Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

INSTRUCTIONS[edit]

Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots
Renaming
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions[edit]

Al-Ma'arri[edit]

What quotes were on this page prior to its deletion? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The article contained several unsourced verses, some unsourced paraphrases or abstracts, and a large amount of user commentary and interpretation. It had been tagged as unsourced for over two years when it was {{prod}} and deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I would like to see the quotes myself, so I can perhaps find sources for them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser request during ongoing Adminship discussion[edit]

  1. See history of socking by Kalki as chronicled at: User:Cirt/Kalki Restrictions.
  2. We have an ongoing Adminship discussion for Kalki at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request).
  3. There are at least a couple users there with very little edits on Wikiquote, each has managed to show up at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) within less than ten (10) total edits to Wikiquote: [1] and [2].
  4. I've requested Checkuser at [3], and the Steward there wants local support for the Checkuser request.
  5. Allowing possible socking during an ongoing Adminship request could set a dangerous precedent that could pervert the Request for Adminship process.

Can we please have the Checkuser request carried out on accounts commenting at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request)?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections to my own IP and user activity, or anyone else's being actively monitored as heavily as anyone feels the need to, as I know that I am NOT engaging in any unethical activity. I actually do recognize the dubiousness of some of the support and oppose votes for me of those with few edits, and believe that at least some of these might well be the activity of the current troll-vandal intent on causing confusion, suspicions, fear and paranoia, as others of low ethical integrity have also done for many years. The assertion that "Allowing possible socking during an ongoing Adminship request could set a dangerous precedent that could pervert the Request for Adminship process" is quite a laughable example of this, as I do not know anyone who is actually sane who has ever proposed "ALLOWING" such things, though I believe I do know of some people who have regularly engaged in many forms of malicious deceitfulness, SUCH as that, and certainly do not wish to permit such practices to continue without whatever appropriate responses can be devised.So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in the activity of the named accounts that gives me any reason to suspect Kalki is behind them. If one wishes to draw attention in the ongoing RfA discussion to the history of alternate accounts then it is sufficient to refer to that history, as has been done. If one wishes to allege or insinuate that Kalki is now violating a consent decree to foreswear multiple accounts then it is necessary to produce some specific and substantive basis for suspicion. As billinghurst opined, "There is no advantage and no demonstrated urgency for doing checks now, and it could be seen to pervert the discussion if they are not socks." ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ningauble:Why did both accounts somehow navigate their way to a Request for Adminship discussion for Kalki, within their first ten (10) total edits? -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I have noted my support of the Checkuser request, not because I believe these accounts to be in any way associated with Kalki, but because I believe them to be suspicious in their own right, given the recent patterns of vandalism that have been seen on this site. It is entirely possible that these accounts are engaged in nefarious deeds, and have voted in Kalki's adminship bid specifically to bring it under a cloud of suspicion. However, I would oppose a Checkuser investigation directed at Kalki himself at this time, absent evidence of any current misfeasance on his part. BD2412 T 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes check.svgY Done, and Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed as socks of someone else who has already voted, per Checkuser by Billinghurst at diff. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is unsatisfactory. Those votes were struck by Billinghurst and have now been deleted by Cirt, and Cirt blocked the two users as socks, but of whom? I have added my voice on meta to Cirt's, asking of whom they were socks. I don't like this at all, I'm afraid of the answer. But we need to know. There is a short list of people who have voted. Do we need a checkuser request for all of them?
  • Votestacking is a blockable offense, generally. --Abd (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Myself, Abd, and BD2412 have all asked for more information from Billinghurst or any other Checkusers that could answer at Meta [4] as to who else is involved with these two now Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock accounts. It seems the local en.wikiquote community is unanimous in asking for more technical information about these socks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
        As I have said at m:SRCU, I would prefer that the person who has created and voted with the socks to self-disclose. The data is unequivocal, in my experience, and my advice to the person is to 'fess up. To note that technical information about checkuser is not disclosed, just the conclusion and the account names. sDrewth 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've commented in reply to Billinghurst at m:SRCU that this is quite curious, and not how it's normally done at Wikiquote or Wikipedia. We as a local community ask for all the connected sock accounts to be named, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Billinghurst, they are socks of someone else who had already voted at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) before 12:09, 25 January 2015. So that leaves those individuals who had already voted at link. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I ask that Cirt abstain from further involvement with this. He is highly involved, long-term, and his participation is obviously inflammatory.
Cirt raised the issue in the RfA itself, creating another train wreck. This did not belong there. The socking, we assume, is not by Kalki. I have moved the discussion to the talk page (and Cirt consented). It would have been better here, because this is really a matter for administrative attention. It is not about Kalki's fitness for adminship, nor is it discussion of that. Since the discussion is there, so as not to fork it, I will add comment there, covering what has been done, such as Cirt pinging a set of editors with a request for response. A report may be brought back here for admin attention. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Abd moving the discussion to the RFA talk page. But Abd failed to also point out, he agrees with me notifying the users' talk pages and here on this admin noticeboard. So Abd agrees with two-thirds of my actions here. If not for my actions, we would not even know there are at least three (3) Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks at the Request for Adminship itself. I have been acting in conjunction and collaboration with other users. At every step of this process, I've kept everyone informed and posting for additional comments on-wiki because I do indeed want additional participation from the community in this process. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt is correct. He does not need to defend himself. However, his involvement on the RfA page has been disruptive, and because Cirt is a highly experienced administrator, I assume that his judgment may have been clouded by his involvement. It happens to the best of us. I have collected and set up reporting on this at Wikiquote_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Process. --Abd (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging I was correct here. I've gone ahead and offered Kalki an Olive Branch as a peace offering DIFF. I've pledged to stop responding to Kalki at the RFA. Another user, SchroCat, has said he feels Abd is too involved, himself, and advocating fervently on behalf of Kalki. So perhaps, with multiple users of varying viewpoints collaborating together, we'll arrive at a semblance of NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A worthwhile goal, but imagine if all the effort that went into spilling all these words into these various discussions had gone into adding and improving quotes for our pages. BD2412 T 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've contributed a fair amount of quality improvement to this project. And also helped respected editors FloNight, Thatcher, and Aphaia investigate cross-wiki site policy violations. One can do both things and contribute to the project. And in this case, there was/is socking going on that was confirmed by Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion, Cirt: agree more, defend less. BD2412 did not criticize your contributions. Yes, sometimes we must address user behavioral issues, so that the site is a safe place to work. And then we move on. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki makes accusations of "slander" at his Request for Adminship[edit]

Kalki has three (3) times used the word "slander" to refer to me, in his Request for Adminship at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request):

  1. 13:34, 25 January 2015 -- "I recognize some of the vilest sorts of trolls, vandals, slanderers and generally ignorant and spiteful people who have targeted me here might be prone to do so elsewhere as well, and do not desire the increased workloads in contesting with their malicious wills."
  2. 19:28, 25 January 2015 -- "your past cross-wiki slander campaigns"
  3. 21:14, 25 January 2015 -- "you have engaged in MANY times towards me, including the massive cross-wiki slander campaigns you have avidly made"
  • I've asked him to back up his comments with DIFF links. He refused DIFF.
  • Admins, I request that you please take action here and block Kalki for the above three (3) violations of personal attacks and "No Legal Threats", by using the word "slander" three (3) times in reference to me.

Thank you for your attention to this disturbing matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • My preliminary assessment of this situation is that Cirt has very effectively been trolling Kalki for outraged response. He's been on the attack against Kalki for many years. Please look at Cirt's behavior in the RfA, I have never seen such appalling, tendentious participation in an RfA. Bringing in quotations from process from more than four years ago (2010) and more than five years (2009)?
  • As far as I've seen, with only a day on this, there has indeed been a "cross-wiki slander campaign," -- though I would not use that word, but it's not far from accurate -- and if anyone needs diffs, I'll supply them, but only in a forum where it can make a difference, and only if asked by others than Cirt. It's a lot of work.
  • Cirt does not have clean hands here. (I'm not thrilled by Kalki's comments, either, but Cirt is the one who brought this here.)
  • "Legal threat" is preposterous. Using the word "slander" does not constitute a legal threat.
  • As a first step, interaction ban may be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Cirt: The Sockfarm investigation cross-wiki was indeed carried out by multiple different admins and Checkusers

  1. The investigation into Kalki's sockfarms was not started by myself.
  2. It was carried out primarily by FloNight DIFF (User:FloNight/Kalki) and Thatcher DIFF and Aphaia DIFF.
  3. This investigation was indeed a cross-wiki investigation. w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalki/Archive resulted in Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socking at en.wikipedia, as well. Many sleeper socks were blocked by HelloAnnyong.
  4. I was the local admin that coordinated the cross-wiki sock investigation with FloNight and Thatcher, along with Aphaia.
  5. But accusing me of "slander" for working cross-wiki with other admins and Checkusers is not appropriate behavior for an editor on Wikiquote, or an admin candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That agreement would be useful. Do you agree? I'd prefer that the cudgels be dropped (on both sides). If this remains open, it's a can of worms, and will require looking into a lot of smelly stuff.
I don't know about Kalki, but I was not referring to the original "cross-wiki investigation." I have not researched that yet. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked by Abd to more or less simply "shut up" for a while, and perhaps he believes it best if I let him handle my defense or assessment here. In some ways I acknowledge some of his advice prudent and I appreciate what appears to be his concern for greater justice than some might care to concern themselves with, but I believe I can and should be able to speak for myself.

I truly do NOT wish to dredge up all that can be dredged up of Cirt's actions against me, but he did DEMAND some justifications of my accusations of cross-wiki "slander" in reference to much of his general cross-wiki harassment of me, and I believe a sufficient response will take time and effort, and tracing of many events of years ago, and I believe most people realize this.

In just presenting some of what has occurred within the past few hours, I hope that what I sincerely believe to be the duplicity of Cirt's actions, here and elsewhere, will be apparent to all concerned with truth, justice and genuine fairness.

I asserted in an edit comment of 21:26, 25 January 2015: " tweaked a previous comment, before a few edit conflicts — but will respond to a current request soon — there are a few ways of doing so I have in mind, but might take time to consider which one is best and most succinctly indicative of Truth..."

TWELVE minutes after which he made another edit to that page, at 21:38 UTC, and then at 21:47 UTC made this request to a block of me here, which I consider an effort to be able to attack my reputation while I cannot effectively talk back and respond to his deceitful assertions with more generally illuminating assertions of truth. I believe that some of you are aware he has employed such foul tactics with me before.

I had been working on responding to his DEMANDS and insinuations in what I believe to be an appropriate manner, when I noticed the actions taken here. Before I was anywhere close to finishing, I cut my efforts short, suddenly aware of MUCH going on, I made what was (for me) a relatively brief response, at my RfA page.

I know that if Cirt is demanding me to justify assertions I believe most can probably accept as properly characteristic of his actions, I probably will need more time to reply as effectively as I can, because many of the details of things require me to trace back rather complex cross-wiki actions and their various effects or more usually FAILURES to have effect, to provide some of the strong evidence available by which to justify my assertions of his harassment and slanders. I believe the evidence will reveal he has made FAR more accusations than actually were successful, but some of them were.

And as Abd point out somewhere, I am certainly NOT threatening legal action in any way by simply using the word "slander", as Cirt seems to wish to IMPLY, and I believe he is continually framing things in rather deceitful ways, and insisting on me to respond to many things in such ways as might gratify him, but would not easily present much of the pertinent truth of matters.

Though I have obvious contempt for his apparent attitudes and actions, I actually have no malice towards him, and hope that he eventually can lead a far more satisfying life than could be found in trying to find things with which to impune or further denigrate the lives and reputations of others, in such ways as he often seems obsessed with doing towards me. We have occasionally interacted with more politeness than has been our norm, and I even have assisted him in some disputes, but I don’t believe either of us is inclined to pretend to have much fondness or affection for the other.

I do have MANY things to attend to besides those here, so I might actually respond to things here for a while, and for my own peace of mind might avoid checking in for a while, but if further DEMANDS are made for EVIDENCE of slander or harassment of me in the past, I should be able to have some things done to present here within a few days, in support of some of my assertions. I can agree that would NOT be pretty and is probably a waste of my time and others, SO if it is NOT demanded, I will probably let it rest, and not bother investigating and retracing things much further than I already have.

I actually am so weary of the stress of this and other things, I might have to sleep soon, when I finish a few of them. In any event … I hope we can all relax more soon... Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Abd and Kalki: In reply to Abd and to Kalki, yes, IFF Kalki can agree to stop using the word "slander", and to apologize for having used it three (3) times in reference to me, then I will also concurrently agree to stop responding to Kalki at his Request for Adminship. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I can agree to stop using the word "slander", to a VERY limited degree, but I certainly cannot honestly retract either it or "harassment" as something I honestly feel is not appropriate, in regard to some of the things you have done in regard to me. As I stated elsewhere, we have on some occasions been able to behave politely toward each other, and I have even helped you on some disputes. I hope that can actually increase, and we both can come to better understandings of each others attitudes and perhaps some of our motives. I will temper back my rhetoric a bit, and try to AVOID using the word "slander", so much as I believe I rightfully could, which should be ENTIRELY for a while, but you have been very busy recently, and I believe I should be able to respond honestly about my opinions, if justifications are demanded of them. I hope many of our disputes can be ended with relative calm acceptance of disagreements soon. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 02:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Thank you, Kalki, for your words, but I fear, unfortunately, that's not enough. w:Slander on Wikipedia redirects to w:Defamation. It is quite a serious claim you've made with zero evidence to say I've made a false statement. And then to repeat yourself over and over and over again. IFF you're willing to stop using this word, and agree it was inappropriate to do so, especially during your process as a candidate at a Request for Adminship, then I can agree to stop responding to you there at the RFA page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is somewhat facetious to declare that you have not been defaming me, and quite presumptive to declare that there is "zero evidence" of you having made a false statement in regard to me, when your very statements in this start of this section state or imply I "refused" to reply to your requests for evidence of some of the injustices of your past campaigns against me, when I had hardly been given time for such a MASSIVE undertaking, and then blatantly state that I made a blatent "legal threat" by even using the word "slander" in regard to your statements, which is quite patently false. There are many other examples to be found in many of your recent comments beyond this page I am sure, let along your long history of commentaries in regard to me, on various wikis. If you wish me to acknowledge you probably believe yourself justified in much of your apparent animosity to me, I can acknowledge that this is in some ways likely, though I do not pretend to know all the reasons for that, and decline to venture any speculations at this time. ~ Kalki·· 03:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, you should know that it's inappropriate to make accusations of slander and defamation, without already having any evidence to back up your claims. And if not prepared to do so, then you should refrain from making such claims. Especially during a Request for Admin discussion where you are the candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, you should know that it's inappropriate to make accusations of slander and defamation, without already having any evidence to back up your claims. And if not prepared to do so, then you should refrain from making such claims. You do NOT use the WORDS "slander" or "defamation" but that is PRECISELY what you are DOING in your previous sentences. You are IMPLICITLY accusing me of having NO basis for MY statements, and thus SLANDERING and DEFAMING you, even AFTER I have cited your own statements on THIS page as CLEAR evidence. There is CLEARLY abundant evidence in your behavior over the years and if you INSIST I gather it up, I will gather MUCH of it — but it might take a few days to present enough you can pretend isn't "trivial" as you often seem inclined to make MANY aspects of truth SEEM. Let us both put it to rest for now. IF you demand evidence, I will spend time collecting it — and I am sure it will take at least a few days to gather up sufficient evidence to present in a manner you would not be able to simply ignore or deny or insist others should. ~ Kalki·· 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, nowhere have I used such words in relation to you. I've merely pointed out your use of such words to make these claims without evidence is inappropriate and you should stop it. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be entirely missing or attempting to evade my point: to slander or defame one does not necessarily USE the words slander or defame (it actually would be rather problematic if one always did), one simply needs to imply some form of WRONGDOING, which is NOT warranted by the available evidence, which I believe most can recognize is what you have done when you have implied I had NO evidence you had defamed me, OR that you quite regularly for years have implied that I have been an active "sockpuppeter" in the sense MOST people use the word, in using them for DELIBERATE WRONGDOING, and even have been CURRENTLY using them thus, in repudiation of my solemn COMMITMENT some years ago, not to use my alternate accounts at all, and you have been DOING this without ANY credible evidence of such claims. ~ Kalki·· 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Kalki, I said nothing of the sort. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity discussion for InvisibleSun[edit]

Bureaucrat and Admin InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) has been inactive both here and at en.wikipedia for over four (4) years.

I've started a discussion to remove both the Bureaucrat and Admin flags, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion).

-- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Other inactivity discussions[edit]

Might also be a good idea to have other inactivity discussions for other inactive sysops, perhaps say those with zero edits for over two (2) years. -- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Poisoning of the voting processes by Cirt[edit]

As I state at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) I believe a section Cirt (talk · contributions) has recently added implicitly and craftily impugning the integrity of anyone who had voted for me prior to a certain point to be credible candidates of being an improper voter should be removed.

I state there: I strongly believe this entire commentary by Cirt (talk · contributions) in this section should be removed as clear attempt at further POISONING the processes than he already has. My commentary can also be removed, and perhaps restored in an appendix in the archival records of the processes which have occurred.

I believe his efforts to intimidate or impugn the integrity of ANYONE who had voted for me by name prior to certain anon IP votes of being an unethical sock-puppet master, DIRECTLY on their user pages should also be censured as conduct unbecoming a human being, let alone an admin. ~ Kalki·· 11:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My question was recommended by Billinghurst, and that's why I've asked it. I've got no objections to it being moved to the RFA talk page by Abd. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing an interaction ban. Cirt did handle this poorly, especially by incorrectly stating that the sock master had already supported. That then provoked Kali's response, and Kalki does not necessarily respond temperately. Cirt had already agreed that he would be willing to not comment in the RfA. But then he commented, triggering more disruption. This must stop. I suggest a temporary "injunction," where direct interaction between Cirt and Kalki is prohibited for a time. Kalki must have the right to respond to comments in his RfA, foolishly or otherwise. Cirt has already voted and made his position clear, too many times. I do not know if this disruption is widespread, I presume an administrator who acts by confirming a ban on the user talk pages will know. The admin can make the ban narrow or broad. If either user has legitimate business with the other, they may ask a third party to intervene (who will be responsible if it's disruptive). This battle has gone on for many years. It's time it stop, it's damaging the wiki.
I would have the ban cover the attached RfA talk page as well. Other users can handle the sock issue, it's under way and will be resolved, I'm confident. It is not needed to assess the RfA result, for even a sock master gets one vote, whether or not the wiki decides to sanction socking, a whole other issue. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If not for my actions, we would not know of the Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socking at the Request for Adminship. I've already suggested I would be willing to stop responding to Kalki at the RFA itself. Other than this particular RFA, Kalki and I have gotten along just fine for a while now. There is no ongoing "battle". I can certainly be content to stop commenting in response to Kalki at the RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll agree to make it a statement: Regardless of further actions and/or comments by Kalki, I will agree to stop commenting in response to Kalki at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request). Hopefully this will allow things to cool down a bit. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch from Cirt[edit]

Olive branch to Kalki from Cirt

I've extended Kalki an Olive branch offering, at DIFF.

I truly am proud of Kalki, for it appears he has avoided socking for some time now.

If he becomes an admin again, I look forward to working together with Kalki to improve the quality of Wikiquote.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Miszatomic[edit]

Blocked account Miszatomic (talk · contributions) indefinitely, for socking, trolling, vandalism, impersonating other users causing multiple globally locked accounts.

Note: Any other local Wikiquote admin, please, feel free to modify the existing block if you wish, I'll defer to the judgment of the other local Wikiquote admins.

A bit of history:

Checkuser Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock accounts:

  1. Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Savh, was "Long-term abuse".
  2. DanielTom6 (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Tegel, was "Long-term abuse".
  3. Gene96 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.
  4. Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.

Checkuser investigations:

  1. en.wikipedia investigation permalink.
  2. meta investigation permalink.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've requested de-sysop of the Miszatomic sockmaster account, at Meta page for Steward requests about Permissions. Please feel free to comment there. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary justice, interesting approach. You don't think that this is a community issue that the community could have discussed prior to a block? This judgement of yours aligns with the Wikiquote:Blocking policy how? My comment would be that this response is lacking in maturity. sDrewth 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, Billinghurst. There was no claim of abuse of tools, no emergency, the truth was going to come out, and we wanted the sock master to acknowledge it, so that then we could move on, including deciding whether or not to allow him to continue as a user and sysop. First offense, not worthy of an indef block. Right now, I'm going to go to Miszatomic's talk page and suggest he not unblock himself. If he was immature enough to sock, he might also unblock. I'll be back. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Billinghurst, the sockmaster's sock accounts had at least three (3) sock accounts globally-locked by Stewards for "Long-term abuse". According to the sockmaster admin, himself, he blocked one of his own sock accounts with the explanation of: "intimidating behavior / harassment". -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The description "Long-term abuse" was a mistake by the stewards: they (understandably) mistook him for the actual long-term vandal, whom they routinely block. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) Process was underway here to encourage the sock master to come forth. That was not complete. And then the community would have considered response. Cirt's action in blocking is outside what I would expect. Desysop should be a community decision, or at least be requested by a 'crat in an emergency. This is not something for a single sysop to take on. Cirt has presented evidence here; Cirt did not mention that he was the requestor on enwiki. The enwiki request cited Wikiquote activity, no enwiki disruption that I've seen. It used to be that such a request would be rejected for lack of evidence of enwiki disruption. There was a pending steward investigation. Cirt did not tell us that he'd also made a report on enwiki. Cirt is highly involved and should not have blocked, but reporting what he found here was appropriate. I'm looking at that enwiki checkuser request. What I notice immediately is users listed with no enwiki edits, and most importantly, Gene96. SUL and autologin now makes it possible for checkusers at enwiki to effectively check users only active on other wikis. I notice that Miszatomic is not blocked on enwiki. Only here on Wikiquote. --Abd (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For someone who has been following this vandal for a while now, I agree with DanielTom. The block of DanielTom6 was done by a Global sysop (who has no CU access on this wiki) and thus was mistook for the real vandal. I also agree with Abd and DanielTom, Cirt had no rights to either block Miszatonic or request removal of his sysop rights on meta and worse, to have him globally locked. This is still a community and the community should decide what action needs to be taken cause personally, I don't see any "vandalism" or "intimidation" by Misza's socks....he may deserve to get desysopped but he surely does not deserve to get blocked and/or locked...I suggest this be voted on (ec:I see you have done that)..--Stemoc (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stemoc:I've taken community advice onboard. I've initiated the process for input from the community, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal). -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stemoc:Per the sockmaster's own block of his own sock, he's engaged in: "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see community removal process:

I have requested that Cirt unblock. I suspect he will, Cirt has been very cooperative lately. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Abd, I've added more evidence. He's threatened an admin (not himself, but admin UDScott) with death. Please see DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm appalled, that's so misleading. The admin he threatened with death was himself. Now, it would be useful to undelete User talk:Jody Fosteur. He created the disruptive conversation that he blocked for, apparently, and then deleted it (after others were involved, apparently). That talk page should not have been deleted, and that was, all by itself, a suspicious action (though possibly justifiable, but not deletion by him). Nobody watches. So fix it, please. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Negative. The admin he threatened with death was not himself. It was UDScott. DIFF -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt is correct that, on the face of it, the sock also threatened UDScott. At the time I responded above, I had only the link Cirt had provided, [5]. In that evidence, Cirt quoted material from deleted pages, and did not show "UDScott" but did show "Miszatomic." It is now visible and so it can be seen. I thank Cirt for undeleting. However, the only discussion that should happen here is unblock, and that may be premature, because he has not put up an unblock template. I've asked Cirt to unblock, and he has refused, citing the "threats" and the like. Blocks are not intended to be punitive, but preventative. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If "Jody Fosteur" really is Miszatomic's sock, then it did behave badly, which was his excuse to then block it himself. But anyone familiar with the troll he was imitating knows he does make death threats, so it's not surprising that Miszatomic would also copy this (although it shows very poor judgment). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Kalki get a new Request for Adminship to start from scratch[edit]

I suggest Kalki get a new Request for Adminship to start from scratch.

It's not fair to Kalki that there's been socking incoming from multiple perspectives (unrelated to Kalki himself, who is clear and has been above-board).

We could indefinitely semi-protect either the existing page Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) and reset it / restart it, or indefinitely semi-protect a new RFA page where Kalki can make his nomination statement.

That way, at least with indef semi-protect, Kalki's RFA would be more free of harassment and disruption by socking.

Thoughts?

-- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This page was semi-protected yesterday so it is already free from disruption. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Cirt, a thought: stop involving yourself in managing Kalki. If Kalki wants a new RfA, Kalki can ask for it. Surely bureaucrats can factor the variables involved. --Abd (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It was a kind thought with Kalki in mind, I feel badly that his RFA has been disrupted in this fashion. I also went ahead and notified Kalki on his user talk page. It's merely a suggestion. As you say, if Kalki wishes, I've notified him, so he can decide. Up to him and/or other admins/Bureaucrats, I myself won't be restarting the RFA. Deferring to other admins/Bureaucrats and/or Kalki if he so wishes it. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin rights removal for Miszatomic[edit]

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins, please semi-protect this page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We can't s-protect the Administrators' noticeboard, as allowing all editors access to it is more important. I would suggest ignoring the drama for a while. BD2412 T 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
By "this page" I meant Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal)—but I see you already did semi-protect it, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think DanielTom (talk · contributions) must be reprimanded at once. He keeps reverting me AeroSoftGum18 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please block User:AeroSoftGum18 ASAP. This is a troll/spammer/vandal. See [6] which lies about "mainly work on enwiki" and which has a link that redirects and pops up offensive material. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done. Thanks, Pmlineditor and UDScott, for swift action. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request withdrawn by nominator - no community support for removal at this time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked Miszatomic[edit]

  1. Modified block log to reflect prior blocks were related to Dragonron (talk · contributions). (more info at [7])
  2. Reduced block to one-week, for socking, triple-voting at an RFA. (more info at [8])
  3. Unblocked immediately thereafter, to AGF for further hopeful positive behavior at this wiki site.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Any other admins, please feel free to modify or change any admin actions to a different block as you wish. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dragonron sock[edit]

DarknessFalls74 (talk · contributions) is a sock of Dragonron (talk · contributions), per my CheckUser inquiry on the English Wikipedia. It is active on Wikiquote and needs to be blocked. Tiptoety talk 05:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This guy just doesn't let up! Illegitimate Barrister 07:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
My comment is to not let them have a scorecard, don't even name them. Block them like squashing snails and move on. They are an annoyance; don't let them spoil your day; don't let them get under your skin. sDrewth 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, best to try this method. -- Cirt (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks Drew. Illegitimate Barrister 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Community response to vandalism is ragged. What was early Wikipedia practice is still being maintained here. It is contrary to the suggestion above. See [9], today, a response to [10]. That warning is completely unnecessary. The user knows the edit is vandalism, knows that it is not constructive, does not need a warning to realize this. When I see IP edits like this on Wikiversity, I do not warn the IP, it simply creates a new page with little purpose. As a user, I simply revert such vandalism with "rvv" and that's that. As an admin, I would not hesitate to short-block a vandalism-only IP as the only response (and confirmation is obvious from Contributions). The block reason would make the matter clear. I won't go into more detail, but it is very possible that response to vandalism here is increasing vandalism, long-term. ("Look at these idiots! Hah! Hah! ROTFL!") I will often look at global contributions. When I see vandalism on more than one wiki, I go to meta for a global block. This is only for blatant vandalism. When something looks like it might possibly be good-faith, or a test edit gone awry, from a registered user, I may warn. Not for a vandalism-only account (or one that might make a decent edit or two as a decoy), but that is new and obviously disruptive. Policy should be developed on this, because ragged and inconsistent response can harm the wiki. --Abd (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Response to a long term troll like the one currently known as Dragoon (subject of this thread) has indeed exacerbated the problem. I doubt he would have kept returning if he were not rewarded with exactly the feedback he desires. Current and former administrators should have known better than to feed the troll, and may be faulted for doing so. On the other hand, templatized responses to random drive-by graffiti such as the case you cite, while not particularly useful, are not in my opinion so harmful that we need a binding policy prohibiting innocent users (who are not required to study the rules) from telling someone to knock it off – sometimes it even serves the useful purpose of calling an ongoing problem to the attention of administrators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Color me puzzled. My comment here is intended to suggest that discussion and development of a relatively coherent response to vandalism might help matters. That requires some level of consensus. Nobody has mentioned a "binding policy" and "prohibiting." And the user whose warning was cited here is not some noob, he is not only an admin, but a former 'crat, and probably could be called the (current) Founder of Wikiquote. Warning IP for blatant and deliberately offensive vandalism causes harm in more than one way. Practically, speaking, it is done when the vandalism is discovered and reverted. I just use "rvv" in the edit summary. That can be seen just as easily as a warning on a Talk page. Those talk pages generally are obsolete almost immediately, chances are strong that the user doesn't even see them. So they can confuse future users of that IP. As well, they add to Recent Changes traffic. Two edits (the vandalism and the reversion) become three, if there is a warning.
Wikipedia used to more or less require warnings before block. More recent revisions of the policy recognized what has become the reality on many wikis: vandalism-only IP is simply reverted and maybe short-blocked, but no warning. Minimum fuss, as Billinghurst suggested. Vandalism-only accounts, often the same.
If there is vandalism on more than one wiki, vandalism IP is commonly globally blocked. If it is a vandalism-only *account*, again, global locks are used, routinely. Remember, "vandalism-only" means nothing that looks useful or as intended to be useful. These accounts have nothing invested, and the user is probably better off with the account blocked, having to start a new one if they want to edit. Often, on Wikiversity, admins don't bother to even block. Usually it makes no difference.
This does not apply to test edits, or the kinds of edits often made by super-young users (which can look like vandalism). Even a very young user, though, if making an edit like that cited above, knows it's not an acceptable thing. The more notice, then, the more fun for the user. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

IP checking[edit]

FYI. I have done some IP checking of spambots and vandals. That resulted in some local blocking for spambots where not xwiki, some global IP blocks where xwiki, skipping dynamic IPs, and for your vandal broader actions (continuation). Noting that spambot accounts and your vandals' accounts are locked on sight. sDrewth 06:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (steward)

Thank you!!! -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity discussions notification[edit]

There are a few inactivity discussions regarding admins that have been inactive for a few years, ongoing ones currently are:

  1. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Iddo999 (inactivity discussion)
  2. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
  3. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)
  4. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/LrdChaos (inactivity discussion)

Comments at those would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection of the Alexander the Great page?[edit]

I have refrained from protecting the Alexander the Great page, simply because I have been involved in recent disputes about it — which really is not all that much of a rational dispute — where at least one person has been insisting on a modern conspiracy theory that, contrary to the substantial testimony of the history records of the last couple thousand years, and modern archeological finds supporting them, Alexander and the ancient Macedonians were not actually Greeks. Because of continued efforts to promote such nonsense, I believe this page should probably be protected from anon edits, for an extended period — perhaps six months, or more, but will continue to refrain from doing this myself, and await other opinions on the matter. ~ Kalki·· 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Yes check.svgY Done, per request, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikiquote.org: (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Sorry for writing in English but I thought as administrators you would be interested. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)