Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 18 June 2013

INeverCry

Links for INeverCry: INeverCry (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

NOTE: CU requests at Commons run for 2 weeks minimum, this request will end no earlier than 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The rationale - People may wonder whether we need more checkusers. The simple answer is yes. We could use 1, maybe even 2, extra checkusers. We have 7 checkusers right now. We had 8, but our most active CU quit recently (Herby). To illustrate the big hole he left: I've looked at the statistics of the last 12 months & compiled a table which shows the activity of the checkusers. As you can see I'm the most active CU now, but Herby was more than twice as active as me. Martin H. does a lot, but never responded on the request page the past year. Which leaves Jim as the last active CU (& I love his help), but he never checks spambots and stuff & hardly replies on the CU mailing list. The other four are either semi-active or simply inactive as a CU.

My nominee - I've discussed with Herby about CU candidates and a few names came up. But we shared INeverCry in our list of candidates. INeverCry is an admin here since August 2012 and has been very active ever since. He frequently blocks users (in a good way of course ;)) which is very important to me as that's what checkusers do most of the time: deciding whether or not you should block someone. INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets as he requested me and Herby multiple times to perform a CU. He is also an admin on the English Wikipedia so he's also aware of the global overview (cross-wiki) and possible problems. IMHO INeverCry is a very good admin overall and more than competent to be a CU.

Last but not least: CU is all about trust and INeverCry can certainly be trusted imho. I hope the community agrees with me. Trijnstel_talk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I gratefully accept the nomination. INeverCry 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nom. Trijnstel_talk 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strong candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trusted colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good candidate. --Rs chen 7754 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! --Didym (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I may as well voice my support, it's a comparison-based support, I would still like my concerns properly addressed though. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support russavia (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good candidate--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. Sa vh ^ñ 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't always support requests for higher wiki office, but when I do, ~~I drink Dos Eq...~~, err I mean, I make sure they are very good candidates. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alan ^(talk) 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mathonius (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -FASTILY 01:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Érico Wouters ^msg 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 04:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. T C N7JM 09:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taivo (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent choice - thanks for helping - despite Marcus's comments the spambot invasion/attacks require continuous work sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted, responsive and very diligent user. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have done some work with INeverCry and he/she seems responsive in deleting clear copyright violations. I think we do need a new active CU after Herby retired and that perhaps Gmaxwell and Mardetanha should resign as CUs--from the very low level of their activity here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support MoiraMoira (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes not related to the candidate, but instead related to the position in general

Bureaucrat Note: I have refactored this section to highlight that the rationale used in these votes is not about the candidate, but is explicitly about the position in general or external factors. If any of you wish to make comments about the candidate, you are welcome to add them and move your vote back into the other section. RfX is not the place for policy reform, nor is it for attacking those currently or formerly serving in the position. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Commons already has much too much Checkusers. There should be only very few very trusted Authors with these rights. I don't see a cause for a new one. Sorry @ Trijnstel - but only to write we need some is not enough for me.But your Statistics tells me, we should take away the Rights from Gmaxwell and Mardetanha. And we have to talk about the extensive use of this "last to use" tool! About 8.500 CUs is pure horror. I don't know if we can argue against Pipa, Sopa and Acta - and PRISM - and use this tool so unbeleavable often! Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this reply of Marcus Cyron, I believe I should clarify a few things:
1) Yes, I believe we should take away the right from Gmaxwell & Mardetanha too. I even asked them both if they would drop the tool themselves: here and here.

2) Regarding the "extensive use" of the tool; maybe it helps if I say I use it 90% of the time for checking spambots (the other 10% are regular requests etc.)? Also (I know I shouldn't mention it maybe, but still it's important imo), on the English Wikipedia the tool is used even more... So frankly we *do* need more checkusers now Herby quit.

And yes, we should take it away from inactive ones, but that doesn't mean INeverCry shouldn't be a great asset for the team. Trijnstel_talk 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The terible often use at en:WP is not a cause for me. A de:WP we have only very few uses. I hate the Big-Brother-Structure here and I don't feel safe any longer with you handling this tool so extensive. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry, I have absolutely no reason to CU you (and I never have either ofc). :) Trijnstel_talk 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but here's my problem: If you don't do anything wrong that might look like sockpuppetry - I never ever use Sockpuppets. But what happens if you think it looks like? You decide to Checkuser. But "I think there could be something" is for me not enough. The possibility "there could be something" is not enough for a CU. We need real good causes - because it's a very hard way into the privacy of the people who work here - in a free project. They are volunteers! Until we checkuser them, really a lot has to happen. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very poor argument. It's like "If you do'nt have to hide anything, you could show us pictures of your bedroom and of your underwear drawer in the closet". If you do not care of another privacy, you should publish your name and your full address on your user page and your usual IP address, otherwise you apply double standards for me. But you did'nt do that all until now. Your privacy seems to be "worthy" than others. Morty (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I don't care about the privacy of others (which I do care about ofc). I only said I won't CU without a valid reason. Trijnstel_talk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Until there is no control of his acting. Morty (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this statement. Are you talking about me or INeverCry? Trijnstel_talk 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal. But i miss any independent control and/or public accessible log file of the commons CUs. And until there is no check and balance i deny to vote pro to any candidate. Morty (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well, we're not dewiki which logs everything, but we control eachother. And in case you don't trust us, you always have the OC. Trijnstel_talk 14:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me: Is there a list of provable reasons why a CU is made or is such a decision is commonly based on a simple feeling in the stomache? I am a little bit scared of the enormous amount of 8.500 CUs in a year. That looks to me as if there is no self-imposed barrier to use this instrument of controlling the community. Morty (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you came here because of the post of Marcus on dewiki? If so, yes, I would be frightened too if someone just gives a number without any background. But I'm happy you've asked for a clarification. Yes, there is a list of reasons: see the CU policy. I stick to that. And again: we're not dewiki which requires a consensus to be able to CU. It's a tool to fight vandalism and I use it that way. Here I obviously only use CU to check for sockpuppetry, that is *abusing sockpuppets*. As I said before, 90% of my checks are spambots or attack accounts. The spambots are mostly from China and have a clear pattern. So I definitely don't randomly check accounts. And the attack accounts are pretty clear too (can't go into detail). Sadly Commons receives a lot of spam and an abuse filter alone won't help. I am a steward thus I also cross-wiki check them and afterwards I globally block the IP so other projects won't be affected by the spam from that IP anymore either. I've never checked a regular editor and won't do that either unless I have a very strong reason to do so. I don't understand why people are so scared to be CU'd. CU is just a tool to fight vandalism. It's not something we use to 'control the community' as you suggest. Trijnstel_talk 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Trijnstel. I never afraid of the tools; only those who operates. Honestly, many admins are not very trustable. But here your choice is good. :) J Kadavoor J e e 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) as Morty and Marcus. If the discussion about possible excessive misuse of data should begin here, then it is not the wrong place.[reply]
- Comment A discussion about possible misuse of CU data is appropriate on another forum. Not on an existing CU request. Besides, if there are not enough CU's, then Commons risks being inundated by spammers and copyright violating accounts. Who wouldn't want to upload copyvios or spam on a highly visited website like Commons or Wikipedia? When a spammer or copyright violater finds one account is blocked, he/she immediatedly creates another. No one can tolerate this situation--unless we want to risk a lawsuit from the real copyright owner. That is why we need a more active Check User in the first place--now that Herby who did half this task has retired and Mardetanha almost never uses this tool. The possible misuse of CU data I cited on another thread was on English wikipedia, not WikiCommons. I respect INeverCry's judgment. He follows Commons procedures. Even when I pointed out a massive copy vio account case on his talkpage, he waited almost 7 days here before acting. To me, this was a speedy delete case. That tells me a lot on this Admin's respect for Commons laws. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't compare Commons with the German Wikipedia.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Trijnstel suggests that "INeverCry has a good sense in discovering sockpuppets[...]", perhaps can you tell me did you see anomalies in the contributions of this editor ? If so, why were you silent, if not, why would you be good at the job ? What does 'turning a blind eye' mean to you ? Penyulap ☏ 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting about Moogsi (don't know much about him), but having sockpuppets itself isn't forbidden. *Abusing* sockpuppets is wrong. Trijnstel_talk 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't spot them in the first place it's a moot point isn't it. Ditto being happy to vote them into positions of trust without knowing who they are. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moogsi indicated that he hasn't edited with any other accounts. I see no indication that Moogsi has done anything but constructive editing. I assumed good faith in regard to his RFA, and so far I haven't seen him do anything but good work as an admin. When looking for sockpuppets, I look for direct evidence of disruptive editing, as can be seen in cases like this, or this, or with most of the cases brought to COM:RFCU, COM:AN/U, etc. If somebody comes to me with credible evidence of disruptive socking, or if I see it, I have done and will continue to do my best to deal with it in the appropriate way, through discussion with other editors, and with blocks when necessary. INeverCry 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't give my own thoughts on that editor in public, and I won't call you particularly great at spotting socks, but I will commiserate with you that you'll be doing the lion's share of the drudgery in both the CU and DR departments. Say it with me, "Woo Hoo", come on, say it with me, give me a "Woo".... just a "Woo" erm, yes, never mind.

Let me be the first to say "Sorry to hear you got stuck with even more work to do". hmm. Wait a sec, I know something I can say that is sure to cheer you up ! "I'll shut up now." Penyulap ☏ 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are one interesting person. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

general discussion about CU/Commons:

User:Marcus Cyron wrote the following at de:Wikipedia:Kurier (the de-Wikipedia equivalent for the Sign Post). I think everyone here, and especially the candidate has a right to know what he wrote there, thereof, here is a rough (and possibly not always correct) translation which Marcus is welcome to improve:
- Currently there is a Checkuser-election at Commons. It is arguable whether the writer of these lines is right with his demand keeping the number of people who have access to these sensitive right low. He is more interested or even alarmed by the statistics of the eight checkusers at Wikimedia Commons during the past year: About 8.500 check user actions were performed. Half of them during the last half year. Especially two collaborators — of which one just threw in the towel (retired) — excelled with a four digits number of actions, each. And it doesn't grasp to the author [of these lines] how such a thing could happen. Are there really so many violations that have to be treated with a CU (where there is hardly a Community with “socking”) – or are the buttons carelessly used? And how can we then complain about spying by ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and PRISM, if we ourself created such a surveillance structure in our project. A comment by M.C. //
Note by the translator: The checkuser policy at de.wp is stricter. Also, I am going to add a translation of Trijnstel's reply to the Kurier. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I support INeverCry's request to be a CU because he is reasonable and looks at the evidence before acting but I agree with Trijnstel that a user with 2 accounts should Not be blocked unless there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry/spamming. So, I think I understand Marcus Cyron's concerns about the CU process. In this English wikipedia case, a user was temporarily blocked for 1 week because he had 2 user accounts, not because of any abusive sockpuppetry. The user appealed the block and it was lifted Later on, the person who lifted the block Admitted/Admitted 2 that he didn't know why the user was blocked in the first case when there was no evidence of abuse on either account. (just something to do with English wiki policy) That is why I believe Trijnstel's standard should be Common's standards here--act only if there is clear evidence of abusive sockpuppetry or spamming. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 # {{Support}}--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 # {{Support}} [[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
+# {{s}} Excellent choice - thanks for helping - despite Marcus's comments the spambot invasion/attacks require continuous work sadly. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
+# {{support}} Trusted, responsive and very diligent user. -- ''[[User:Rillke|Rillke]]''<sup>[[User talk:Rillke|(q?)]]</sup> 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
+# {{support}} I have done some work with INeverCry and he/she seems responsive in deleting clear   copyright violations. I think we do need a new active CU after Herby retired and that perhaps Gmaxwell and Mardetanha should resign as CUs--from the very low level of their activity here. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
+#{{support}} --[[User:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:blue">Hedwig in Washington</span>]] '''<sup>[[User talk:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:red">(mail?)</span>]]</sup>''' 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
+# {{support}} [[User:MoiraMoira|MoiraMoira]] ([[User talk:MoiraMoira|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
+====Votes not related to the candidate, but instead related to the position in general====
+'''Bureaucrat Note:''' I have refactored this section to highlight that the rationale used in these votes is not about the candidate, but is explicitly about the position in general or external factors.  If any of you wish to make comments about the candidate, you are welcome to add them and move your vote back into the other section.  RfX is not the place for [[m:Talk:CheckUser_policy|policy reform]], nor is it for attacking those currently or formerly serving in the position. --[[User:99of9|99of9]] ([[User talk:99of9|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 # {{oppose}} - Commons already has much too much Checkusers. There should be only very few very trusted Authors with these rights. I don't see a cause for a new one. Sorry @ Trijnstel - but only to write we need some is not enough for me.But your Statistics tells me, we should take away the Rights from Gmaxwell and Mardetanha. And we have to talk about the extensive use of this "last to use" tool! About 8.500 CUs is pure horror. I don't know if we can argue against Pipa, Sopa and Acta - and PRISM - and use this tool so unbeleavable often! [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 #:Because of this reply of Marcus Cyron, I believe I should clarify a few things:
@@ Line 47: / Line 55: @@
 #:::: That's a very poor argument. It's like "If you do'nt have to hide anything, you could show us pictures of your bedroom and of your underwear drawer in the closet". If you do not care of another privacy, you should publish your name and your full address on your user page and your usual IP address, otherwise you apply double standards for me. But you did'nt do that all until now. Your privacy seems to be "worthy" than others. [[User:Morty|Morty]] ([[User talk:Morty|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 #:::::I never said I don't care about the privacy of others (which I do care about ofc). I only said I won't CU without a valid reason. [[User:Trijnstel|<font color="#064EA3" face="Verdana" size="2">Trijnstel</font>]]<sub>[[User talk:Trijnstel|<font color="#000000">talk</font>]]</sub> 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
-# {{s}} Excellent choice - thanks for helping - despite Marcus's comments the spambot invasion/attacks require continuous work sadly. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
-# {{support}} Trusted, responsive and very diligent user. -- ''[[User:Rillke|Rillke]]''<sup>[[User talk:Rillke|(q?)]]</sup> 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
-# {{support}} I have done some work with INeverCry and he/she seems responsive in deleting clear   copyright violations. I think we do need a new active CU after Herby retired and that perhaps Gmaxwell and Mardetanha should resign as CUs--from the very low level of their activity here. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 # {{oppose}} - Until there is no control of his acting. [[User:Morty|Morty]] ([[User talk:Morty|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 #: I don't get this statement. Are you talking about me or INeverCry? [[User:Trijnstel|<font color="#064EA3" face="Verdana" size="2">Trijnstel</font>]]<sub>[[User talk:Trijnstel|<font color="#000000">talk</font>]]</sub> 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
@@ Line 57: / Line 62: @@
 #:::::I guess you came here because of the post of Marcus on dewiki? If so, yes, I would be frightened too if someone just gives a number without any background. But I'm happy you've asked for a clarification. Yes, there is a list of reasons: see the [[:m:CheckUser policy|CU policy]]. I stick to that. And again: we're not dewiki which requires a consensus to be able to CU. It's a tool to fight vandalism and I use it that way. Here I obviously only use CU to check for sockpuppetry, that is *abusing sockpuppets*. As I said before, 90% of my checks are spambots or attack accounts. The spambots are mostly from China and have a clear pattern. So I definitely don't randomly check accounts. And the attack accounts are pretty clear too (can't go into detail). Sadly Commons receives a lot of spam and an abuse filter alone won't help. I am a steward thus I also cross-wiki check them and afterwards I globally block the IP so other projects won't be affected by the spam from that IP anymore either. I've never checked a regular editor and won't do that either unless I have a very strong reason to do so. I don't understand why people are so scared to be CU'd. CU is just a tool to fight vandalism. It's not something we use to 'control the community' as you suggest. [[User:Trijnstel|<font color="#064EA3" face="Verdana" size="2">Trijnstel</font>]]<sub>[[User talk:Trijnstel|<font color="#000000">talk</font>]]</sub> 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 #::::::Well said, Trijnstel. I never afraid of the tools; only those who operates. Honestly, many admins are not very trustable. But here your choice is good. :) [[User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">J</font>]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|Kadavoor]] [[Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor|J]][[:Category:User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">e</font>]][[Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor|e]] 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
-#{{support}} --[[User:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:blue">Hedwig in Washington</span>]] '''<sup>[[User talk:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:red">(mail?)</span>]]</sup>''' 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 # {{oppose}} --[[User:Hubertl|Hubertl]] ([[User talk:Hubertl|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) as Morty and Marcus. If the discussion about possible excessive misuse of data should begin here, then it is not the wrong place.
 #*{{Comm}} A discussion about possible misuse of CU data is appropriate on another forum. Not on an existing CU request. Besides, if there are not enough CU's, then Commons risks being inundated by spammers and copyright violating accounts. <u>Who wouldn't want to upload copyvios or spam on a highly visited website like Commons or Wikipedia</u>? When a spammer or copyright violater finds one account is blocked, he/she immediatedly creates another. No one can tolerate this situation--unless we want to risk a lawsuit from the real copyright owner. That is why we need a more active Check User in the first place--now that Herby who did half this task has retired and Mardetanha [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Trijnstel/comcu almost never] uses this tool. The possible misuse of CU data I cited on another thread was on English wikipedia, not WikiCommons. I respect INeverCry's judgment. He follows Commons procedures. Even when I pointed out a massive copy vio account case on his talkpage, he waited almost <u>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Bru216#Files_uploaded_by_Bru216_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs.29 7 days]</u> here before acting. To me, this was a speedy delete case. That tells me a lot on this Admin's respect for Commons laws. Regards, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
-# {{support}} [[User:MoiraMoira|MoiraMoira]] ([[User talk:MoiraMoira|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 # {{support}} Can't compare Commons with the German Wikipedia.--[[User:Stanzilla|Stanzilla]] ([[User talk:Stanzilla|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 ===Comments===

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:35, 18 June 2013

Contents

INeverCry

Votes

Votes not related to the candidate, but instead related to the position in general

Comments

general discussion about CU/Commons:

Navigation menu

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:35, 18 June 2013

INeverCry

Votes

Votes not related to the candidate, but instead related to the position in general

Comments

general discussion about CU/Commons:

Navigation menu

Search