Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/007

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Sockpuppet Master and Vandal[edit]

My fellow contributor Jeffq has recently pointed out to me that this would be the best place to bring up this issue. I would like to point out that this Wiki-star is a major sockpuppet master and vandalizer and has many other names on wikipedia and wikiquote alike. He was banned simultaneously on wikipedia numerous and countless times for trying to evade blocks and constantly vandalize pages with pornographic material, flamatory remarks to other members, and many other excessively moronic curses. This vandal is doing the same gibberish here on wikiquote right now. More of his currently banned sockpuppets include H*Bad12345, Taracka, YogaKing34, Frieza-Bomber, Taracka #2, General Cui, Count Raznagul, Krinzad, Myer Link, 63.215.29.129, 24.3.28.181, Wiki-star #1, Wiki-star #2, 209.2.4.94, and 207.210.105.194. Right now, At this time, I know of two of his sockpuppets that still haven't been banned yet, along with the other bunch of names that have been permanently banned. Two of his currently used sockpuppets are Frieza, and Master Batour. The administrators are being very careless at this time for not banning the rest of his sockpuppets along with banning his numerous ip's. I had to bring this forward in light of his continued vandalism of numerous pages, but the fact that he keeps vandalizing my user page as well as the user pages of many other members. He is also performing sockpuppetry in order to create numerous responses. For further evidence, anyone can do a simple ip check. For one, this vandal is very well known all over wikipedia for creating this much disruption. There's absolutely no reason to allow him to continue this behavior here. Thank you for your time, my fellow contributors and friends. - Zarbon 13:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just blocked User:Frieza as the edits of that account, in conjunction with other accounts, clearly indicated it was intended primarily for vandalism or trolling. Most of the names you list are as yet irrelevant here, as they have no accounts registered. The account "Master Batour" has been used to make a couple edits which clearly indicate a likelihood for abuse, but I know of no such account elsewhere, and as yet nothing so severe here as to warrant blocking. On this project we have to primarily be concerned with such things as actually occur here, and not automatically react to things that have happened or might have happened elsewhere. We can sometimes use such indications to hasten our decisions, but we cannot let them become our primary criteria. If that were so, as I pointed out to you on your talk page, based upon your being indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia, you would already now be blocked here as well. ~ Kalki 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to forget that my being blocked was because of my continued effort to get rid of this same vandal. I tried my best to stop his incessant vandalism. I will be battling against my block so I may resume my work on wikipedia as well, but they told me to wait six months, so that's what I'm going to do. I will wait for the time to pass and I will bring up my problem once more with the administrators there, and hopefully, they will unblock me then. However, I'm not going to go and create fifty sock puppets and post garbage all over the pages. That's the major difference between me and him, among a slew of other differences. If you run an ip check, you'd be more than likely to see that Master Batour has the same ip as Frieza - Zarbon 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Zarbon, you may not realize this, but "IP checks" (i.e., CheckUser requests) cannot be done by ordinary administrators, and are so sensitive in the Wikimedia community that only a very tiny number of extremely trusted admins are given this ability. Wikiquote currently has no one who can do this, and we are very parsimonious about asking cross-project stewards to do this for us. In general, it is usually simpler and less privacy-invading to simply block disruptive editors based solely on their editing activity. This works quite well in 95% of vandalism/disruption situations. (We reserve CheckUser requests for more sophisticated vandals who attempt cross-project impersonations and other subtler harm, in which we feel the danger to the project outweighs the violence we do to our essential principle of zealously protecting the privacy of our editors. Even then, we must be careful only to confirm or deny sockpuppet connections and the like, and to avoid giving out any information that isn't absolutely essential in stopping such project harm.)
As Kalki has already pointed out at least twice to you, your own edits have placed you into the category of disruptive editor, which seems to be why you were blocked at Wikipedia. Please learn from that experience and from our repeated advice to remain calm and stop encourage wiki-trolls by getting so worked up over these matters. If someone harrasses you on your talk page, either revert their edits or just ignore their posts. You're much more likely to get rid of a harrasser by reverting five, six, or even ten edits in a row without comment, because such childishness becomes boring when it doesn't get any interesting reaction. Most of Wikimedia vandalism is handled this way. (See w:Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and note that even blocking is unnecessary to stop most harrassers, who are typically just bored students.) Responding to it only makes it fun for the vandal, which pretty much guarantees continued harrassment. Consider that right now, out of thousands of registered editors, you are the only person on Wikiquote who seems to have been consistently and repeatedly harrassed. I would suggest this is because you are the only person who hasn't been able to stick to the standard revert-and-ignore practice of experienced wikians. I would also point out that your use of this tactic against 207.210.105.194 (talk · contributions) had exactly the expected, desired effect. I don't know how else to make this point to you. Try this exclusively for a few weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Your advice is very good. However, the reason why I was banned myself numerous and countless times on wikipedia was because of the 3RR rule, which I kept breaking just to revert this same vandal's idiocy. I mean, I really really want to make the pages excellent, and this person is purposely doing everything to ruin them. He even goes as far as to say that the quotations are false or inaccurate. I don't want to give him firepower for this stupidity, but my patience is running thin because he has been doing this for over two years now and he just doesn't quit. When I point out to you that Master Batour is another of his sockpuppets, you're going to have to trust me. I am appalled to hear that wikiquote currently has no ip check maneuver. This is rather astonishing. I will continue to try my best to revert all this sockpuppeteers vandalisms, but wouldn't it be easier to simply block all his names instead of allowing him to continue these vandalisms? And about wikipedia, I am going to wait the amount of time suggested to me until I bring up a request for an unblock, which an admin has requested I do when the time is right. Thanks for your concern and I do appreciate your continued effort to discuss this with me Jeffq. - Zarbon 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry[edit]

I have deleted Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Dragon Ball Z as a bad-faith nomination for the following reasons:

  • Nominator Sk8terhata failed to follow the procedure outlined under WQ:VFD#The process, even after being told twice to complete it and to ask if s/he had any questions.
  • Sk8terhata has been engaged in the multiple-page fighting over anime articles that have gotten Zarbon blocked, making an uninformed, ill-formatted VfD nomination suspicious.
  • Sk8terhata further advised Dragon Ball Z editors, in the edit summary restoring the {{vfd-new}} tag (that had been removed apparently as an incomplete nomination), that "Zarbon was blocked and Jeffq said we can vote now", which misrepresents what I said to him/her at User talk:Sk8terhata#VfD nominations.
  • After I pointed out that the nomination process was still incomplete, Sk8terhata, who like Zarbon has a tendency to post several times in rapid succession, has yet to respond to my insistence about either finishing the nomination or asking for help.

I could have completed the process myself, of course — Step III is very easy to do — but I am increasingly concerned about the drain of resources these apparently new editors are causing while refusing to read, let alone follow, basic wiki guidelines. I would like other sysops to review my actions and consider whether the deleted discussion should instead be restored and fixed (i.e., treated as a good-faith nomination). I feel I may have been too busy with the incessant user postings to deal properly with the larger issue. I would take no offense at a reversal of this deletion, and if I erred, please advise me so. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite blocking Zarbon for repeated offenses, I now believe he is correct that there is considerable sockpuppetry going on here. I would like to assemble a list of anime editors who have been participating in these arguments and submit a request for a CheckUser on the whole set, so that we can determine which group or groups of them are truly sockpuppets. I would include usernames we have already blocked, so that we can clear the air on this issue. Opinions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Both the VfD rejection and checkuser request sound okay with me. I have refrained from getting more involved than neccesary in most of these melodramatic disputes over matters of trivial interest to me. ~ Kalki 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Both sounds reasonable to me. Zarbon might be correct there are sockpuppets around those subjects, while I am completely persuaded with all of his claims. And considering that a heated argument around those articles seems to be hard to cease, CU relevant accounts might be a way to make a progress to let us make an argument based on facts, not assumptions. --Aphaia 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I can make a list of everyone involved, if that is what it takes. i have been looking it up and it began since like april, when this all "sock" "puppetry" started. and i read civility in case you people wanted to know. Want my help? Sk8terhata 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I already have Zarbon's list. I would welcome your list as well, Sk8terhata. Be sure to include any sockpuppets you may be operating, here or on Wikipedia, if you wish to be taken seriously. (I have already found at least one suspicious WP username that I intend to have checked.) The more I dig into this, the less I believe there are any innocent parties in this edit war. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on a CheckUser request performed by m:User:Drini ([1]) at the request of Simple Wikipedia users, for yet another set of usernames largely identical to the ones cited here and on en:Wikipedia, I believe we know have just cause to indefinitely block all participants in these anime edit wars, except for Poetic Decay and the regularly-editing Wikiquotians who have tried to intervene. The SE CheckUser request indicates that all of the principles — from both sides of the conflict — have been editing from the same IP. Considering how substantive and repetitive this activity has been across projects, I believe this is a new established pattern of disruptive editing that justifies sockpuppet blocking when similarly-editing new users arrive. Many thanks to Herby for spotting the existing CheckUser request. (You saved me some ponderous data collection!) For reference, here are related Wikipedia pages showing just how pervasive this problem has been:

I've already blocked Sk8terhata (talk · contributions), Recoome (talk · contributions), and new user General Cui (talk · contributions) based on this analysis and collected evidence at WP. I have also indefinitely re-blocked Zarbon (talk · contributions) (who had just asserted to me in a private email that "I don't create sockpuppets to continue working on the pages", despite evidence to the contrary on WP). Any remaining sockpuppets should be blocked as they arise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Jeff in full. However - for everyone's satisfaction I would suggest a request for CU at Meta. That way there will be a degree of certainty and equally it is always possible that puppets that have not been spotted may be found (& you still need two people for these rights on this wiki!) --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I made sure that all were blocked right, yeah. So... will there still be a Checkuser? If yes, count me in it so that I may be excluded. Brendan Filone 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a CheckUser request on this situation at m:Requests for CheckUser information#English Wikiquote (anime sockpuppets) m:RfCU#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote. I have also blocked Brendan Filone for 2 weeks as a suspected sockpuppet, after a Zarbon-like arrogation of sysop actions (replacing the talk pages of the recently blocked participants with block notices with my signature on them). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I updated the CheckUser request link to reflect its current heading. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the latest blocking to User:NoUcan't as self-claiming sockpuppet of Zarbon (cf. diff). --Aphaia 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As for their edit, see also Talk:Dragon Ball GT. --Aphaia 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more more almost painfully obvious sockpuppets would be: User:BJ Blazkowicz (edit), User:Pickle89 (edit), and User:Remove-All-Content (pay attention to the articles he blanks). Remove-All-Content has already been indef blocked, and if you already have the other users added to the list of potential sockpuppets on MediaWiki, ignore what I said. // DecaimientoPoético 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked BJ Blazkowicz indefinitely as a Zarbon sockpuppet, and Pickle89 for 1 month as a suspected sockpuppet and prank editor. I have also added their names to the CU request. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As many have no doubt noticed already, we've had the CheckUser results from Meta for a couple of days now. I have been putting together my own report that takes that data, incorporates some other information, and summarizes the situation and the actions to be taken. Pending only one final small question, I expect to file my report here later today, and to take the actions it suggests. Sorry for the delay, but I want to make sure we treat everyone involved in this situation appropriately. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Results[edit]

Here are the results from meta:RfCU#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote, rearranged and incorporating information from other sources to highlight important points. (Skip to the "Actions" section for the current state of all the user accounts.)

Wiki-star (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

Wiki-star has edited from two IP addresses using the following sockpuppets:

IDENTITYCONFIRM (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

This clear vandal, that was not part of my original request, is behind the following sockpuppets:

Cspurrier informed me that this username and vandal is known to other projects for creating sleeper usernames with modest good-faith editing, then manufacturing conflicts with many sockpuppets, which fits the situation here exactly, and is similar to what we've seen before (although not usually associated with a specific subject area, like anime).

The following users/IPs in the request were determined with high probability also to be this cross-project vandal:

Note that each of these identities stayed within character while editing. If not for the CheckUser results, the only thing that would have tied them together would've been the timing and selection of pages to edit, which is hard to distinguish from people merely picking targets from Recent Changes (i.e., coincidence).

The following users from the list are only weakly tied to IDENTITYCONFIRM, and should be evaluated solely on their contributions:

  • Poetic Decay (talk · contributions): included as part of anime edit-warring, but not suspected of sockpuppetry; established valuable contributor
  • H*bad (talk · contributions): registered 7 minutes after 67.173.60.67 (talk · contributions) (a 12-minute vandal) started adding nonsense to apparently random articles not recently edited, then proceeded to revert the nonsense. Posted a warning to IP talk, vandal stopped, H*bad created his user page. 3 days later, began welcoming new users and joined the anime-editing conflict by supporting Zarbon, who then complained about him being a Wiki-star sockpuppet. Demonstrated non-newbie knowledge of wikis (protected articles, {{delete}}, {{test}}, redirection, CheckUser IP checking), although not necessarily the practices associated with them. But, his edits have been largely reasonable, and his reactions not at all out of line with a new-to-project editor. I believe that this is either an innocent editor caught up in bad timing, or a very subtle sockpuppet. In the absence of clearer evidence, I prefer to assume good faith and leave this user unblocked.
  • H*Bad12345 (talk · contributions): attacker/vandal; blocked purely on his own edits
  • Klatsh (talk · contributions): created inadequately sourced, possibly vanity article Jeff Davidson w/ misleading WP link, but no clear connection to disrupters
  • Family Guy IP editor: 71.176.195.122 (talk · contributions), 71.176.197.33 (talk · contributions), 71.176.199.13 (talk · contributions), 71.176.203.106 (talk · contributions), 71.176.206.154 (talk · contributions), 71.176.206.212 (talk · contributions), 96.228.1.2 (talk · contributions)
    • Made apparent prank changes to FG articles by substituting anime character names for FG names, along with some reasonable edits and more obvious vandalism. I say "apparent" because if Family Guy is anything like The Simpsons and other modern non-anime, prime-time cartoons, it's not unlikely that they may feature cameos of characters from other works, so it's very difficult for non-fans to detect actual vandalism. (It would be much easier if these articles weren't likely copyvios, as there would be far fewer quotes which would be much less likely to feature guest characters.) Anyway, I had blocked them all for 1 week, and no one in this range seems to have returned to editing in the 11 days since the blocks came off. I suspect that this is a different vandal, and that given the two-month editing period, we will eventually see him again.
  • 168.216.75.64 (talk · contributions), 168.216.112.15 (talk · contributions)
    • These IPs made edits to Dragon Ball Z that were stylistically very similar (and in one case identical) to the FG vandal edits, making it likely that they are the same person. (This Family GuyDragon Ball Z connection was perhaps the main reason these IPs were tied to the overall anime-editing issue.) After the CU results, this suggests they are not the subject vandals, but need to be watched for their own form of vandalism.

Many of the above weakly-connected editors were added to the list because of Zarbon's complaints, who we've now established as an unrepentent disrupter. Even within the character of an overreacting but otherwise good-faith editor, Zarbon seemed to complain about any non-sysop who started a conversation with him or edited an article he was watching, to the point of sockpuppet paranoia. Some of these editors proved their bad intent, but others were far more reasonable than most new editors. It's important that we disassociate them from the Zarbon-related conflict without more evidence.

Recoome (talk · contributions)

Recoome has also edited under the following IPs:

This username, which had been blocked on WP for being a Zarbon sockpuppet, participated here in the anime edit-warring, evaded username and IP blocks by using new IPs, and raised alerts about Wiki-star much like Zarbon. I blocked him and his IPs as obvious Zarbon sockpuppets. But the CheckUser results indicate no tie to the Zarbon IP range (or any other in the overall conflict), and taken alone, his edits seem only to be those of a concerned anime editor opposed to Zarbon and Wiki-star who felt wrongly accused. Furthermore, he has been editing here since November 2006, well before any of the Zarbon/Wiki-star activity started. While it is possible this is a very subtle sockpuppet, it seems more likely to me that Recoome is a good-faith editor who has merely been caught up here (and perhaps on Wikipedia, too) in a battle with others' sockpuppets.

Finally, 80.212.124.60 (talk · contributions), who was also included as part of the anime edit-warring but not suspected of sockpuppetry, has no discernable connection to any of the above parties.

Actions and conclusions[edit]

Based on the above analysis, I have taken the following actions:

  • Verfied that all Wiki-star and IDENTITYCONFIRM sockpuppets (including Zarbon) are permanently blocked, and that the IPs behind them are all blocked for 1 month, in accordance with Wikiquote:Blocking policy.
  • Verified that all other identified vandal usernames listed here but not tied to the main sockpuppets remain permanently blocked.
  • Taken no new action on the Family Guy IPs, but ask that the community keep an eye on them for possible future abuse.
  • Released the remaining block on Recoome, the only user not clearly tied to the above offenders who was still blocked. All other unassociated usernames had no blocks.

I would like to note that, when reviewing all the usernames, only Recoome had a block that needed removing. Two usernames had temporary blocks that I made permanent (meaning we had erred on the side of good-faith assumptions), and no usernames besides Recoome had remained blocked during the investigation. One IP was permanently blocked (going beyond our block policy) but is now blocked for 1 more month.

Frankly, I feel that the community did pretty well even before we had the CU results, but the CheckUser allowed us to confirm our actions were appropriate. Without CU, too much of sysop blocking is based on circumstantial evidence, and users can find themselves blocked for lesser offenses merely because they were committed during a vandalism storm in which their edits merely looked suspicious.

I would also note that had we had local CheckUsers before this situation started, it probably wouldn't have gone beyond half a dozen sockpuppets before we'd contained it. Instead, much of the sysop staff spent the past several weeks fighting a bunch of fires centered around a vandal, a disrupter, and an irate contributor. Whomever we might decide to trust with CheckUser rights, we clearly need to get some local checkusers. If we aren't happy enough as a community with the current CU nominees, we can nominate other trusted users (we have plenty!), but let's please take swift action on enabling this anti-vandalism tool. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff, for your thoughtful summary. I support your actions as conclusions. As for Racoome, we could consider the differences of locations, Zarbon's IP addresses are assigned to comcast, based in CA, USA. While Racoome's ones are assigned to a New Zealand ISP. Unless the latter ones are open proxies or zombie machines, those IP addresses could hardly be handled by a same person.
As for 1 month blocking ... as Herby and Cbrown1023 once suggested, we could modify the rule in this point. I am happy to keep one month for ordinary blocking for anons as maximum, but we could make it longer for IP addresses which are known only used for vandalism? For example ... 6 months? I don't think it appropriate to perform so at this moment, but it could be our further consideration. --Aphaia 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of work done here Jeff & the community owe you thanks. I agree with what you have done & Aphaia's thoughts. For what it is worth I am still dealing with a not dissimilar situation on Commons. The users are blocked but I have blocked the underlying IPs (no valid edits) for one month in the hope that they get bored and play somewhere else. Without any other information a one month block on an IP seems enough to me. Obviously if there were further vandalism or Open proxy, trojaned machine issues then I would be prepared to block for up to two years. On en Books blocks are very rarely placed for any longer than that. Again thanks Jeff --Herby talk thyme 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement as well. This sort of reasoned, thorough analysis and work, coupled with careful consideration of the consequences, is why I think Jeff Q will make an excellent CU here. I do think that a longer block might be in order though. Disallowing anon edits, and disallowing account creation from that IP, but not disallowing edits while logged in, is a common approach on en, where there is a mechanism (the unblock-en-l mailing list) to request account creation. If the IP were blocked with a note that account creation could be requested, would that make a longer block less likely to cause lasting collateral damage to innocent new users on that IP? I think Aphaia is on the right track suggesting 6 months in extraordinary cases. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not against longer IP blocks in situations where we're fairly sure we won't cause collateral harm, but I'd prefer two steps before that:
  • We amend our blocking policy to reflect this. Right now, it's still largely based on old WP practices, which assume large numbers of editors and syops available to keep an eye on things, making limited IP blocks practical. (Our policy updates are usually very slow because there's so much to do here and so few participants.)
  • We have a clear and practical means for such account creation requests. We might provide this through WQ:AN, or through the "Contact us" email (info-en@wikiquote.org), although the latter really needs more community support. (Right now, I think Aphaia is our only OTRS rep, and after reviewing the docs on OTRS, I suspect it'll take me a few weeks before I feel I'm ready to join.) Whatever the way, it should be made clear in whatever error message someone gets when the account creation is blocked.
~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requested[edit]

I request a checkuser be used on all users whom changed the first tagline on the Bleach page. I know that the edits these users are making are very small, and may seem even smaller to those unfamiliar with the series itself, but several users have all made the same exact edit ever since User:Wiki-star — a somewhat infamous vandal known for all his sockpuppets on Wikipedia — started changing it. They all seem to have a similar writing style as well. The users I request be checked are:

Note that User:Taracka and User:Sk8terhata have not taken part in the Bleach dispute, but Taracka and Wiki-star have been confirmed to be the same person on Wikipedia. // DecaimientoPoético 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not have local CheckUser-enabled editors here. I filed an CheckUser request for these and other usernames at m:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/01#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote on 21 June. I am still hoping for a timely response to this request. We are discussing the overall situation above at WQ:AN#Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry"Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on meta archived, The link to meta is fixed for reference convenience. --Aphaia 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, given results on meta, JeffQ made a detailed report on this page and blocked problematic accounts. --Aphaia 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-protection: Family Guy/Season 3[edit]

This page has been vandalized repeatedly by an unknown user (or users) with different IP addresses. Specifically, the vandal(s) are changing the quotes for "Peter Griffin: Husband, Father...Brother?" and "A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas" by changing the names and/or the dialogue. Since the vandal(s) seems to use different IP addresses, I request that the entire page be placed under semi-protection so only registered users can edit it, in hopes of identifying the vandal(s) or deterring future vandalism. Goopnzaopleopz9 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, I am reluctant. Among edits since June 22, only edits from 96.228.1.2 were sorts you mentioned, and other anon edits seems me good. Now Jeff Q blocked 96.228.1.2 for one week, I'd rather to wait to see what happens next. Please note, if other sysops who are fairly active supports your idea, I won't oppose you. --Aphaia 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually found at least seven IPs making anime-related prank edits to this article (as well as one prank that wasn't anime-related), and have blocked them all temporarily in an attempt to slow down not only this problem but also see if it helps slow down our anime-sockpuppetry problem, which may be connected. If problems continue, we may have do as Goopnzaopleopz9's requests. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for info. I concur with you, Jeff. --Aphaia 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1-week IP blocks seemed to have largely stopped the edit warring and other mischief. All I'm waiting for now is a resolution of the CheckUser so we can make sure we don't have anyone blocked who isn't actively violating policies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

CheckUsers[edit]

We have had a large number of CheckUser requests on Meta from Wikiquote lately. I suggest we nominate some local CheckUsers ourselves. We need two candidates with 25 supports each, but these supports can be gotten within many months, there is no time limit. Cbrown1023 talk 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally nominate Kalki and Apahia, as they're 'crats already. Will {talk) 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally, was thinking of Jeffq and either Aphaia or Kalki, but didn't want to put a recommendation in my initial post. I would also hope that at least one of our checkusers were available on IRC, for requests by users and help from more experienced CUs. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Me - I like a balance - 1 'crat, 1 admin. And I have tried quite hard twice to get the CU checks done. I've been hanging around waiting for some "steward action" today but nothing. I'm going to try harder Friday (next available time for me). But yes this community should have CUs even if it takes a while. I have offered to both explain a bit and nom two people but I think Aphaia is tied up at present with elections (Jeff would be a good candidate IMO) --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the balance. On Commons, there is even a CU without admin rights. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As I think I said before, this project does need local check users... I'd certainly support those candidates. I would like to point out that having a CU that has more than just WQ access is helpful, as often there is action on Meta, Commons, En, or elsewhere but Jeffq, Aphaia, or Kalki all sound good to me (why not nom all 3?). ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe we need reliable editors with CheckUser capabilities here, but I am not interested in acquiring that ability myself, for several reasons. Among them is the fact that In the months ahead there is a strong likelihood that I will often not be available most of the day, and sometimes even several days at a time. I have indicated this privately already, but feel I should now openly put an end to any consideration of myself as a candidate for CheckUser abilities. ~ Kalki 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kalki, very understandable and it is always good to be upfront! The requirement for (at least) two CUs is so that they can monitor and audit each other, not that they have to precisely split the work 50/50... one could monitor for the most part and the other do the work for the most part. What about Aphaia and Jeffq with Aphaia mostly in a monitor mode until and unless she has more time? Or, dare I say it, what about considering Herby. Yes, he's a new admin but he has CU in other places and he's been heavily involved in getting to the bottom of this stuff. Also, while it is true that Commons has a non admin CU at present, that wasn't on purpose, it just came out that way. I personally feel that it is usually a good thing to be an admin where you hold CU so that you can block right away if it's urgent. But a non admin CU is better than none! Hope those thoughts are helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If we have Herby as CU, he will be an admin-CU, not non admin <g> --Aphaia 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Nod. However, I was referring to Gmaxwell on Commons, who gave up his adminship but retained his CUness ... Herby and I have been doing most of the visible stuff recently but when we go into the logs we often see he's been active behind the scenes. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahay, we've got our two candidates with 25 supports. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)