Last modified on 12 December 2009, at 15:42

Wikiquote talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 1

Return to "Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 1" page.

HeadingsEdit

I've just added an "INSTRUCTIONS" heading to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, the transcluded page that appears at the top of WQ:AN, so that we get a more useful table of contents as well as a SHOUTED suggestion to read the INSTRUCTIONS before posting.

I must confess that I'm not sure what the current division between "Tasks" and "General" means. It seems to me that everything appears under "General" anyway. At some point, I'm thinking that we might add a "CheckUser requests" heading, but I'd first like to poll folks to see what it is we want for organizing this page. Do we want separate headings? Are they useful for newer editors who might not understand the admin-request process? Does our stated process in WQ:AN/Header match the reality? For example, I'm not sure the current second paragraph under "INSTRUCTIONS" is accurate at this point:

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behaviour, or requests for a meditation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

In fact, we often do suggest content disputes come to WQ:AN, abusive reports are often effectively dealt with by calling attention to them here, and in the absence of a Wikiquote Arbitration Committee, the folks watching this page, who probably constitute most of the most frequent Wikiquote editors, are usually the editors most experienced with resolving WQ arguments — and willing to do so. That doesn't take away from the recommendation of discussion between disputing editors or going to WQ:VP first, but these issues frequently do wind up here. If so, do we want to provide some finer grouping, like "Vandalism", "Content disputes", etc.? (If we did, I'd recomment that each section start with 1-3 sentences describing what should be done before bringing up a problem here, including links to any relevant policy pages.)

What does everyone think about these matters? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, when I created those two sections, I thought it would make a sense ... now I realized it doesn't. So we can just merge them into one plain section. Also the contradiction of "instruction/description" and our convention should be resolved. I think it harder to have each editors cast their current behaviors and just follow the written thing than the opposition, so the proposed restructuring will benefits the community. To separate pages, I think the English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia ways will be good models .. they separate pages into subpages and give an annex, either inclusion or a starting point. --Aphaia 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction wordingEdit

It starts:

Please feel free to report incidents, your complaint to a certain sysop, or anything of which you want sysops to be aware.

Should this be "your complaint about a certain sysop", as with WP AN? Or perhaps better:

a complaint about a sysop

I suggest changing "sysop" to "administrator" throughout as the latter reads more easily to most people.

Tyrenius 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it was my wording, and think your suggestions make much a sense. "Sysop" as access name is technically correct, but the consistency of page title would be more helpful (oldbies know admin=sysop so no confusion may be caused by the suggested modification). --Aphaia 08:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My block on WikipediaEdit

As many will know, I was recently blocked on Wikipedia. This was not based on any recent evidence, but solely on the fact that Newport was being blocked, and I had been linked to her by a checkuser run in 2005. The editor who performed that 2005 checkuser (Kelly Martin) has now stated that she regarded the link as not proven. [1]--Poetlister 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. Cbrown1023 talk 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've said it elsewhere on quote when it happened - it matters not to me. I will always work to prevent disruption of any wiki I hold rights on whatever the source. You are an active valuable contributor here and tt is what you do that matters not what people think that is the issue to me (a vandal fighter's viewpoint of course!). Personally I am glad you are here --Herby talk thyme 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both.--Poetlister 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion - Poetlister should be reinstated at Wikipedia. Modernist 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize to Poetlister for not presenting some of my own research and opinions on this situation earlier. I'll include here an unfinished post I composed during the height of the controversy on Wikiquote's village pump. I didn't post it at the time because I don't like making arguments for which I expect replies that I don't have time to follow up properly. (I don't like to give people the impression that they've won an argument just because I'm too busy to defend my case.)

So far, I see only a tenuous connection between Poetlister and the verified [Wikipedia] sockpuppets, based on two statements:

  1. w:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport listed strong evidence of w:User:Newport, w:User:Brownlee, and w:User:R613vlu being the same person. Its sole case for connecting w:User:Poetlister to these others is that Brownlee knew about a discussion that Poetlister had participated in before Brownlee had registered. Such a argument is very unsatisfying. I routinely comment on old discussions I haven't participated in, because I regularly do research to find out what people have already discussed about topics I'm currently reading. (Doesn't everybody? If not, they should.) This could easily just be a demonstration that Brownlee, regardless of any other faults, does his/her homework.
  2. More compelling, if it weren't so vague, would be w:User:Kelly Martin's 23 December 2005 post to w:User talk:Poetlister#Not a sock puppet, in which she says:
    There is one point in the [CheckUser] log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes.
    I would want to see this evidence (and the specific account names involved) to understand the flow (were the edits interspersed?) before I decided if this was solid evidence, but it does sound compelling.

(Just to be thorough, I'm satisfied that WP and WQ's Poetlisters are the same person, based on their user pages.) If Kelly's evidence is made specific, and it ties WP's Poetlister to sockpuppet voting but no vandalism or inappropriate sysop behavior, and all of this activity was done before her tenure at Wikiquote, I would want to caution her not to do this here to avoid a similar ban, and judge her solely on her activity here thereafter. If she had engaged (either directly or through sockpuppets) in bad-faith sysop work, I would want to review her WQ sysop status, as this is a position of trust that we can't afford to compromise. But if any of these links fall through, I would prefer to assume good faith unless and until Poetlister's actions here say otherwise, just like any other editor here. ~ Jeff Q (talk)

Kelly's blog (that Poetlister cites at the top of this topic) suggests that the evidence Kelly cited was even less compelling that it sounded. (Researching this and preparing for CheckUser work myself, I'd already sensed a troubling tendency of busy admins to occasionally jump to conclusions in a nevertheless honest effort to stave off sockpuppetry.) Furthermore, none of the potential problems on Wikiquote that I identified above has arisen; Poetlister has been nothing but a trusty, valuable contributor and admin here.

Poetlister, I can't say I'm prepared to invest the time right now to help you win back your Wikipedia rights, given how thinly spread I already am and the likely vociferousness of the WP crowd, but I'm very glad you're back to help us here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

CU is a useful tool - within limits. In practice it should rarely be used or interpreted hastily For me on complex ones should usually be shared with another CU to ensure silly things don't happen --Herby talk thyme 09:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, it is definitely not "pixie dust". Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I was actually quite skeptical of Poetlister's block too (especially having read WP:SSP/Newport, which, as Jeff says, doesn't mention Poetlister at all), and the fact that while she may have been a sockpuppet/meatpuppet before, AGF really should've been taken into account as she was, at the time of her second banning, a productive admin over here. Also, checkusering British users can be a bit tricky, as the IP ranges are rather strange and over the shop (as Kelly says). Kelly's recent post on her blog even throws more doubt onto the fire. Will {talk) 11:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As they are in many small countries as well. But Britain does, in fact, have an awkward telecom. We've joked that we could block the entire British Telecome very easily! :-D Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This map may help you Will {talk) 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I fully trust Kelly Martin and her ability to weild the CheckUser tool effectively and efficiently. That said, JeffQ, you should theoretically be able to view that CheckUser log (but you shouldn't run an actual check with this evidence) and if not, you could communicate with other checkuser's on checkuser-l or in #wikimedia-checkuser. So, you are actually in a postition to investigate this further than most of us. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to caste any aspersions on Kelly, with whom I have yet not had the pleasure to work. I am only correlating her own skepticism about the situation with my concerns and general observations about the pressure — both from others and from within — to get sanction-justifying results. (And be sure that I checked to see that w:User:Kelly Martin was the person who added the link to the blog that claimed to be from "Kelly Martin", so I could be sure the blog was from our WP user. I am a very skeptical person. ) Also, the current CU log does not go back to December 2005, when Kelly's work was done. I don't see a point in digging further into this questionable matter further unless and until there is new evidence of a problem, rather than old memories of less than compelling circumstantial evidence. I believe we need to move beyond this so we can all get back to our good work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Another for the record, I know that youw ould never "caste any apsersions" on anyone! :-D Cbrown1023 talk 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but "youw ould"?!?--Cato 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, Cato. Are you casting "apsersions" on Cbrown1023's typing? (Considering how nice he is to me, and how often one will find "Jeffq … (fixing my typo)" in Recent Changes, it's churlish of me even to be writing this. ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now been unblocked on Wikipedia and have resumed editing there.--Poetlister 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me be the first (well, technically the second, after Alison's edit to your user page) to congratulate you on this unblock. I wish there had been a more complete vindication, but I must own up to my own failure to pursue that more aggressively (among my many Wikimedia sins of late). I also want to point out that your self-nomination for bureaucrat, to which I expressed concern because it seemed unnecessary, has proven to be quite clairvoyant in view of the rapid increase in name changes requested, probably boosted by single user login finally starting to be implemented. All in all, I humbly apologize for any actions and failures to act that interfered with your Wikimedia work, Poetlister. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My congratulations too. The more I have looked into the issues around this, the more baffled I have become. All I can say is that Wikipedia's loss during the time youwere banned has been our gain, and i hope you don't spend too much time back there!--Cato 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My congratulations also. Though I decided to abstain from either supporting or opposing your bureaucrat nomination here because of the uncertainties which remained evident at Wikipedia, and because I saw no pressing need for new bureaucrats at the time, with the Singer User Login complications which are beginning to arise there obviously is a need for at least three now, and I am very glad that the complications evident at Wikipedia have been diminished and your editing privileges there restored. Your work here continues to be admirable. ~ Kalki 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)