Stemoc

Hello, Stemoc, and welcome to English Wikiquote.

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

Enjoy! --Golden_burg111 12:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a 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 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)

I will not be part of your stupid Witch hunt..--Stemoc (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't my idea, was suggested by Billinghurst to ask the third-party sock to self-disclose. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Stemoc, I'm not interested in any witch hunt. You simply have an opportunity here to deny, confirm, or, as you have done, decline to respond. I'm not interested in burning witches, nor, for that matter, in tarring and feathering those who sock. Since you opposed, if you were the sock master, you did not vote-stack, almost the opposite. However, one step at a time. Your call. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with this comment by Abd, thank you Abd. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see new evidence

I've added new evidence to Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal), specifically this comment by Confirmed sock of Miszatomic (talk · contributions), directed at admin UDScott: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!"

and this creation of an IP user talk page: created page with "faggot"

among other edits added to new evidence.

Perhaps you could please revisit your position at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal) ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

excellent analysis

Thanks for trying to bring some basic sanity and compassion into that discussion. This comment in particular impressed me, apparently you got it right from the start. Thanks again, ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

hehe, I had to jump in..I felt something was amiss and all the accusations hurled at Misza without a cent of truth got me wondering if this was one of those cases where I need to involve myself in as i rarely do get involved in wikipolitics nowadays :) ..thankfully the outcome seems to be good (waiting for the unblock and misza's adminship being retained) and i hope good sense prevails...I'm not a fan of Witch Hunts, we lose so may good editors on ENWP because of it, it can't be good for wikimedia as a whole if this "problem" starts creeping into smaller wikis too..Honestly, after all this is over, ENWQ should consider getting CU's elected again on this wiki, from Misza's actions, its apparent this wiki desperately needs them..--Stemoc 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)