User talk:Miszatomic/Archive 3

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some IP users are not only trying to mess with me on Wikiquote...

But it is also doing so on Wikipedia, on an account I abandoned. IP users: (95.172.74.62) (94.14.157.19) (172.56.26.135) (90.192.125.203) (90.194.50.210) (176.26.72.117) (90.194.55.144) I request that all these and all other IPs it uses be blocked indefinitely, and all pages it vandalized and my talk page should be protected indefinitely (or at least for a year).

What I want to know is who is using these IPs, and why is it continuing to unfaithfully undo my good-faith edits without first consulting me? Plus, I want my dormant DawgDeputy page on Wikipedia protected indefinitely from these IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A week of blocking won't stop them. IP user 95.172.74.62 continued vandalizing even after its week-long block. I request they be blocked at least a year. WikiLubber (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. And please do the same for any IP user that makes similar edits that should come our way in future. WikiLubber (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jon Garth Murray

Please check this user, he appears to be the same vandal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Other vandals for you to check: Torquepass4mi410073, CarolDohrasap21700, HiddenSolitude. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking those vandals, Miz. This guy really does not let up. Illegitimate Barrister 14:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabaster

Hello there. There's a vandal named Alabaster who's going around reverting edits at random. Please block him if you can, thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. I thank you, and my blood pressure levels thank you as well. Just so you know, he also had a sockpuppet account here as well. Please block that if you can. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 06:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well, for all the cleanup work you've done, in relation to this vandal, and others. ~ Kalki·· 08:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Same here. It's very tiring work reverting all that vandalism. Thanks again. Illegitimate Barrister 08:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your one-year block of IP address 90.192.114.15

It seems likely that Kalki logged out at page Ian Fleming and then began to edit war with SchroCat.

90.192.114.15 (talk · contributions) was blocked one-year by admin Miszatomic (talk · contributions).

History of the article at [1].

If the IP was Kalki logged-out-editing, it shows a pattern of renewed willingness at editing without using his own "Kalki" account, in order to continue a dispute with another editor (not myself).

What can be done about this?

-- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was already brought up by SchroCat at Kalki's RfA. The IP is obviously not his. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Miszatomic, I'll take no further action here, and defer to the judgment of yourself and others. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, I have raised the issue with Kalki, with more evidence than Cirt gave here.[2] We have a problem with some kind of regular trolling. I suggested to Kalki that we unite to handle it. The kind of troll that can be suspected will act to get people fighting and to make them suspicious of each other. We need to not let that work. I've advised Cirt to back off, because his efforts, well-meaning as they are, inflame the situation, just what the troll would want. Meanwhile, Kalki's response in this situation could become more sophisticated and helpful, which will also defeat the troll. So I do suggest hard-blocking the IP. Poor man's checkuser. I consider it extremely unlikely that this was Kalki, it's not his style. But it could be someone else. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, Abd, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hello. You may be interested in commenting on a CheckUser request taking place at m:Steward_requests/Checkuser where you have been confirmed to be operating multiple accounts in violation of policy. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Miszatomic. If you did vote more than once, even if well-intentioned, that was a bad idea. You don't have to comment at Meta, but if you recognize you made a mistake, you may want to apologize in some noticeboard to the community here at Wikiquote, and acknowledge that it was misguided (and wrong) of you to do it. I think that's the best you can do for now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

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)

Do not unblock yourself

I don't know how much experience you have, so I'm reminding you to not unblock yourself, that should only be done in a true emergency. I will be asking for you to be unblocked by Cirt or another administrator. You may be asked to give assurances. Keep calm, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please identify all your other sock accounts

Miszatomic,

Checkuser investigation Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed that you've used other sock accounts other than those named, above, and that there are even more "globally-locked accounts" that are sockpuppets you've used (link).

Please list them below?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, there is far too much push here, my opinion. The user is likely suffering shock. Give him time.
Miszatomic, it may be that the community will want you to do this. I recommend careful and cautious response at this time. Disclosure is a good idea, but not under pressure. You may find that the community will forgive and let you move on, if you recognize and acknowledge the errors such that the community is confident you won't do it again. I have requested that Cirt unblock you, but you should probably put up an unblock template. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Abd, I've added more evidence. He's threatened an admin (not himself, but admin UDScott) with death and harm to their family. Please see DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop it, Cirt! First of all, I cannot review evidence on deleted pages. Secondly, it appears that the admin he threatened was himself. This was a Bad Joke. Stop trying to make the situation look Terrible. We will sort it out, trust us, Cirt. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "appears" was correct when written, but is no longer accurate, i.e., it's incomplete. He did threaten himself, but also UDScott, as acknowledged below. --Abd (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Negative. The admin he threatened was not himself. It was UDScott DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We won't sort it out? Cirt, that was a jape. It's obvious. UDScott doesn't seem to have been greatly disturbed. Yes, I didn't see the UDScott threat at first. Please dump the dramatics. It's not necessary to spell out every stupid thing that was done. It's quite visible, now that you have undeleted that talk page and other such evidence. Thanks for that, by the way. What happened happened. Basic ontology. Now, what does it mean, and especially what does it mean for the future? Please give Miszatomic time to think. He really screwed up, badly. Nobody is going to support that, the question will be if it can be forgiven, and what Miszatomic may need to do to return to helpful activity, which is a quite different question. For myself, I will want to look at the balance, which includes the benefits that he rendered to the site. We tend to forget that when we see something Really Bad. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Negative, you're assumption "that the admin he threatened was himself" = was incorrect. Also, subsequent response by UDScott: "I had just changed my mind, believing I had been a bit hasty, but this comment forces my hand again and instead I've given you a shorter block. Please refrain from such comments or threats.". He did indeed regard the comments as inappropriate, categorizing them as "threats". -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • At the time I made the comment above about threatening himself, it was correct to the best of my understanding. That is, in the evidence Cirt had presented, the only name given was that of Miszatomic. Later, Cirt changed the evidence, and undeleted the talk page so we could see it. Now, this has very little to do with what's needed here. If you wish to be unblocked, Miszatomic, please put up an unblock template. That is standard procedure. Even when I've been abusively blocked, it's been necessary to do it, often. Cirt is apparently not going to unblock, isn't trying to negotiate it, so for another admin to review, that template will be necessary. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin rights removal for Miszatomic

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

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

While this had a basis at the time (and possible basis would still be there from the local socking in RfA/Kalki), this has been withdrawn by Cirt, the most serious charges having evaporated. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you the troll vandal Wiki-star ?

Miszatomic,

Are you the troll vandal User:Wiki-star and associated accounts?

Evidence = threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" and Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF and IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain these edits?

Miszatomic,

Can you please explain why you made these edits:

Edits that require explanations:

  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.

Please add your explanations, below.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • when one of the vandals first said that his account password was Zarbon I logged into other vandals to check if they were vandals and used this information to block them.
@Miszatomic: Are you able to point to where the vandal first indicated the password for the accounts. Please note that I have also sent you an email from metawiki, asking some questions, please look for that in the mailbox for your registered email address. sDrewth 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Supplementary, please {{Ping}} me if you reply. sDrewth 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the vandal gave away his password more than once, but one of such edits is mentioned above: [3] (note the style of the edit summary is very typical of this vandal). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. I now note that edit summary also says "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it", which seems to be a confirmation by the vandal that someone (Miszatomic) actually did log in into his account. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) was the one who gave away the password. ~ Miszatomic (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Well this is what i was waiting for, you can relax now Misza cause if you aren't unblocked within 12 hours, then there may be another de-adminship on this wiki....anyways, that clears it all up, as i mentioned on your de-adminiship...enwiki admins will take their time as usual, but I hope cirt unblocks you on enwikinews too...--Stemoc 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The block of Miszatomic, while possibly premature, was within administrative discretion, and Cirt immediately referred this to the community, and has stopped attempting to be the enforcer here. Miszatomic is blocked at this point because no admin has yet been willing to unblock; it is clear that there are admins watching this. It is a mistake to pin this on Cirt, even if he may have been overzealous. Miszatomic has not put up an unblock template, which is procedurally required (under best practice). Only blatantly incorrect blocks should be undone without a request, and my own practice has been to see that any concerns are addressed before unblocking, even when the blocking admin was essentially crazy.
Announcing that comments from Miszatomic, that are vague and have not been checked, are adequate for Miszatomic to "relax," could damage the process here.
I do want Miszatomic to relax. The truth will out. And if the truth is painful, it will still come out, and relaxing into pain is one of the best ways to handle it. What happened happened. Hiding the truth can seem to the immature as better than admission, but it sets up, long term, an unhealthy condition, never feeling safe, always worried. I want Miszatomic to know that at least one user cares about him, and not just his value as a vandal-fighter. At least one user, this one, does not condemn him, whatever he did or did not do. The community, though, needs to know the truth. What actually happened? We can all move on from there, with a solid foundation, including Miszatomic. --Abd (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forward

Miszatomic, focus. Take your time. Your entire WMF career is at stake here. You are blocked on Wikipedia, that can probably be undone, but you must first know what you are doing, because there is little room for more error at this point. So start here, with a community inclined to support you.

You have acknowledged being the two socks who voted in the RFA. Please consider that, and give a more thorough explanation than you have that both tells the community why you did it, and what exactly was disruptive about it, so that the community can know that it won't repeat. "It was a mistake" is not enough. It provides no confidence that it won't repeat.

What was the problem with logging in to one or more of those vandal accounts? Are you aware that this can create autologin information that then makes it appear to a checkuser that you are the account? Now, there is other information available to checkusers, so if your excuse is not the truth, there is a very good chance it will be uncovered, you are no longer operating mostly unobserved and unchecked. So consider well, and, my advice, tell the truth. When did you log in as them, exactly (you may be able to tell from other actions you took as a result of the information you collected)?

If this is straightened out, here on Wikiquote, it may then be possible to go back to Wikipedia with a clean and clear unblock request. *Even if you were those socks,* I don't see Wikipedia disruption. See User:Abd/Miszatomic, and you are completely welcome to email me.

I don't want Wikiquote to lose you, and there is support for you shown on the adminship removal request. You might not be able to continue, for now, as an administrator, I can't tell, but I can tell you that there is much more important work to do on sites than simple administration. Being the eyes and ears and intelligence of the community, and being respected as such, is more important than being the user of the mop. The custodians need to know what to mop up and what to leave! Who advises them? --Abd (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • where can I take my case? Miszatomic (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    You are allowed to post on this talk page while blocked in order to make your case. Everyone following the case will see it.

    You can also appeal or explain the findings at the Steward's checkuser investigation, but as Abd says, be very certain of what you say there. They are the heavy hitters. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ningauble. You are not alone, Miszatomic. Be patient, though. Wikis can be slow to respond. You did respond on the meta checkuser case, but you didn't understand it first. That case was not about the vandal socks, but only about Jimmy11234 and Gene96. If there is a need for steward checkuser on the other accounts, let it develop. A simple comment there acknowledging being those two accounts and apologizing for creating disruption and making work for the stewards would have been enough. As it is, your comment may now encourage someone, possibly, to contradict you. If so, do not respond unless so advised. Whether or not we would want more checkuser is an issue that should not be decided in a rush.
One of the problems is that if you "explain" your actions, it can look like defense. It makes people suspicious. Yeah, unfair, but this has been the wiki way since the world was young.
So, where to "take your case"? As Ningauble says, right here. Be heavy on fact, make the facts clear. Be light on defending yourself, it just irritates certain kinds of people. It will be "This is what I did, this is why I did it (never, "it was good" or "it wasn't so bad," or, "others have done worse," or the like). And then, as and when it's appropriate, "This is why what I did was a mistake, why it is properly not allowed, and this is why I won't do it again."
And be brief! I don't think you will have trouble with that. I do, often.
Once you have a clear explanation and declaration of how you will act in the future, then put up Template:Unblock, pointing to your explanation and asking for unblock. Be responsive to any administrator willing to communicate with you. I recommend politely declining to argue with or be interrogated by Cirt. Any questions Cirt has that are important will be asked by another administrator. He's certainly bringing up everything and the kitchen sink at the RfA (removal). Let the community mediate this.
This can be a useful experience for you. Many administrators have no idea what it's like to be an active user and to be blocked. Some users are so upset that they turn to vandalism. So seeing a bit of the other side may make you a better user and (whether sooner or later) a better administrator.
Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When should it be the right time to appeal?
First, create a section here, call it "What I did" or something like that. Describe what you did. If possible, provide links for verification. I will include what you put here in my case study as your statement, by the way. As to what you have been accused of, first read all the accusations carefully. See, first of all, how events could look that way to someone else. Be sympathetic, i.e, where possible, "I'd be upset if I saw that, also." Then say what you can say about the accusations. If you don't know, say "I don't know."
What is most important is what happened here on Wikiquote. However, there is also some activity on en.wikipedia to explain. I'll make sure that's in my research page. I think that is all pretty simple. A mistake, to be sure, but relatively innocuous.
Of course, others may feel differently. But be real. If you aren't real, you will never be safe!
Once you have a description, ask for comment. I'll probably comment, maybe some others who watch this page will, also, and you can use this to make it more complete. That is, make that a section that is presented neutrally, and add a Comments subsection to it. Ask people not to comment in that section and do what I did in the sock inquiry process on Talk:RFA for Kalki. That way, you will revise it as needed.
Then, when it's ready, put up an unblock template and request unblock per what you have placed there. And then see what happens. If you can show that the block is not necessary to protect Wikiquote, unblock should, in theory, be granted. An unblocking admin may want specific assurances from you, so consider them. Do not commit to a promise you cannot keep. But I don't think you will be asked to do that.
My opinion is that you might be unblocked even more simply than this, just by asking for it, but ... sometimes you only get one chance. Be careful, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, a question. You have stated that you logged in as Jodie Fosteur, and perhaps other vandal accounts. Did you edit with those accounts at all? If so, please point to the specific edits you made. If not, please say so. My actions will be based on your answer. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did log into a few after the vandal gave away his password I blanked their user page and talk page that they created - Miszatomic (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Miszatomic, please understand that whatever you say will be checked carefully. You did not clearly answer the question I asked. You had already said you logged in. You have not stated whether or not you made any edits. If you were not the owner of those accounts, it will be necessary to take up checkuser/steward time to verify this. If you were, and if you are now deceptive, your account is probably toast, even if prompt admission might have (eventually) cleared it all up.
I could read the above as, being logged in as the vandal, you blanked their user page and talk page. Is that what you meant? Were there any other edits you made?
And if you did edit anything as the vandal, do you realize why that would be a serious mistake? --Abd (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I did not vandalize any pages or articles as the vandal log in I only blanked their user page and talk pages that they created. --Miszatomic (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for making that clear. Do you realize the problem with that? Do you realize that, technically, you violated the TOS? I'll be back. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Evidence: that I blanked half the page here Jody Fosteur [4] after the vandal himself made the threat Miszatomic (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the diff. Any other edits you made logged in as one of the vandal accounts? --Abd (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of vandals that I blocked I don't remember which other ones I logged into. Miszatomic (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking about logging in, as much as about editing while logged in as a vandal. And not about "thousands of vandals," but about the ones you are accused of being. I'm also concerned about what you did this month, not ancient history. Are you saying that on more than one occasion (counting this month as one occasion), you logged in to vandal accounts?
As I think you know, you are being watched closely, and not all the eyes are friendly, so please be careful about what you write, that it is clear.
What you say about this month can be verified, but I want to know what to look for to verify what you are saying.
What you don't remember, you don't remember, I have no problem with that. But see if you can remember. You may much more easily remember an edit if you look at the edits. The edit you acknowledged had no edit summary. Would any others be like that? Were there any others? --Abd (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

And this is for those watching this page as well. There has been substantial discussion going on among checkusers, and a decision was made to unblock Miszatomic on Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia Miszatomic sock investigation. What this clearly means is that the Wikipedia evidence can no longer be used to claim definitive identification of Miszatomic as the vandal puppets, specifically Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6, and DanielTom7.

So, Miszatomic, congratulations on your unblock on enwiki. I don't know if Billinghurst's inquiry is complete with you, and I have some details to look at, there are still issues here (the Wikipedia unblock was based on what I'd said, that behavior here should not have been a reason for checkuser there, or if checkuser, not a block unless there was significant enwiki disruption, which wasn't alleged). But one step at a time. I still encourage you to fully disclose what might be relevant, if you have not done so already. And thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have requested that Cirt unblock you, based on the withdrawal of the checkuser identifications as Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6 and DanielTom7. If you are ready, you may wish to put up an unblock template, in case Cirt does not respond in a timely fashion. I'd suggest promising not to sock again.... --Abd (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You did put up an unblock template, it was perfect. Well done! I also requested that Cirt withdraw the adminship removal request, and he did. Do not try this trick again! But you already know that! --Abd (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

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

-- Cirt (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies

Miszatomic,

My apologies for originally linking you in blocks to what later turned out to be a different sockmaster, w:User:Dragonron.

I hope we can work together to improve collaboration on this site.

I also hope that in the future you will:

  1. Not use sockpuppets to vote in RFAs or any other voting or discussion process, and generally not use sockpuppets at all.
  2. Not log into anyone else's account, for any reasons, even if it is a vandal that claims to have self-disclosed their password.
  3. If a user self-discloses their password, or their password becomes known somehow, instead of logging in to that account, per wmf:Terms of use, work to restore security by encouraging through discussion that the user to immediately change their password.

Once again, my apologies,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Miszatomic (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You're most welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and sadness

I thank you for your desire to support me, but was very saddened to learn that you did something so foolish as you did in attempting to do so. I realize that there was much stress put upon you by the vandals and trolls we must contend with, and I am glad things have worked out relatively well for you. I hope and trust that your efforts will remain better directed in the future. There was much commentary I had prepared in relation to the issues raised, and I myself was puzzled and worried for a time about several things, but much of it is rather irrelevant now, and may we all proceed with greater awareness of things which must be done, and things which should never be done, however stressed we might be. I would advise creating an archive page for your discussions, and archive THIS and all the above discussions to it, such as many admins have done (and I just did with recent discussions on my page). This will help you and all of us to put many of the past problems behind us. I hope to be able to work with you extensively in coming months and that you continue to find this a worthwhile place to contribute your time and efforts. Thanks again, for your concerns, and I wish you well. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 02:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Some IP users are not only trying to mess with me on Wikiquote...

But it is also doing so on Wikipedia, on an account I abandoned. IP users: (95.172.74.62) (94.14.157.19) (172.56.26.135) (90.192.125.203) (90.194.50.210) (176.26.72.117) (90.194.55.144) I request that all these and all other IPs it uses be blocked indefinitely, and all pages it vandalized and my talk page should be protected indefinitely (or at least for a year).

What I want to know is who is using these IPs, and why is it continuing to unfaithfully undo my good-faith edits without first consulting me? Plus, I want my dormant DawgDeputy page on Wikipedia protected indefinitely from these IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A week of blocking won't stop them. IP user 95.172.74.62 continued vandalizing even after its week-long block. I request they be blocked at least a year. WikiLubber (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. And please do the same for any IP user that makes similar edits that should come our way in future. WikiLubber (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jon Garth Murray

Please check this user, he appears to be the same vandal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Other vandals for you to check: Torquepass4mi410073, CarolDohrasap21700, HiddenSolitude. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking those vandals, Miz. This guy really does not let up. Illegitimate Barrister 14:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabaster

Hello there. There's a vandal named Alabaster who's going around reverting edits at random. Please block him if you can, thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. I thank you, and my blood pressure levels thank you as well. Just so you know, he also had a sockpuppet account here as well. Please block that if you can. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 06:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well, for all the cleanup work you've done, in relation to this vandal, and others. ~ Kalki·· 08:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Same here. It's very tiring work reverting all that vandalism. Thanks again. Illegitimate Barrister 08:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your one-year block of IP address 90.192.114.15

It seems likely that Kalki logged out at page Ian Fleming and then began to edit war with SchroCat.

90.192.114.15 (talk · contributions) was blocked one-year by admin Miszatomic (talk · contributions).

History of the article at [5].

If the IP was Kalki logged-out-editing, it shows a pattern of renewed willingness at editing without using his own "Kalki" account, in order to continue a dispute with another editor (not myself).

What can be done about this?

-- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was already brought up by SchroCat at Kalki's RfA. The IP is obviously not his. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Miszatomic, I'll take no further action here, and defer to the judgment of yourself and others. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, I have raised the issue with Kalki, with more evidence than Cirt gave here.[6] We have a problem with some kind of regular trolling. I suggested to Kalki that we unite to handle it. The kind of troll that can be suspected will act to get people fighting and to make them suspicious of each other. We need to not let that work. I've advised Cirt to back off, because his efforts, well-meaning as they are, inflame the situation, just what the troll would want. Meanwhile, Kalki's response in this situation could become more sophisticated and helpful, which will also defeat the troll. So I do suggest hard-blocking the IP. Poor man's checkuser. I consider it extremely unlikely that this was Kalki, it's not his style. But it could be someone else. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, Abd, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hello. You may be interested in commenting on a CheckUser request taking place at m:Steward_requests/Checkuser where you have been confirmed to be operating multiple accounts in violation of policy. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Miszatomic. If you did vote more than once, even if well-intentioned, that was a bad idea. You don't have to comment at Meta, but if you recognize you made a mistake, you may want to apologize in some noticeboard to the community here at Wikiquote, and acknowledge that it was misguided (and wrong) of you to do it. I think that's the best you can do for now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

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)

Do not unblock yourself

I don't know how much experience you have, so I'm reminding you to not unblock yourself, that should only be done in a true emergency. I will be asking for you to be unblocked by Cirt or another administrator. You may be asked to give assurances. Keep calm, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please identify all your other sock accounts

Miszatomic,

Checkuser investigation Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed that you've used other sock accounts other than those named, above, and that there are even more "globally-locked accounts" that are sockpuppets you've used (link).

Please list them below?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, there is far too much push here, my opinion. The user is likely suffering shock. Give him time.
Miszatomic, it may be that the community will want you to do this. I recommend careful and cautious response at this time. Disclosure is a good idea, but not under pressure. You may find that the community will forgive and let you move on, if you recognize and acknowledge the errors such that the community is confident you won't do it again. I have requested that Cirt unblock you, but you should probably put up an unblock template. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Abd, I've added more evidence. He's threatened an admin (not himself, but admin UDScott) with death and harm to their family. Please see DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop it, Cirt! First of all, I cannot review evidence on deleted pages. Secondly, it appears that the admin he threatened was himself. This was a Bad Joke. Stop trying to make the situation look Terrible. We will sort it out, trust us, Cirt. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "appears" was correct when written, but is no longer accurate, i.e., it's incomplete. He did threaten himself, but also UDScott, as acknowledged below. --Abd (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Negative. The admin he threatened was not himself. It was UDScott DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We won't sort it out? Cirt, that was a jape. It's obvious. UDScott doesn't seem to have been greatly disturbed. Yes, I didn't see the UDScott threat at first. Please dump the dramatics. It's not necessary to spell out every stupid thing that was done. It's quite visible, now that you have undeleted that talk page and other such evidence. Thanks for that, by the way. What happened happened. Basic ontology. Now, what does it mean, and especially what does it mean for the future? Please give Miszatomic time to think. He really screwed up, badly. Nobody is going to support that, the question will be if it can be forgiven, and what Miszatomic may need to do to return to helpful activity, which is a quite different question. For myself, I will want to look at the balance, which includes the benefits that he rendered to the site. We tend to forget that when we see something Really Bad. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Negative, you're assumption "that the admin he threatened was himself" = was incorrect. Also, subsequent response by UDScott: "I had just changed my mind, believing I had been a bit hasty, but this comment forces my hand again and instead I've given you a shorter block. Please refrain from such comments or threats.". He did indeed regard the comments as inappropriate, categorizing them as "threats". -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • At the time I made the comment above about threatening himself, it was correct to the best of my understanding. That is, in the evidence Cirt had presented, the only name given was that of Miszatomic. Later, Cirt changed the evidence, and undeleted the talk page so we could see it. Now, this has very little to do with what's needed here. If you wish to be unblocked, Miszatomic, please put up an unblock template. That is standard procedure. Even when I've been abusively blocked, it's been necessary to do it, often. Cirt is apparently not going to unblock, isn't trying to negotiate it, so for another admin to review, that template will be necessary. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin rights removal for Miszatomic

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

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

While this had a basis at the time (and possible basis would still be there from the local socking in RfA/Kalki), this has been withdrawn by Cirt, the most serious charges having evaporated. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you the troll vandal Wiki-star ?

Miszatomic,

Are you the troll vandal User:Wiki-star and associated accounts?

Evidence = threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" and Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF and IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain these edits?

Miszatomic,

Can you please explain why you made these edits:

Edits that require explanations:

  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.

Please add your explanations, below.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • when one of the vandals first said that his account password was Zarbon I logged into other vandals to check if they were vandals and used this information to block them.
@Miszatomic: Are you able to point to where the vandal first indicated the password for the accounts. Please note that I have also sent you an email from metawiki, asking some questions, please look for that in the mailbox for your registered email address. sDrewth 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Supplementary, please {{Ping}} me if you reply. sDrewth 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the vandal gave away his password more than once, but one of such edits is mentioned above: [7] (note the style of the edit summary is very typical of this vandal). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. I now note that edit summary also says "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it", which seems to be a confirmation by the vandal that someone (Miszatomic) actually did log in into his account. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) was the one who gave away the password. ~ Miszatomic (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Well this is what i was waiting for, you can relax now Misza cause if you aren't unblocked within 12 hours, then there may be another de-adminship on this wiki....anyways, that clears it all up, as i mentioned on your de-adminiship...enwiki admins will take their time as usual, but I hope cirt unblocks you on enwikinews too...--Stemoc 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The block of Miszatomic, while possibly premature, was within administrative discretion, and Cirt immediately referred this to the community, and has stopped attempting to be the enforcer here. Miszatomic is blocked at this point because no admin has yet been willing to unblock; it is clear that there are admins watching this. It is a mistake to pin this on Cirt, even if he may have been overzealous. Miszatomic has not put up an unblock template, which is procedurally required (under best practice). Only blatantly incorrect blocks should be undone without a request, and my own practice has been to see that any concerns are addressed before unblocking, even when the blocking admin was essentially crazy.
Announcing that comments from Miszatomic, that are vague and have not been checked, are adequate for Miszatomic to "relax," could damage the process here.
I do want Miszatomic to relax. The truth will out. And if the truth is painful, it will still come out, and relaxing into pain is one of the best ways to handle it. What happened happened. Hiding the truth can seem to the immature as better than admission, but it sets up, long term, an unhealthy condition, never feeling safe, always worried. I want Miszatomic to know that at least one user cares about him, and not just his value as a vandal-fighter. At least one user, this one, does not condemn him, whatever he did or did not do. The community, though, needs to know the truth. What actually happened? We can all move on from there, with a solid foundation, including Miszatomic. --Abd (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forward

Miszatomic, focus. Take your time. Your entire WMF career is at stake here. You are blocked on Wikipedia, that can probably be undone, but you must first know what you are doing, because there is little room for more error at this point. So start here, with a community inclined to support you.

You have acknowledged being the two socks who voted in the RFA. Please consider that, and give a more thorough explanation than you have that both tells the community why you did it, and what exactly was disruptive about it, so that the community can know that it won't repeat. "It was a mistake" is not enough. It provides no confidence that it won't repeat.

What was the problem with logging in to one or more of those vandal accounts? Are you aware that this can create autologin information that then makes it appear to a checkuser that you are the account? Now, there is other information available to checkusers, so if your excuse is not the truth, there is a very good chance it will be uncovered, you are no longer operating mostly unobserved and unchecked. So consider well, and, my advice, tell the truth. When did you log in as them, exactly (you may be able to tell from other actions you took as a result of the information you collected)?

If this is straightened out, here on Wikiquote, it may then be possible to go back to Wikipedia with a clean and clear unblock request. *Even if you were those socks,* I don't see Wikipedia disruption. See User:Abd/Miszatomic, and you are completely welcome to email me.

I don't want Wikiquote to lose you, and there is support for you shown on the adminship removal request. You might not be able to continue, for now, as an administrator, I can't tell, but I can tell you that there is much more important work to do on sites than simple administration. Being the eyes and ears and intelligence of the community, and being respected as such, is more important than being the user of the mop. The custodians need to know what to mop up and what to leave! Who advises them? --Abd (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • where can I take my case? Miszatomic (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    You are allowed to post on this talk page while blocked in order to make your case. Everyone following the case will see it.

    You can also appeal or explain the findings at the Steward's checkuser investigation, but as Abd says, be very certain of what you say there. They are the heavy hitters. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ningauble. You are not alone, Miszatomic. Be patient, though. Wikis can be slow to respond. You did respond on the meta checkuser case, but you didn't understand it first. That case was not about the vandal socks, but only about Jimmy11234 and Gene96. If there is a need for steward checkuser on the other accounts, let it develop. A simple comment there acknowledging being those two accounts and apologizing for creating disruption and making work for the stewards would have been enough. As it is, your comment may now encourage someone, possibly, to contradict you. If so, do not respond unless so advised. Whether or not we would want more checkuser is an issue that should not be decided in a rush.
One of the problems is that if you "explain" your actions, it can look like defense. It makes people suspicious. Yeah, unfair, but this has been the wiki way since the world was young.
So, where to "take your case"? As Ningauble says, right here. Be heavy on fact, make the facts clear. Be light on defending yourself, it just irritates certain kinds of people. It will be "This is what I did, this is why I did it (never, "it was good" or "it wasn't so bad," or, "others have done worse," or the like). And then, as and when it's appropriate, "This is why what I did was a mistake, why it is properly not allowed, and this is why I won't do it again."
And be brief! I don't think you will have trouble with that. I do, often.
Once you have a clear explanation and declaration of how you will act in the future, then put up Template:Unblock, pointing to your explanation and asking for unblock. Be responsive to any administrator willing to communicate with you. I recommend politely declining to argue with or be interrogated by Cirt. Any questions Cirt has that are important will be asked by another administrator. He's certainly bringing up everything and the kitchen sink at the RfA (removal). Let the community mediate this.
This can be a useful experience for you. Many administrators have no idea what it's like to be an active user and to be blocked. Some users are so upset that they turn to vandalism. So seeing a bit of the other side may make you a better user and (whether sooner or later) a better administrator.
Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When should it be the right time to appeal?
First, create a section here, call it "What I did" or something like that. Describe what you did. If possible, provide links for verification. I will include what you put here in my case study as your statement, by the way. As to what you have been accused of, first read all the accusations carefully. See, first of all, how events could look that way to someone else. Be sympathetic, i.e, where possible, "I'd be upset if I saw that, also." Then say what you can say about the accusations. If you don't know, say "I don't know."
What is most important is what happened here on Wikiquote. However, there is also some activity on en.wikipedia to explain. I'll make sure that's in my research page. I think that is all pretty simple. A mistake, to be sure, but relatively innocuous.
Of course, others may feel differently. But be real. If you aren't real, you will never be safe!
Once you have a description, ask for comment. I'll probably comment, maybe some others who watch this page will, also, and you can use this to make it more complete. That is, make that a section that is presented neutrally, and add a Comments subsection to it. Ask people not to comment in that section and do what I did in the sock inquiry process on Talk:RFA for Kalki. That way, you will revise it as needed.
Then, when it's ready, put up an unblock template and request unblock per what you have placed there. And then see what happens. If you can show that the block is not necessary to protect Wikiquote, unblock should, in theory, be granted. An unblocking admin may want specific assurances from you, so consider them. Do not commit to a promise you cannot keep. But I don't think you will be asked to do that.
My opinion is that you might be unblocked even more simply than this, just by asking for it, but ... sometimes you only get one chance. Be careful, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, a question. You have stated that you logged in as Jodie Fosteur, and perhaps other vandal accounts. Did you edit with those accounts at all? If so, please point to the specific edits you made. If not, please say so. My actions will be based on your answer. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did log into a few after the vandal gave away his password I blanked their user page and talk page that they created - Miszatomic (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Miszatomic, please understand that whatever you say will be checked carefully. You did not clearly answer the question I asked. You had already said you logged in. You have not stated whether or not you made any edits. If you were not the owner of those accounts, it will be necessary to take up checkuser/steward time to verify this. If you were, and if you are now deceptive, your account is probably toast, even if prompt admission might have (eventually) cleared it all up.
I could read the above as, being logged in as the vandal, you blanked their user page and talk page. Is that what you meant? Were there any other edits you made?
And if you did edit anything as the vandal, do you realize why that would be a serious mistake? --Abd (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I did not vandalize any pages or articles as the vandal log in I only blanked their user page and talk pages that they created. --Miszatomic (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for making that clear. Do you realize the problem with that? Do you realize that, technically, you violated the TOS? I'll be back. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Evidence: that I blanked half the page here Jody Fosteur [8] after the vandal himself made the threat Miszatomic (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the diff. Any other edits you made logged in as one of the vandal accounts? --Abd (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of vandals that I blocked I don't remember which other ones I logged into. Miszatomic (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking about logging in, as much as about editing while logged in as a vandal. And not about "thousands of vandals," but about the ones you are accused of being. I'm also concerned about what you did this month, not ancient history. Are you saying that on more than one occasion (counting this month as one occasion), you logged in to vandal accounts?
As I think you know, you are being watched closely, and not all the eyes are friendly, so please be careful about what you write, that it is clear.
What you say about this month can be verified, but I want to know what to look for to verify what you are saying.
What you don't remember, you don't remember, I have no problem with that. But see if you can remember. You may much more easily remember an edit if you look at the edits. The edit you acknowledged had no edit summary. Would any others be like that? Were there any others? --Abd (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

And this is for those watching this page as well. There has been substantial discussion going on among checkusers, and a decision was made to unblock Miszatomic on Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia Miszatomic sock investigation. What this clearly means is that the Wikipedia evidence can no longer be used to claim definitive identification of Miszatomic as the vandal puppets, specifically Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6, and DanielTom7.

So, Miszatomic, congratulations on your unblock on enwiki. I don't know if Billinghurst's inquiry is complete with you, and I have some details to look at, there are still issues here (the Wikipedia unblock was based on what I'd said, that behavior here should not have been a reason for checkuser there, or if checkuser, not a block unless there was significant enwiki disruption, which wasn't alleged). But one step at a time. I still encourage you to fully disclose what might be relevant, if you have not done so already. And thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have requested that Cirt unblock you, based on the withdrawal of the checkuser identifications as Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6 and DanielTom7. If you are ready, you may wish to put up an unblock template, in case Cirt does not respond in a timely fashion. I'd suggest promising not to sock again.... --Abd (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You did put up an unblock template, it was perfect. Well done! I also requested that Cirt withdraw the adminship removal request, and he did. Do not try this trick again! But you already know that! --Abd (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

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

-- Cirt (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies

Miszatomic,

My apologies for originally linking you in blocks to what later turned out to be a different sockmaster, w:User:Dragonron.

I hope we can work together to improve collaboration on this site.

I also hope that in the future you will:

  1. Not use sockpuppets to vote in RFAs or any other voting or discussion process, and generally not use sockpuppets at all.
  2. Not log into anyone else's account, for any reasons, even if it is a vandal that claims to have self-disclosed their password.
  3. If a user self-discloses their password, or their password becomes known somehow, instead of logging in to that account, per wmf:Terms of use, work to restore security by encouraging through discussion that the user to immediately change their password.

Once again, my apologies,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Miszatomic (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You're most welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and sadness

I thank you for your desire to support me, but was very saddened to learn that you did something so foolish as you did in attempting to do so. I realize that there was much stress put upon you by the vandals and trolls we must contend with, and I am glad things have worked out relatively well for you. I hope and trust that your efforts will remain better directed in the future. There was much commentary I had prepared in relation to the issues raised, and I myself was puzzled and worried for a time about several things, but much of it is rather irrelevant now, and may we all proceed with greater awareness of things which must be done, and things which should never be done, however stressed we might be. I would advise creating an archive page for your discussions, and archive THIS and all the above discussions to it, such as many admins have done (and I just did with recent discussions on my page). This will help you and all of us to put many of the past problems behind us. I hope to be able to work with you extensively in coming months and that you continue to find this a worthwhile place to contribute your time and efforts. Thanks again, for your concerns, and I wish you well. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 02:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks