Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal)

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miszatomic (talk · contributions)

Miszatomic (talk · contributions) is an admin on Wikiquote. Miszatomic has engaged in socking, trolling, vandalism, impersonating other users causing multiple globally locked accounts.

A bit of history:

Checkuser 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. DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Tegel, was "Long-term abuse".
  4. Gene96 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.
  5. Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.

Checkuser investigations:

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

Deleted contributions reveal more evidence and behavior:

  1. Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/Jody_Fosteur =
  2. DanielTom6 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/DanielTom6 = impersonation. Self-explanatory. See DIFF.
  3. DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/DanielTom7 = impersonation. Self-explanatory. See DIFF.
  4. Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/Jimmy11234 = IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF.

Added more evidence, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored some for visibility of diffs. Will update evidence links. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miszatomic blocked his own sock account with rationale: "intimidating behavior / harassment":

For all the above reasons, bringing here to have sysop tools removed from sockmaster account Miszatomic (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2015·02·05 (5 February 2015)

Remove

Keep

By misuse of the tools, I mean uses that actually cause significant harm to the wiki or to other users. Because he did cause disruption (not by use of tools) I may be persuaded that Miszatomic should resign and wait before requesting tools again, if that is ever appropriate. I see what he did as a sign of immaturity, not of propensity to harm. The good news about immaturity is that people can mature, sometimes quickly.
Now, Cirt, please back off and allow users to have their opinions without your debating them. And please unblock Miszatomic. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said in my original block that I'd defer to any other admins and asked any other admin to feel free to change my block. Can you please explain to me how prior blocks of Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), DanielTom6 (talk · contributions), DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), Gene96 (talk · contributions), and Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions), somehow don't count as a "first offense" ??? -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually voted here during the Poetlister socking back in 2008, so not the first time an admin created socks on this wiki. As much as I would like a socking admin de-sysopped, I just cannot see why Misza should be because even though he socked, I do not see him vandalizing any articles or attacking any users with those accounts. I understand his frustration with that 'recurring' vandal but the action taken by him was a poor one. Since I cannot see any other reason for him to be desysopped, considering this was his first 'known' act of vandalism and the fact that he did not abuse his admin privileges (albeit block his own sock), I would support him keeping his admin rights as long as he promises to reveal the accounts of his other socks and promise to no longer create socks on this wiki..A small wiki like this with a recurring vandal problem needs all the good admins it can get..--Stemoc 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about this? or this? Or triple-voting at Request for Adminship??? -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think either can be classed as "vandalism" and the triple voting is the only thing that one can use against this editor and even that i find a bit amusing..had he abused or attacked Kalki during the RfA with those accounts, i would have fully supported his rights removal but he did no such thing..this wiki lacks good admins and he was trying to ensure another user who is probably the most experienced user on this site becomes one too..I find that courageous (though foolish) and I honestly feel he doesn't deserve to be de-sysopped or worst, locked from this website just because he was trying to help the wiki..--Stemoc 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone who creates sock accounts to manipulate a vote/discussion is tacitly admitting that they are not confident enough in their preferred outcome to work toward it honestly. They don't necessarily realise that, though: it begins as an innocent attempt to right perceived wrongs, and only later progresses to an intentional campaign of disruption. The latter stage is a natural consequence because any cutting of moral corners is a slippery slope, much like tipping over one domino at the beginning of a row; however, judging by this comment I'm inclined to assume Miszatomic is in the earlier stages. (And do feel free to challenge anything I say because, as I say below, I'm not qualified to express an opinion.) Ekips39 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment: Per advice by Abd, above, I'll respectfully back off and allow users to have their opinions without my debating them. As I've stated previously, I invite other admins to look over my block of Miszatomic (talk · contributions) and state that I've got no problems with any other admin changing the block per their judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not qualified to !vote here as I only have 10 edits, but I believe a short block (if anything) would be quite enough. If temporary desysopping were a thing it might also be useful. Such permanent remedies, especially with little to no warning, are almost always too harsh IMHO. Ekips39 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've added more evidence, above. Please see DIFF. Abd, Stemoc, Ekips39, perhaps this may change your opinions. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have a firm opinion and the more evidence I see the less of an opinion I have. However, the "whoever keeps logging into my account" suggests that Miszatomic might have logged into it because the password was given away; I'm not sure why this would be done but I've seen it happen before. OTOH, if those accounts really do belong to Miszatomic, I guess it's immaturity, or possibly a shared IP. I still think limiting him to one account should be fine, unless there's evidence suggesting his use of the admin tools is causing problems. Ekips39 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Per suggestion from Abd, I've restored some of the deleted contribs by the sock accounts, and also courtesy blanked a few pages. They should now be visible to non-admins. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt, appreciated. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome, Abd, thank you, for the wise suggestion to make the evidence diff links visible to non-admins, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Unfortunately, I have way too much experience with this ****. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To what are you referring? -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Miszatomic_(removal)&oldid=1842920"