Commons:Administrators/Requests/Minorax

Minorax

Vote

Minorax (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (formerly 大诺史)

Scheduled to end: 02:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Today I want to nominate someone who is dedicated to this project, and that is Minorax (formerly 大诺史). Several months ago, they nominated themselves for adminship. However, due to concerns of their lack of experience, they’ve withdrawn. Months later since then, I personally feel they are ready to assist Commons with the best of their ability. Currently, they have 245,000+ live edits, with 29,000+ deleted. They have account creator, file mover, rollbacker, and image reviewer rights. They are active in maintaineces like CSD, DR, categorization, and license reviewing. With the toolset, I know they can do more. Thanks and happy holidays! 1989 (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust! Minorax (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support 1989 (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I was like... "Minorax"? Never heard of this name before. "formerly 大诺史"... oh! --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong support trusted and active --DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support more than qualified now. Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I have a feeling that admin backlogs would vanish if he becomes an admin. Masum Reza^📞 03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A good candidate, puts in a lot of work and will be a asset. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The user started editing on Commons in May 2019, that's barely six month. I won't support a RfA admin of a user with less than one year of editing experience. In addition your last RfA was less than six months ago. T Cells^Talk 07:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  @T Cells: You voted support for his previous RFA. He had less experience back then (current experience - 6 months of experience). What has changed in these past six months? Masum Reza^📞 09:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want the user to be demoralized over the oppose comments. Thus, I gave them a moral support at that time. Unfortunately, there are too much concerns for me to support them now. T Cells^Talk 10:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support I understand the concerns about the lack of time on the project but this user is one of the hardest working I have come across. Also unfailingly polite and drama free. Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I'm inclined to agree with Gbawden. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support a helpful presence, happy to support. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Gbawden. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support EPIC (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support as per Gbawden. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support, per Gbawden. -- Geagea (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose, not because of the contributions, but because I suspect Minorax to be an INC sock. The edit patterns are just too similar to that of INC and Daphne Lantier. See below for discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral While my suspicions turned out wrong, I remain wary per Natuur12. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Regardless the sock accusation, no more admins who seem to use Wikimedia Commons as their primary daily activity. We tried that enough times already. Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am not going to comment on the sock accusation, but I will be outright in saying that I am not a fan of Minorax's editing style. In August 2019, Minorax made 115,000 edits in one month. I decided to quickly dig into how he pulled that off.. It was no surprise to see edit rates of 500/epm 1, removing categories one by one to build edits (500 pages like this file were edited 11 times to remove categories). Even better is this file which took 18 edits to remove categories. I personally cannot support someone who's judgement allows them to think it is appropriate to run Cat-a-lot on multiple categories, at the same time, to achieve an edit rate of 830 edits per minute 2. ~riley (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thanks, but no. --A.Savin 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  @A.Savin: It's not helpful if you just throw a big "no" at him without adequately explaining why do you oppose this RFA. Masum Reza^📞 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Masumrezarock100: well it's a vote so "no" works here.--BRP ^ever 07:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I may change my vote, if what Sebari stated can be disproved. This may be the case if Minorax de-anonymizes themselves, or if the CU investigation comes to conclusion e.g. that they are editing from IP's in China. Otherwise: no way, there is simply too much at hazard. --A.Savin 15:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the concern Riley made above, I think those things should be considered but numbers are hardly a reason to oppose considering how the tool is used unless there are alternatives that allow you to do that (except going through the hundreds of pages and editing them one by one). Other than that I don't believe in the sock suspicion, not without any concrete evedience. I think they have the ablity to solve the backlog here so the concern about time doesn't concerns me. Well, I think I will assume good faith here so I am inclined to support this request. Keep doing good work and prove those concerns wrong. Thanks--BRP ^ever 07:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have several concerns but Natuur12 is exactly right and I think User:1989 should bear that in mind when nominating, rather than offering nonsense stats like "245,000+ live edits". I don't care about automated-edit counts any more than I care about boasts about automated image upload stats, other than both seem to reflect a concern about things that should not be important. -- Colin (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Mentioning edit count is not about boasting, it’s about demonstrating their participation within in the project. You have a right to your opinion, including the one you think I should take into consideration, in which I won’t. 1989 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support They make productive edits and are committed to the project. Admins should easily come and go. If the de-adminship process is difficult and dramatic on Commons, that's the failure of the project and the community at large. Anyway, they deserve a chance to be an admin here. Keep up the good work, Minorax! 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I tend to lurk on promotional discussions but I'm going to voice in and say I support Minorax's promotion. The sock discussion feels like a stretch to me, though I understand how much of an issue INC was. Minorax has done good work and has shown a good dedication to the project, and adminship requires a willingness to do tedious tasks which Minorax seems more than willing and capable to handle. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Natuur12. Jcb never took a break, and it showed. Kai3952 (not an admin) had basically his entire self-worth depending on Commons.. and it showed. Russavia was before my time, but I suspect he had some issue with caring too much as well. I'm somewhat guilty of this too, but I'm not running for admin. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'll make a bold statement to claim that Russavia was fine. Pretty much nobody knows why he got WMF banned, and and some even suggested opt-out of WMF-ban; his socking and almost all other abusive behavior happened after the WMF ban, not before. The ban resulted in so much drama; we have countless related ANUs, and at least one instance of related De-RFA, and de-sysop. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Zhuyifei1999: all I really know about Russavia is: he liked planes (no reason for ban), he was an admin (no reason for ban) and Pricasso. I thought he was banned for that, but I see now the timeline doesn't match. However, ordering a Pricasso, IIRC knowing Jimbo ain't gonna like it, is.. I don't know what that is, but it can't be healthy. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support as I voted neutral last time and have not found problems since then.--Roy17 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Natuur12. --Mirer (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)  Support Changed my mind ... if he's able and willing, he should help reduce the backlogs. If there's some drama & problems on the horizon, we should then deal with it - quick and clear. --Mirer (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above.·Carn 07:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. —Hasley 12:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Obviously involved in maintenance tasks. Obviously needed and useful. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I have felt for some time that COM:UDR needs more Chinese-speaking administrators. Thuresson (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Steinsplitter --Schlurcher (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I came across this user before and generally seemed to like most of their edits, but can't get over the concerns raises by Majora, Alexis Jazz, and others. Wish you well. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Did really great job, dedicated user who can avoid drama and have a clue. I know this support is sort of inconsequential at this stage but don't be discouraged Minorax.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Let's try ... Taivo (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support He is also involved with the Wikibooks project and one of the do-it guy(s) / gal(s) in Commons (Which COmmons severely needed) 07:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support contributions matter. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question: I opposed your original RfA because of a misunderstanding on the threshold of originality for logos, specifically you tagged a clearly PD-textlogo for speedy deletion. Could you please explain how your understanding of TOO has improved? How does it apply to different countries? Exemplars of a few different countries with low/high TOO would be appreciated to show a better grasp of the topic. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: I admit that this is nonsense and the logo is obviously a text-logo (even in a country with a low TOO). Since the previous RFA as 大诺史, I've created a few TOO-related DRs. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of television channels and networks of China & Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Prudential Hong Kong Tennis Open Logo.png were created and the files were deleted as an outcome. Commons:Deletion requests/File:VEX .svg was also created but was kept as text-logo, which I still strongly believe that it isn't. I often patrol User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users and I'll tag files as fair use if the work is copyrightable even in a country with a high TOO. As I don't really dig deep into categories, there isn't much TOO-related DRs to mention. I would say that TOO in simple terms is the "default copyright" provided by the (law of the) country if the artist did not publish any license for the work. It is also a cut-off where the line (originality) should be drawn at, meaning that it can surpass the copyright holder's license if the work is deemed to be below the threshold by the law. Minorax (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Question: What administrative work do you intend to take part in? -- CptViraj (📧) 07:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I'll help out at CSDs and DRs and occasionally pop by UDR. Minorax (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Question: Are you willing to opt-in for User:Minorax/EditCounterOptIn.js? ~riley (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: Yep. Minorax (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• @~riley: while 12 or 18 is a bit much, doing multiple edits isn't all that strange. Presumably cat-a-lot was launched from a different target in each instance. This is faster, easier and more reliable than somehow trying to combine edits. Note that this is just a general statement, I'm not excusing Minorax, I don't know how Minorax works. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  As you might know about the HK photographer who adds a lot of categories to a file when only 1-3 of them are of good use. Occasionally, he/she uploads 100-200+ files and removing the excess cats with cat-a-lot can make my edit count reach a very high rate. In some cases, there are close to 20 cats for a file, like the one you mentioned, and still, removing it with cat-a-lot can make it hit that kind of rate. Yes, I shouldn’t have done that all in a minute but if I’m going to remove it, spreading it out into several minutes will still have the same outcome. Minorax (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Minorax: at some point, using VFC to remove multiple categories at once becomes more time-efficient. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily more time efficient but I'll agree that it'll "spam" the RC less. Will take note of this. Minorax (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sock Discussion

Moved here from the votes section above. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

The edit patterns are just too similar to that of INC and Daphne Lantier. 285.020 global contributions in 7 months, 245.971 on Commons. They are obviously an experienced editor, using templates, comments, and other wiki features right from the beginning. Even their username used colors from the start. They immediatly started editing zhwiki and Commons, and enwiki only a day later. While they started out on the graphics lab, they migrated to INC style maintenance tasks within a few days. On enwiki they are nowadays very active in vandal hunting, another INC favorite. While they do have 1.751 contributions on zhwiki, none are content edits. They are limited to easy changes that anyone without command of the language could do. Even their larger changes are just obvious anti-vandalism. Even on zhwiki their use of Chinese is limited to one or two easily googlable words. Looks at zh:User talk:Minorax for an example. "Minorax" seems to be a pun on "Majora", someone INC obviously had a problem with before. I really don't want a Daphne Lantier-style meltdown again. If we could get the "good" part of INC without the "bad" part, I would gladly have them back. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I would never have brought up my suspicions if it wasn't for the admin request. As a non-privileged user I don't mind having INC around at all. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC) I thought I should reply to your statements. 285.020 global contributions in 7 months, 245.971 on Commons. - Anyone can reach that many contributions if they use automatic tools such as cat-a-lot/VFC and spend a lot of time on wiki. They are obviously an experienced editor, using templates, comments, and other wiki features right from the beginning. They immediatly started editing zhwiki and Commons, and enwiki only a day later. - Even a newbie can understand those wiki features you mentioned if they read the help page thoroughly. Some editors (rare) have clue and are intelligent, so they usually end up learning faster than others. Even their username used colors from the start. - It's not hard to find enwiki help page about signatures. While they started out on the graphics lab, they migrated to INC style maintenance tasks within a few days. - In my more than one year wiki experience, I learned that newbie editors are like kids. They try to imitate, and learn from their elders/seniors. And I am not ashamed to admit that I tried to learn from Minorax and other admins here too. On enwiki they are nowadays very active in vandal hunting, another INC favorite. - We, SWMT members nowadays use RC patrolling tools like SWViewer which allow us to monitor global queues. It's not hard to patrol multiple wikis simultaneously. I have seen many new editors reverting vandalism on enwiki. This doesn't indicate that they are sockpuppets. In fact, some of them like to lurk. While they do have 1.751 contributions on zhwiki, none are content edits. They are limited to easy changes that anyone without command of the language could do. Even their larger changes are just obvious anti-vandalism. Even on zhwiki their use of Chinese is limited to one or two easily googlable words. Looks at zh:User talk:Minorax for an example. - Not sure what your point is. I am bn-N but I do not do content edit and mainly revert vandalism on Bengali Wikipedia because; 1. It is a pain to type in Bengali. 2. My Bengali writing skills are not good. My Bengali grades in school are lower than my English grades. This doesn't indicate that I don't know Bengali. Besides Minorax seems quite skilled in Chinese. If I recall correctly, INeverCry didn't know zh. But who knows? On the internet, nobody knows that you are a dog unless you tell them you are. "Minorax" seems to be a pun on "Majora", someone INC obviously had a problem with before. - come on. Even INeverCry would not be so foolish to make such mistake which could reveal their true identity if they truly wanted to hide it. Besides I heard INC was a open sockpuppeteer. Please explain why "Minorax" seems to be a pun on "Majora". It doesn't seem obvious to me. Please explain your rationale more. Your statements are not clear/good enough to accuse Minorax of being a INC sock. It's not good to oppose good-faith contributors based on just a hunch. Masum Reza📞 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC) In Minorax's defence, I'll also add: They are obviously an experienced editor, using templates, comments, and other wiki features right from the beginning I was interacting with other MediaWiki wikis for about a year before coming to Wikimedia, so yes, I know parser functions right from the start of my edits here. That does not indicate am I sock (WMF knows my real life identity anyways; I met some WMF-staffers in person earlier this year). So no, there are way too many false positives for me to even believe that a correlation exists between how knowledgeable one is and whether one is a sock... {{Tq|While they do have 1.751 contributions on zhwiki, none are content edits I'm technically a zh-native but don't have enough edits to even be autoconfirmed at zhwiki. Not everyone contributes to content. Also, their Chinese does look native to me. That is not something you can do with Google Translate. "Minorax" seems to be a pun on "Majora" I also am curious about this statement. By the way, this isn't the first time one who mainly does maintenance has been falsely suspected of being an INC sock. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC) For why I don’t edit much on zh.wiki, there are 2 reasons for it. It’s very difficult to read non-Latin text as you might get lost in between while reading through it. Imagine having to read this “2019年修畢香港公開大學創意寫作與電影藝術課程，並取得榮譽文學士學位”, the words are confined into individual squares with no spaces in between. The pages use a mix of traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, having learned simplified Chinese instead, I occasionally run into traditional Chinese words that I don’t understand. Yes, preferences can be set for the system to translate in between the 2 widely used versions. But the problem is that, the title of a page can be in traditional chinese and typing the simplified version might not come up in the searchbox. Minorax (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)  Comment Srittau has raised a very serious concerns that I believe should be investigated and that investigation should commence immediately. T CellsTalk 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything to investigate. People have to come to their own conclusions. My suspicions are certainly not enough for a CU check, which would also probably not be very conclusive either way. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Maybe the user can voluntarily identify himself to the foundation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC) @Steinsplitter: & how do I do that? Minorax (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC) This (was?) possible here: m:Identification noticeboard/old. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Waiting for a reply. Minorax (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Sign the access to non-public information contract. Masum Reza📞 19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC) It only requires you to sign a legalpad document with your name, right? You don't send your passport or some ID. What would it prove? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Apparently procedure to gain access to non-public information includes the identification procedure. One should identify themselves to the foundation if they want to gain access. I could be wrong though. Those who signed the agreement might know more. Masum Reza📞 23:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Signed this. Anything else? Minorax (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC) The m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy is quite vague (skip the misleading blue box and read the actual policy), but I'm of the understanding that there is absolutely no requirement of identification except for the ombudsman group, and I doubt there is even a process for it anymore. You are also not required to sign the NDA with your real name. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC) @Srittau: Hi, your suspicions are valid (even though I don't know who INC and Daphne Lantier are) however I'd like to make my point. As stated at my LR request, I've been editing on wikimedia projects as an IP. I have even corrected a grammatical error in Danny's comment to test my Chinese-speaking skills. As for why my zh.wiki's is filled with short replies, I don't know any other way to answer a yes/no question apart from a short sentence or a few simple words. The rollback right on zh.wiki requires a small voting session from editors, see zh:维基百科:權限申請/申請回退權/存檔/2019年#User:大诺史 which I've replied in Chinese. + having my account created on zh.wiki doesn't mean that I have to stick around every other day, do I? Considering that every other user has a unique signature, I just need to poke around with my preferences and read en.wiki's help page to change my sig. Finally, how is my username a pun of Majora's? Minorax (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC) How did you know that this page exist? T CellsTalk 16:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Was wondering how do I change my signature, went to en to check by typing in signature. Can't find anything on the page and proceeded to the linked disambiguation page at the top. WP:SIG is linked from there. Minorax (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC) You said you were editing as an IP contributor. For how long were you contributing as an IP contributor? T CellsTalk 16:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC) A little over a year with breaks in between. Minorax (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC) OK, thanks for this information. What is the IP's edit counts? T CellsTalk 16:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Didn’t really keep track and there really isn’t a need to count it. But I’ll say between 3-400 edits through the year. Minorax (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Can you link to the IP or disclose it to trusted users? T CellsTalk 16:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Looking forward to reading your response Minorax. T CellsTalk 18:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Will send an email to someone later. Currently busy. Minorax (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Sent an email to Zhuyifei1999. Minorax (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC) OK thank you. I don't have the details of your email but I expect it to include at least the following information: Information that shows the contributions of the IP for over a year before your account was created Information that shows that the IP address made 300-400 edits during this period Information that shows that you are indeed that person (I don't know if we will require a service of a CU here). @Zhuyifei1999: could you please confirm these information in the email sent to you? Regards. T CellsTalk 08:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC) With regards to the IP, it seems to be different from what I edited with in the past. Additionally, those 2 edits made by the IP was not done by me. Minorax (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC) I'd wait for Zhuyifei1999's response before any further comment or question on this. Regards. T CellsTalk 09:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC) @Minorax: YGM. @T Cells: AFAICT, What has been given in the email is insufficient for "at least the following information". I believe they are on dynamic IP and have trouble collecting that information for obvious reasons. You would only keep track of all the IPs if you expect to need them in the future... So no, I don't think this is a valid request either. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)  Comment Just a reminder: we are required to assume good faith under long-established policy. AshFriday (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)  Comment User:INeverCry was American, I think. The time card for Minorax[1] shows they reside in East Asia (Taiwan?) The bulk of their edits are made at 14:00 UTC (22:00 Taiwan), and they sleep at 16:00 UTC (24:00 Taiwan). And no, this is not outing. I know what I am doing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Have the same timezone as Taiwan but not from there. Minorax (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC) yup, timecards are obviously different. commons time cards might be skewed by auto edits, but the en.wiki ones can show better inc DL. the pie charts of ns distribution are quite different too. sloppy investigation by the accuser.--Roy17 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks, that convinces me that my suspicions were wrong and I'd like to apologize to Minorax. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Let's stop here please. Anyone can email a checkuser with evidence. It is NOT appropriate to publicly expose an editor's location or doxx them in other ways using analytics. We all reveal a lot about ourselves and others via metadata, and clever folks may draw conclusions. There is no need to make allegations here without clear and unambiguous proof of misbehaviour. --Fæ (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)