Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Cato, Poetlister and Yehudi

< Wikiquote:Votes of confidence
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Request for removal of all rights. For the subsequence, see #Discussion.--Aphaia 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cato, Poetlister and Yehudi edit


Precedent discussion found at WQ:VP#Vote for confidence (*blush*).

Discussion edit

I hope Poetlister publicly admits to every his sockpuppet and give an explanation why he did it. As an individual I personally wish him to apology those whom he has deceived, specially to the people whose photos were misused for his disguise and/or whose names were misattributed to his socks (since they would not be Wikimedians, it would be vain to do here: I wish him to contact them each personally and apologize. It is no wiki matter at all, but rather a matter of humanity). That said, I personally feel very sorry to Ms. Giselle H. whose name was misused for User:Poetlister's disguise. I feel very sorry to the woman of the photo which User:Poetlister was wrongly attributed to him. She might not know her photo was used in that way without her permission. Or not. I don't know but supposedly she has not known. There might be other victims. They deserve apology and we at Wikiquote deserve explanation at least I think: these accounts have been clearly abused, e.g. for vote stacking.

Without his explanation and complete disclosure of his socks, my trust once put in him won't be secured and reinstalled. --Aphaia 05:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the Wikiquote community, but I hope it would not be thought too forward if I drew attention to this post on Wikisource where Cato admits to a number of sockpuppet accounts across WMF projects, including Quillercouch/Poetlister and Yehudi. WJBscribe (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well per WJBscribe, the user has confirmed that he was the sockmaster of those socks. Don't know why he didn't make that comment on ENWQ, because this is the wiki that probably feels deceived by him the most, so it would be great if Cato made a comment here...--Cometstyles 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the list on WS, I commented there. The modified copy is found on this page too. --Aphaia 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those of you who have been around here a while will know me. Sadly I am not active here at present however I do have an interest in this matter.

When Poetlister was first blocked on en wp I felt an injustice might have occurred and I exchanged some mails with the user. The more mails that were exchanged the less I felt I was dealing with the persona displayed on wiki, Last Autumn Poetlister emailed me to say they were thinking of standing as a 'crat here to enhance their position with regard to the en wp block. I stated it was a bad idea in my view & ceased mails. When the RfB came up I did not vote as this community seemed content.

I then had a mail from Poetlister asking me to support Cato's RfCU. I declined in strong terms however I found by then that Cato had over 20 votes & again the community seemed content. I felt that Cato & Poetlister were either acting together or were the same person.

I have examined almost all the edits by those I felt were involved since on Commons & Meta. Interchanges with Cato on there left me feeling that Cato was either in collusion with Yehudi or was Yehudi. I think this will explain my comments below. As someone who has dealt with puppets on a number of wikis for some time now I also believe that at least two of the accounts should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is what happens now? All three false identities should be blocked and prevented from having special privelege and abilities obviously; however can this person be an editor again or should this person - poetperson, giselle impersonator, good worker, be permanently banned or be allowed to continue with another name, to edit with provisos or some kind of probation?... Seems like we should also weigh in on this issue...Modernist 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that all accounts should be immediately blocked indefinately (meaning for no set time) and all special access right removed as soon as possible. Then WQ can have a discussion about whether this person can return as an editor. I strongly urge if he is allowed to return, that WQ editors support the idea that he should be required to maintain one persona across all wikis. I think that at a minimum a ban of 90 days for this user on WQ is appropriate so that WQ can move forward in recruiting new people into positions of trust. This time without having to deal with the daily fallout that will happen if PL/Cato is continuing to edit is needed, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FloNight's comments, but that I think the all accounts should definitely remain blocked, including the one that impersonated a Wikipedia admin, which Poetlister himself unblocked and agreed with himself that he was right to unblock. If it was just a bit of sockpuppetry to get his own way in a content dispute, we could forgive him and move on. But this is something sinister. This guy stole the identities of several women and uploaded their photos without their consent (as well as linking one of the identities to a public interest in BDSM topics). He grossly violated the trust of the community. He set up a sock to annoy and impersonate someone from Wikipedia, then unblocked the sock, used some other socks to support his decision and publicly chastised the admin who had originally blocked. He almost certainly used the trust he undeservedly gained on Wikiquote as a means of regaining respectability on Wikipedia. Guys, this is creepy! If he's sincerely sorry - and we have no evidence that he is - he will accept being told to stay away as a consequence of the harm he has done to real people. If he's not sincerely sorry, we don't want him near us. It seems he was caught and blocked on Wikipedia before, and then given another chance so I'd be VERY wary about accepting his good faith now. I know he can create new sockpuppets if these accounts are blocked, but at least that won't be our fault. We'd be sending a terrible message to the young women whose identities he stole right here at these sites, if we accept him back on the grounds that he made some improvements to the site, or whatever. There are others who can make improvements to the site without us needing to accept liars and identity thieves. Desysop and block all accounts. Stratford490 18:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to remind you that I and other CUs are still on cross-wiki investigation. Can we now focus on the matter how the bits should be treated, and not these accounts yet, and rather focus on which kind of the information we need to have before decision-making? I personally think two kinds of information we need here on Wikiquote: a complete list of his accounts and the explanation of the reason he created those accounts specially on this project. --Aphaia 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there voting on each account? Why not just vote on the puppetmaster himself? rootology (T) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For better readeability: in this way there would be only 4 cases theoretically (yes/no^2) and easily to sum up each opinions. Also until some moments before the vote started, the person in question hadn't clearly admitted his sockpuppetry. --Aphaia 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think until the full impact of the investigation started to sink in, there was a small chance that the community would have allowed at least one of the accounts to remain active. As it seems now all accounts are likely to be blocked indefinitely across all of the Wikimedia projects (at least I hope so) and the puppetmaster banned. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: on several projects he is still allowed to edit, see the links.
I think mainly the purpose is that giving him a chance to disclose what he has made where he was active, and on the other wikis I suppose they haven't even heard about him. Blocking indefinitely across all the project is a big deal nowadays. --Aphaia 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, my comment was conjecture. If what Stratford490 has said is true, and given the degree to which the puppetmaster has compromised the integrity of the WQ project, he should be banned here, at English WP and all of his known manifestations blocked indefinitely at both projects. Eventually, IMO I can see some good coming from this. New editors for WQ, and a tightening of requirements for inclusion to help keep the cruft and copyvios to a minimum as side effects. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the account list on Wikisource [1] , after his correction, I urged him to review and verify it again two days ago: no update has come. I think at least one account which was created this month is still missing. It is not SULed, registered on 15:28, 05 September 2008 to WQ and found here alone. Although it was already blocked when he posted that list (while I noted as "harassment?", but it could be hardly by someone else: the IP address in question was used only by Poetlister and Cato) and he just said he posted "crosswiki" and "enwiki without SUL" accounts so logically he may argue he made no false statement, but I think it as omission and hence I think we should not take this omission light: he was give the chance to correct but didn't.

As Jayvdb said on WS, "A deep and meaningful explanation of the motives for doing it over on Wikiquote" is important and I would like the Poetlister operator is aware that is mainly the reason his known account is still allowed to edit this wiki still now. --Aphaia 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some votes below, but I should make clear I'm not a regular here. That said, I would like to think my opinion carries more weight than zero - but that is for the community to decide. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I welcome all opinions but it doesn't mean all will be done as said. Specially if opinions are different sharply between regulars and not, I think it fair the voices of the former more weighed, since they will be most affected by the person in question in their future activities on this project. --Aphaia 11:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we end this now? It's obviously a snowball case with respect to the votes going any direction other than that unanimously expressed by virtually the entire regular Wikiquote community (and several visitors from other projects). I see no point in continuing to hold it open any longer. BD2412 T 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the point of this vote is clear and the decision is obvious...and the time has come to reform wikiquote's administration and move forward.....Modernist 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now indecisive: I've been tempted to apply here the snowball clause for this case, since while there is no clear consensus how those accounts are treated (either block all or all but one) it looks obvious stripping the rights are unanimously supported. On the other hand I am not sure if it is a good precedence to close votes of confidence earlier.
That is, so wrap-ups: as of yet the community, virtually the entire regulars and some visitors, supports for stripping their restricted accesses unanimously.
No support to leave all accounts unblocked: socks are therefore to be blocked.
On the other hand there is no clear consensus either the editor may retain one account and only to edit as a normal editor or all his accounts as detected are blocked. Roughly 50:50 and I personally presume he would not be banned permanently due to lack of consensus, like kept articles with no consensus for deletion.
There are however opinions to block their all accounts at once, first sort out things and later allow him to be back. In this sense, around 3/4 voters support for blocking all accounts at this moment.
So my tentative summary says
The above is just my personal opinion for a food of thought, not a conclusion of a bureaucrat. --Aphaia 08:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aphaia it looks right to me. It's not a happy occasion, but they should all be stripped and blocked per the community vote below..let time pass - and then maybe one account can be considered. Modernist 11:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those are the points on which the community is in agreement. BD2412 T 15:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that is an accurate reading of the community discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I concludes this discussion and votes as the community decides as following:

It is an unhappy occasion, as Modernist says, and as pointed out we haven't reached full consensus in every detail. But we reached full consensus in two major points and the last one could be examined, whenever necessary. I hope we make a right decision here on a community basis.

Also I would thank all the people who've helped sort it out: FUD which the person in question has scattered couldn't be detected in cooperation of other wiki people, specially FT2 at EN WP, John Vandenberg at EN WS, and as usual, Lar and Herby. Also Cary who is in loop and exchange us opinions and information.

I hope this decision is an impetus to move the community forward to a better direction.

--Aphaia 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Poetlister2 (talk · contributions) s:user:Quillercouch (aka Poetlister there too) confirmed this account as his own, and he mailed me. On his behalf I posted his explanation on that account:

This was a legitimate mistake. As you know, I changed my name from Poetlister to Quillercouch. Not thinking about SUL, I then tried to re-create "Poetlister" to avoid impersonation. I couldn't of course, so I created Poetlister2 and tried to re-name it to Poetlister. I was very upset and confused, not knowing what I was doing. I apologise.

--Aphaia 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Cato edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

  • No Confidence...and no support..Modernist 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unfortunate, but discovery of deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of consensus should invalidate any user from contributing. No confidence. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) By which I mean remove all privileges and indefblock all known accounts. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 02:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Confidence - all rights to be removed or remain removed. --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Herby, no confidence in this account. I acknowledge that the account mostly acted in good faith, and did not violate checkuser-l confidences, to the best of my knowledge, but nevertheless, only one account should hold rights per actual user, and the user needs to hold the faith and trust of the community. That is in my view not the case at this time. Consider this as input from an outsider, I suppose, but hopefully it is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence; rights should subsist in only one account. BD2412 T 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, all special accesses removed or remain removed (in case of CU). Account blocked indefinately until issues related to this user are sorted out. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip this account of every privilege possible. EVula // talk // 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block indefinitely. See my comments above. Stratford490 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block. ~ UDScott 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. All privileges to be permanently removed. All but one account to be permanently blocked. The remaining account to be blocked for 90 days. - InvisibleSun 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, remove all rights. User can select one account that they wish to be left unblocked (all others blocked). Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip all. Will (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip all, block. Why is there separate voting since they're all proven and admitted to be the same person? rootology (T) 13:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as said "On votes, everyone is welcome to comment but only established editors' votes and opinions are weighed". Rootology, your comment and opinion are welcome but your vote might not be considered when b'crats summarize this ongoing vote since you have almost no edit history on this project and haven't get involved. Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 15:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block. --Antiquary 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Confidence - all rights to be removed and Cato blocked indef....--Cometstyles 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all rights forever. Block all accounts but one and ensure this person is restricted to one and only one account which is used on all wikis. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, strip all restricted rights. Block all accounts but one permanently. All account blocked indefinitely until issues related to this user are sorted out, while it is expected to take 30-90 days hopefully. The user may choose the account he wish to remain. --Aphaia 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence; strip all privileges and block all usernames except one chosen by their operator. I am currently not able to give this situation the thorough review that I normally feel obligated to do. But I have already come to the conclusion that, because of increasingly widespread abuses of anonymity and the challenges in conclusively identifying some sophisticated sockpuppetry, we should implement a policy of more carefully screening any usernames with elevated privileges. I'd suggest that any username requesting privileges should accept a checkuser against their account to attempt to identify unconfirmed sockpuppets. I'd also say that any users who have or intend to gain privileges should accept that they may operate only a single username at any time on a project for which they hold those privileges, except for fully-disclosed bot accounts used only for described purposes. This is largely already our guideline on en:WQ, but it has been rather signficantly ignored or rejected by a number of people, some of them well-established good-faith editors.
    I am normally a fan of total anonymity when it is used solely for good-faith editing, but with all the cross-project mayhem that's been going on, I don't believe it's reasonable to ask the handful of editors who can police this to spend so much of their editing time researching and stopping abuses. I believe that it's quite reasonable to expect that when one accepts the responsibility of elevated privileges on a project, they put aside some of the advantages of innocent sockpuppetry (which is controversial anyway, but doesn't get stopped until it makes itself known) in order that the community may fully trust them with these privileges.
    Also, given the scope of this situation, we should probably review existing privileged users. We may lose our local CU capability for a time because of this, given that we've unwisely tended to close our votes at exactly 25 (something I recall objecting to at the time of my own candidacy), which technically means we have no minimum consensus for any votes that include two or more identified sockpuppets. But I think we may need to rebuild trust within this community. I, for one, am fully prepared to have a CU done against my accounts (my main one, my [currently inactive] bot account, my long-inactive Jeffq QotD, and my few impersonation-protection names, together with any IPs they may reveal) to re-confirm for the community that I have fully disclosed all my activities and am abiding by our official recommendation against sockpuppetry. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Quillercouch (former Poetlister) edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Yehudi edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deflagged by steward m:user:Darkoneko ([2])--Aphaia 07:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_of_confidence/Cato,_Poetlister_and_Yehudi&oldid=2857595"