harassment and more. --A.Savin 16:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One important point is that PumpkinSky have blocked their account themselve, and another administrator just "confirmed" that block, maybe the blocking administrator would have not blocked them without the first block made by PumpkinSky, because with the link provided in the block rationale I'm not able to see a discussion/consensus about this block. With this first block PumpkinSky put themselve in a complicate situation and did not manage to be unblocked. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "undoubtfully was abusive sockpuppetry, but very probably no contentual damage" (A.Savin) - I do agree and from here and per my comment at COM:AN I see the issue would be best resolved without two extremes:
      1) In the way like "from a person with such way of conduct - our community cannot accept any kind of contributions anymore and whatsoever". This is what undef-blocking the main account would practically mean - and it might be indeed what NoFrost called earlier "righteous".
      2) In the way like "The end justifies the means, an abusive sockpuppetry didn't lead to a systematic contentual damage, so no big deal, let the administrator continue his administrative work". --NeoLexx (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I come across such cases, I always try to proceed from the assumption that the checkusers made a mistake (even though this has never been proven, and this is hardly possible due to the closed investigation procedure). In this case, the decisive argument for me is not possible violations, but the absence of at least some Sealle statement on this topic. No amount of efficiency or amount of valuable contribution excuses this behavior. It is this, in my opinion, extremely infantile behavior that may be the main reason for de-adminship. Silence is an admission of one's blame (Which might not have been that big, but the rejection of its recognition reinforces this). I must say that Sealle is one of those wikimedians with whom I have tried not to contact unless absolutely necessary. However, I am do not feel the joy that he brought himself to this upsetting situation. --Kaganer (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why VLu is blocked at the moment? The template on his user page does not disclose that. Juandev (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Sealle_(de-adminship)&oldid=526183922"